User login
Erik Greb joined the staff of Neurology Reviews in January 2012. Since then, he has attended scientific conferences, conducted video interviews, and written about clinical research in multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, stroke, and other neurologic disorders. In addition to news articles, Erik has written investigative stories about multiple sclerosis, headache, and epilepsy. He previously wrote about pharmaceutical manufacturing, drug formulation and delivery, quality assurance, and regulation for Pharmaceutical Technology.
Virtual roller-coaster may explain the ups and downs of migraine
and may explain the mechanisms underlying common symptoms and increased activity in certain brain regions in migraine patients.
In a new study, the prevalence of dizziness was 65% among patients with migraine who underwent a virtual roller-coaster ride versus 30% among those without migraine. In addition, imaging showed greater neuronal activity after the simulation in those with migraine.
“Migraine patients reported more dizziness and motion sickness, as well as longer symptom duration and intensity, in a virtual roller-coaster ride,” even though the videos and timing were identical for both groups, said study investigator Arne May, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at the University of Hamburg (Germany).
“We found differences not just in behavioral results but also in specific activations of areas within the cerebellum and the frontal gyrus. Migraine patients process such visual input differently from controls and activate a specific brain network to do so,” he added.
The findings were published online July 21, 2021, in Neurology.
The brain’s response
Nausea, which is among the diagnostic criteria for migraine, is the main symptom of motion sickness. Vestibular symptoms such as dizziness are also components of migraine.
Previous research has examined how the brain processes visual and motion stimuli in migraine, but the reasons patients with migraine are susceptible to motion sickness and dizziness remain unclear.
The researchers used a simulated roller-coaster ride to study the clinical and brain responses to motion among participants with and participants without migraine. They enrolled 20 consecutive patients with migraine who presented to a tertiary headache clinic between January and March 2020 and enrolled 20 healthy participants from a university hospital and the community. The average age of the study population was 30 years, and more than 80% were women.
In response to a questionnaire, participants provided information about demographics and headache features, including onset, frequency, and intensity. They also provided information about their status within the migraine phase and about vestibular symptoms experienced in daily life.
While undergoing functional MRI (fMRI), all participants watched two short videos that provided a first-person perspective of a roller-coaster ride. During the videos, they wore ear buds that conveyed the sound of a car riding over the rails.
The first video included more horizontal perspectives, and the second had more vertical perspectives. Each video was shown three times in random order.
During fMRI, participants reported intensity of nausea and vestibular symptoms using an 11-point Likert scale. After the experiment, they responded to a questionnaire that evaluated intensity and duration of nausea, dizziness, and vertigo experienced during the videos.
Participants also were given the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ), which assessed motion sickness. A 100-point visual analog scale (VAS) was used to rate how realistic the roller-coaster experience had been.
There were no differences in sex or age between the migraine group and the healthy control group. Half of the patients with migraine reported aura. The mean number of migraine attacks within the previous month was 3.7. The mean Migraine Disability Assessment score was 21.5, which indicates severe disability.
Nausea, dizziness often neglected
Baseline prevalence of vestibular symptoms was 75% in the migraine group and 5% in the control group (P < .0001). These symptoms included dizziness (60% and 5%, respectively; P < .0001) and postural symptoms (40% and 0%, respectively; P = .003).
At baseline, vestibular symptoms were more frequent (P = .001), more intense (P < .0001), and were associated with greater disability (P = .001) in patients with migraine, compared with participants without migraine. The patients with migraine were also more susceptible to motion sickness (P = .02) and had higher depression scores (P = .001).
During the roller-coaster simulation, dizziness was more prevalent among patients with migraine than among those without migraine (65% vs. 30%; P = .03). Patients with migraine also reported more motion sickness (SSQ score, 47.3 vs. 24.3; P = .004), longer symptom duration (1:19 minutes vs. 00:27 minutes; P = .03), and symptoms of greater intensity (VAS, 22.0 vs. 9.9; P = .03).
Brain activity also differed between groups. Among patients with migraine, neuronal activity was greater in clusters within the right superior and left inferior occipital gyrus, the left pontine nuclei, and the left cerebellar lobules V and VI.
There was a moderately negative correlation of activation of the inferior occipital gyrus with migraine disability (r = –0.46; P = .04). Activation within the pontine nuclei correlated positively with motion sickness scores (r = 0.32; P = .04).
In addition, among patients with migraine, activity in the cerebellar lobule VIIb and in the left middle frontal gyrus was decreased in comparison with persons without migraine. Also among patients with migraine, there was enhanced connectivity between the pontine nuclei, cerebellar areas V and VI, and the interior and superior occipital gyrus and numerous cortical areas.
Clinicians often neglect to treat dizziness and nausea in patients with migraine, said Dr. May. However, these symptoms are part of migraine, even when attacks are not occurring.
“I have learned that if we can explain such symptoms, they are better accepted,” said Dr. May. “We need more and better basic research because we need to understand before we treat.”
Toward faster, more effective treatment
Commenting on the study, Erik Viirre, MD, PhD, professor in the department of neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, said, “we can be excited and celebrate that these researchers are using these news tools to investigate the operation of the migraine brain.
“That will combine with the new therapies and the genomics to give us a powerful approach to this particular condition,” said Dr. Viirre, who was not involved with the research.
The findings provide significant detail about the interconnections between the various brain regions affected by migraine, he noted. These regions include not just the sensory centers but also areas involved in higher executive function and emotional responses.
By identifying these regions, the findings show “some of the underlying mechanisms of these clinically relevant features,” said Dr. Viirre, who is also director of UCSD’s Arthur C. Clarke Center for Human Imagination.
The investigators set up the motion simulation well and used sound fMRI methodology, he added. However, imaging studies of the brain’s response to motion pose several challenges.
“The biggest challenge in any of these circumstances is that you can’t put an actual fMRI scanner on a roller-coaster,” said Dr. Viirre. “The actual acceleration and gravitational sensations delivered by a roller-coaster and gravity, of course, do not occur when you’re lying still in an MRI scanner.” Nevertheless, the pseudoacceleration produced by a visual stimulus is a reasonable proxy.
The findings also suggest that researchers in the future could examine whether any new therapeutic interventions for migraine modulate the brain functions differently for individuals with migraine than for those without migraine, he noted.
“That’s going to lead us to a faster, more effective, more reliable suite of migraine therapies,” said Dr. Viirre.
The study also reminds clinicians to take a broader approach to patients with migraine, and it underscores the value of strategies such as self-calming techniques, which can reduce the number and intensity of headaches, he said.
“Literally demonstrating these functional differences in the migraine brain is a hugely important message of advocacy for people with migraine,” Dr. Viirre concluded.
The study was funded by the German Research Foundation. Drs. May and Viirre have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and may explain the mechanisms underlying common symptoms and increased activity in certain brain regions in migraine patients.
In a new study, the prevalence of dizziness was 65% among patients with migraine who underwent a virtual roller-coaster ride versus 30% among those without migraine. In addition, imaging showed greater neuronal activity after the simulation in those with migraine.
“Migraine patients reported more dizziness and motion sickness, as well as longer symptom duration and intensity, in a virtual roller-coaster ride,” even though the videos and timing were identical for both groups, said study investigator Arne May, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at the University of Hamburg (Germany).
“We found differences not just in behavioral results but also in specific activations of areas within the cerebellum and the frontal gyrus. Migraine patients process such visual input differently from controls and activate a specific brain network to do so,” he added.
The findings were published online July 21, 2021, in Neurology.
The brain’s response
Nausea, which is among the diagnostic criteria for migraine, is the main symptom of motion sickness. Vestibular symptoms such as dizziness are also components of migraine.
Previous research has examined how the brain processes visual and motion stimuli in migraine, but the reasons patients with migraine are susceptible to motion sickness and dizziness remain unclear.
The researchers used a simulated roller-coaster ride to study the clinical and brain responses to motion among participants with and participants without migraine. They enrolled 20 consecutive patients with migraine who presented to a tertiary headache clinic between January and March 2020 and enrolled 20 healthy participants from a university hospital and the community. The average age of the study population was 30 years, and more than 80% were women.
In response to a questionnaire, participants provided information about demographics and headache features, including onset, frequency, and intensity. They also provided information about their status within the migraine phase and about vestibular symptoms experienced in daily life.
While undergoing functional MRI (fMRI), all participants watched two short videos that provided a first-person perspective of a roller-coaster ride. During the videos, they wore ear buds that conveyed the sound of a car riding over the rails.
The first video included more horizontal perspectives, and the second had more vertical perspectives. Each video was shown three times in random order.
During fMRI, participants reported intensity of nausea and vestibular symptoms using an 11-point Likert scale. After the experiment, they responded to a questionnaire that evaluated intensity and duration of nausea, dizziness, and vertigo experienced during the videos.
Participants also were given the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ), which assessed motion sickness. A 100-point visual analog scale (VAS) was used to rate how realistic the roller-coaster experience had been.
There were no differences in sex or age between the migraine group and the healthy control group. Half of the patients with migraine reported aura. The mean number of migraine attacks within the previous month was 3.7. The mean Migraine Disability Assessment score was 21.5, which indicates severe disability.
Nausea, dizziness often neglected
Baseline prevalence of vestibular symptoms was 75% in the migraine group and 5% in the control group (P < .0001). These symptoms included dizziness (60% and 5%, respectively; P < .0001) and postural symptoms (40% and 0%, respectively; P = .003).
At baseline, vestibular symptoms were more frequent (P = .001), more intense (P < .0001), and were associated with greater disability (P = .001) in patients with migraine, compared with participants without migraine. The patients with migraine were also more susceptible to motion sickness (P = .02) and had higher depression scores (P = .001).
During the roller-coaster simulation, dizziness was more prevalent among patients with migraine than among those without migraine (65% vs. 30%; P = .03). Patients with migraine also reported more motion sickness (SSQ score, 47.3 vs. 24.3; P = .004), longer symptom duration (1:19 minutes vs. 00:27 minutes; P = .03), and symptoms of greater intensity (VAS, 22.0 vs. 9.9; P = .03).
Brain activity also differed between groups. Among patients with migraine, neuronal activity was greater in clusters within the right superior and left inferior occipital gyrus, the left pontine nuclei, and the left cerebellar lobules V and VI.
There was a moderately negative correlation of activation of the inferior occipital gyrus with migraine disability (r = –0.46; P = .04). Activation within the pontine nuclei correlated positively with motion sickness scores (r = 0.32; P = .04).
In addition, among patients with migraine, activity in the cerebellar lobule VIIb and in the left middle frontal gyrus was decreased in comparison with persons without migraine. Also among patients with migraine, there was enhanced connectivity between the pontine nuclei, cerebellar areas V and VI, and the interior and superior occipital gyrus and numerous cortical areas.
Clinicians often neglect to treat dizziness and nausea in patients with migraine, said Dr. May. However, these symptoms are part of migraine, even when attacks are not occurring.
“I have learned that if we can explain such symptoms, they are better accepted,” said Dr. May. “We need more and better basic research because we need to understand before we treat.”
Toward faster, more effective treatment
Commenting on the study, Erik Viirre, MD, PhD, professor in the department of neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, said, “we can be excited and celebrate that these researchers are using these news tools to investigate the operation of the migraine brain.
“That will combine with the new therapies and the genomics to give us a powerful approach to this particular condition,” said Dr. Viirre, who was not involved with the research.
The findings provide significant detail about the interconnections between the various brain regions affected by migraine, he noted. These regions include not just the sensory centers but also areas involved in higher executive function and emotional responses.
By identifying these regions, the findings show “some of the underlying mechanisms of these clinically relevant features,” said Dr. Viirre, who is also director of UCSD’s Arthur C. Clarke Center for Human Imagination.
The investigators set up the motion simulation well and used sound fMRI methodology, he added. However, imaging studies of the brain’s response to motion pose several challenges.
“The biggest challenge in any of these circumstances is that you can’t put an actual fMRI scanner on a roller-coaster,” said Dr. Viirre. “The actual acceleration and gravitational sensations delivered by a roller-coaster and gravity, of course, do not occur when you’re lying still in an MRI scanner.” Nevertheless, the pseudoacceleration produced by a visual stimulus is a reasonable proxy.
The findings also suggest that researchers in the future could examine whether any new therapeutic interventions for migraine modulate the brain functions differently for individuals with migraine than for those without migraine, he noted.
“That’s going to lead us to a faster, more effective, more reliable suite of migraine therapies,” said Dr. Viirre.
The study also reminds clinicians to take a broader approach to patients with migraine, and it underscores the value of strategies such as self-calming techniques, which can reduce the number and intensity of headaches, he said.
“Literally demonstrating these functional differences in the migraine brain is a hugely important message of advocacy for people with migraine,” Dr. Viirre concluded.
The study was funded by the German Research Foundation. Drs. May and Viirre have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and may explain the mechanisms underlying common symptoms and increased activity in certain brain regions in migraine patients.
In a new study, the prevalence of dizziness was 65% among patients with migraine who underwent a virtual roller-coaster ride versus 30% among those without migraine. In addition, imaging showed greater neuronal activity after the simulation in those with migraine.
“Migraine patients reported more dizziness and motion sickness, as well as longer symptom duration and intensity, in a virtual roller-coaster ride,” even though the videos and timing were identical for both groups, said study investigator Arne May, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at the University of Hamburg (Germany).
“We found differences not just in behavioral results but also in specific activations of areas within the cerebellum and the frontal gyrus. Migraine patients process such visual input differently from controls and activate a specific brain network to do so,” he added.
The findings were published online July 21, 2021, in Neurology.
The brain’s response
Nausea, which is among the diagnostic criteria for migraine, is the main symptom of motion sickness. Vestibular symptoms such as dizziness are also components of migraine.
Previous research has examined how the brain processes visual and motion stimuli in migraine, but the reasons patients with migraine are susceptible to motion sickness and dizziness remain unclear.
The researchers used a simulated roller-coaster ride to study the clinical and brain responses to motion among participants with and participants without migraine. They enrolled 20 consecutive patients with migraine who presented to a tertiary headache clinic between January and March 2020 and enrolled 20 healthy participants from a university hospital and the community. The average age of the study population was 30 years, and more than 80% were women.
In response to a questionnaire, participants provided information about demographics and headache features, including onset, frequency, and intensity. They also provided information about their status within the migraine phase and about vestibular symptoms experienced in daily life.
While undergoing functional MRI (fMRI), all participants watched two short videos that provided a first-person perspective of a roller-coaster ride. During the videos, they wore ear buds that conveyed the sound of a car riding over the rails.
The first video included more horizontal perspectives, and the second had more vertical perspectives. Each video was shown three times in random order.
During fMRI, participants reported intensity of nausea and vestibular symptoms using an 11-point Likert scale. After the experiment, they responded to a questionnaire that evaluated intensity and duration of nausea, dizziness, and vertigo experienced during the videos.
Participants also were given the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ), which assessed motion sickness. A 100-point visual analog scale (VAS) was used to rate how realistic the roller-coaster experience had been.
There were no differences in sex or age between the migraine group and the healthy control group. Half of the patients with migraine reported aura. The mean number of migraine attacks within the previous month was 3.7. The mean Migraine Disability Assessment score was 21.5, which indicates severe disability.
Nausea, dizziness often neglected
Baseline prevalence of vestibular symptoms was 75% in the migraine group and 5% in the control group (P < .0001). These symptoms included dizziness (60% and 5%, respectively; P < .0001) and postural symptoms (40% and 0%, respectively; P = .003).
At baseline, vestibular symptoms were more frequent (P = .001), more intense (P < .0001), and were associated with greater disability (P = .001) in patients with migraine, compared with participants without migraine. The patients with migraine were also more susceptible to motion sickness (P = .02) and had higher depression scores (P = .001).
During the roller-coaster simulation, dizziness was more prevalent among patients with migraine than among those without migraine (65% vs. 30%; P = .03). Patients with migraine also reported more motion sickness (SSQ score, 47.3 vs. 24.3; P = .004), longer symptom duration (1:19 minutes vs. 00:27 minutes; P = .03), and symptoms of greater intensity (VAS, 22.0 vs. 9.9; P = .03).
Brain activity also differed between groups. Among patients with migraine, neuronal activity was greater in clusters within the right superior and left inferior occipital gyrus, the left pontine nuclei, and the left cerebellar lobules V and VI.
There was a moderately negative correlation of activation of the inferior occipital gyrus with migraine disability (r = –0.46; P = .04). Activation within the pontine nuclei correlated positively with motion sickness scores (r = 0.32; P = .04).
In addition, among patients with migraine, activity in the cerebellar lobule VIIb and in the left middle frontal gyrus was decreased in comparison with persons without migraine. Also among patients with migraine, there was enhanced connectivity between the pontine nuclei, cerebellar areas V and VI, and the interior and superior occipital gyrus and numerous cortical areas.
Clinicians often neglect to treat dizziness and nausea in patients with migraine, said Dr. May. However, these symptoms are part of migraine, even when attacks are not occurring.
“I have learned that if we can explain such symptoms, they are better accepted,” said Dr. May. “We need more and better basic research because we need to understand before we treat.”
Toward faster, more effective treatment
Commenting on the study, Erik Viirre, MD, PhD, professor in the department of neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, said, “we can be excited and celebrate that these researchers are using these news tools to investigate the operation of the migraine brain.
“That will combine with the new therapies and the genomics to give us a powerful approach to this particular condition,” said Dr. Viirre, who was not involved with the research.
The findings provide significant detail about the interconnections between the various brain regions affected by migraine, he noted. These regions include not just the sensory centers but also areas involved in higher executive function and emotional responses.
By identifying these regions, the findings show “some of the underlying mechanisms of these clinically relevant features,” said Dr. Viirre, who is also director of UCSD’s Arthur C. Clarke Center for Human Imagination.
The investigators set up the motion simulation well and used sound fMRI methodology, he added. However, imaging studies of the brain’s response to motion pose several challenges.
“The biggest challenge in any of these circumstances is that you can’t put an actual fMRI scanner on a roller-coaster,” said Dr. Viirre. “The actual acceleration and gravitational sensations delivered by a roller-coaster and gravity, of course, do not occur when you’re lying still in an MRI scanner.” Nevertheless, the pseudoacceleration produced by a visual stimulus is a reasonable proxy.
The findings also suggest that researchers in the future could examine whether any new therapeutic interventions for migraine modulate the brain functions differently for individuals with migraine than for those without migraine, he noted.
“That’s going to lead us to a faster, more effective, more reliable suite of migraine therapies,” said Dr. Viirre.
The study also reminds clinicians to take a broader approach to patients with migraine, and it underscores the value of strategies such as self-calming techniques, which can reduce the number and intensity of headaches, he said.
“Literally demonstrating these functional differences in the migraine brain is a hugely important message of advocacy for people with migraine,” Dr. Viirre concluded.
The study was funded by the German Research Foundation. Drs. May and Viirre have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is walking speed following stroke a good predictor of recovery?
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Clinical Rehabilitation
Novel NSAID–triptan drug effectively relieves migraine pain
, new research suggests. Results from the phase 3 INTERCEPT trial show that the treatment, known as AXS-07 (Axsome Therapeutics), also provided greater relief from the patients’ most bothersome symptom (MBS) compared with placebo.
In addition, about 74% of patients who received AXS-07 experienced no progression of pain from 2 to 24 hours after dosing and were less than half as likely to use rescue medication through 24 hours than those who received placebo.
Similar to a previous formulation combining naproxen sodium and sumatriptan, AXS-07 combines a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with a triptan. The combination is synergistic, investigators note, because one drug addresses pain mechanisms that the other does not.
“Rizatriptan’s primary mechanism is peripheral, and NSAIDs have both peripheral and central benefit,” said study investigator Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “That is why the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” Dr. Tepper added.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Acute treatments needed
For many patients, current migraine treatments are inadequate. In addition, suboptimal acute treatment can increase risk for progression from episodic migraine to chronic migraine. It also increases the risk for medication-overuse headache.
The search for optimal acute treatments is therefore “really important for patients,” Dr. Tepper noted.
Because it contains rizatriptan, AXS-07 is believed to inhibit the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide, reverse the vasodilation that it causes, and decrease the transmission of pain signals. Meloxicam, on the other hand, is thought to reduce neuroinflammation and reverse central sensitization, which maintains chronic pain.
In the phase 3, double-blind INTERCEPT trial, the investigators examined AXS-07 for early treatment of migraine. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 65 years, had been diagnosed with migraine in accordance with ICHD-3 criteria, and averaged two to eight migraines per month.
The researchers randomly assigned a single dose of AXS-07 (n = 152) or placebo (n = 150). Participants were asked to administer treatment to themselves at the earliest sign of migraine pain.
The trial’s two primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the MBS 2 hours after dosing. Secondary endpoints included sustained pain freedom and freedom from pain progression, functional disability, and use of rescue medication.
Demographic characteristics of the study population reflected those of the general population of people with migraine, according to the researchers. More than 85% of participants were women, and the study group’s mean age was 41 years. There were no demographic differences between the two treatment groups.
Reduced pain progression
Results showed that 2 hours after treatment, rate of pain freedom was 32.6% in the AXS-07 group and 16.3% in the placebo group (P = .002). At the same time point, rate of freedom from MBS was 43.9% and 26.7%, respectively (P = .003).
Approximately 64% of patients who received AXS-07 were pain free at 12 hours, and 69% were pain free at 24 hours. In contrast, 42% of the placebo group were pain free at 12 hours, and 47% were pain free at 24 hours (P < .001 for both comparisons).
The benefits AXS-07 provided were sustained; 22.7% of the active-treatment group achieved sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, compared with 12.6% of the placebo group (P = .03). Results were similar for sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours after treatment (20.5% vs. 9.6%; P = .013).
In addition, 73.5% of patients who received AXS-07 had freedom from pain progression from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, versus 47.4% of those who received placebo (P < .001). The rate of rescue medication use through 24 hours was 15.3% and 42.2%, respectively (P < .001).
AXS-07 was also linked to significant reductions in functional disability. About 74% of patients who received it reported no disability at 24 hours, compared with 47% of patients who received placebo (P < .001). Scores on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale were very much improved or much improved 2 hours after dosing for 52.4% of the AXS-07 group, versus 27.7% of the placebo group (P < .001).
The overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 17.9% in the active group and 7.7% among the control group. The rate of somnolence was 4.3%, versus 2.1%; the rate of dizziness was 2.9%, versus 1.4%; and the rate of paresthesia was 2.1%, versus 0%. There were no serious AEs.
“Unexpectedly, and it’s hard to interpret this, but the nausea associated with the use of AXS-07 is less than with either of the active components or the placebo,” said Dr. Tepper. “It’s not dramatically different for dizziness.”
Improved adherence?
Meloxicam is generally used not as an acute medication but for prevention, Dr. Tepper noted. The drug is often administered to reduce inflammation in conditions such as chronic arthritis.
AXS-07 incorporates an altered pharmacokinetic delivery system to provide a quicker onset of effect for meloxicam.
“Most headache specialists would say that of all the oral triptans, rizatriptan is the fastest,” said Dr. Tepper.
The idea for the new agent was to hasten the onset of meloxicam’s effect so that both active components would work rapidly. “We know that there is a synergy between NSAIDs and triptans, in terms of complete headache response,” Dr. Tepper said.
Data indicate that when neurologists recommend that patients take an NSAID and triptan together at the beginning of an attack, patients rarely comply. “It’s a big adherence issue,” said Dr. Tepper. “They’re more likely to get a complete response if they take them together, especially if the tablet is designed to deliver the two products together in an optimal way.”
Uncertain therapeutic advantage
Commenting on the findings, Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic science at the University of Vermont, Burlington, noted that because of favorable data from past studies for the combination of 85 mg of sumatriptan with 500 mg of naproxen sodium, the coadministration of a triptan with an NSAID has been a standard of care for the past decade.
“It’s therefore unsurprising that a combination of rizatriptan 10 mg plus meloxicam 20 mg in a proprietary MoSEIC formulation might also prove to be more effective than either individual medication taken alone for acute migraine attacks,” said Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved with the research.
It is not possible to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AXS-07 with those of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium without head-to-head trials. However, the available data suggest that the latter formulation is superior, he added.
In 2008, researchers conducted two parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium taken early in a migraine attack. These trials had protocols comparable to that of the current INTERCEPT trial for AXS-07, said Dr. Shapiro.
For the key primary endpoint of 2-hour pain freedom, the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 35% and 36%, respectively, versus 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial. The placebo response rates (17% and 15% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial) were comparable.
Similarly, for the endpoint of 2- to 24-hour pain freedom, the sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 33% and 26%, respectively, versus 15.1% for the AXS-07 trial. Again, response rates for placebo were comparable (12% and 14% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 12.6% for AXS-07).
The placebo-adjusted differences for reporting any treatment-emergent AE, otherwise known as “therapeutic penalty,” was 10.2% for AXS-07 in the INTERCEPT trial, versus 7% and 5%, respectively for participants in the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials.
“In light of these data, it’s not immediately apparent what advantage AXS-07 might offer over sumatriptan–naproxen sodium,” said Dr. Shapiro.
“Furthermore, sumatriptan–naproxen sodium is currently available in generic form,” he added.
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Tepper is a consultant to Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Shapiro has previously performed research consulting for Lilly and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. Results from the phase 3 INTERCEPT trial show that the treatment, known as AXS-07 (Axsome Therapeutics), also provided greater relief from the patients’ most bothersome symptom (MBS) compared with placebo.
In addition, about 74% of patients who received AXS-07 experienced no progression of pain from 2 to 24 hours after dosing and were less than half as likely to use rescue medication through 24 hours than those who received placebo.
Similar to a previous formulation combining naproxen sodium and sumatriptan, AXS-07 combines a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with a triptan. The combination is synergistic, investigators note, because one drug addresses pain mechanisms that the other does not.
“Rizatriptan’s primary mechanism is peripheral, and NSAIDs have both peripheral and central benefit,” said study investigator Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “That is why the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” Dr. Tepper added.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Acute treatments needed
For many patients, current migraine treatments are inadequate. In addition, suboptimal acute treatment can increase risk for progression from episodic migraine to chronic migraine. It also increases the risk for medication-overuse headache.
The search for optimal acute treatments is therefore “really important for patients,” Dr. Tepper noted.
Because it contains rizatriptan, AXS-07 is believed to inhibit the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide, reverse the vasodilation that it causes, and decrease the transmission of pain signals. Meloxicam, on the other hand, is thought to reduce neuroinflammation and reverse central sensitization, which maintains chronic pain.
In the phase 3, double-blind INTERCEPT trial, the investigators examined AXS-07 for early treatment of migraine. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 65 years, had been diagnosed with migraine in accordance with ICHD-3 criteria, and averaged two to eight migraines per month.
The researchers randomly assigned a single dose of AXS-07 (n = 152) or placebo (n = 150). Participants were asked to administer treatment to themselves at the earliest sign of migraine pain.
The trial’s two primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the MBS 2 hours after dosing. Secondary endpoints included sustained pain freedom and freedom from pain progression, functional disability, and use of rescue medication.
Demographic characteristics of the study population reflected those of the general population of people with migraine, according to the researchers. More than 85% of participants were women, and the study group’s mean age was 41 years. There were no demographic differences between the two treatment groups.
Reduced pain progression
Results showed that 2 hours after treatment, rate of pain freedom was 32.6% in the AXS-07 group and 16.3% in the placebo group (P = .002). At the same time point, rate of freedom from MBS was 43.9% and 26.7%, respectively (P = .003).
Approximately 64% of patients who received AXS-07 were pain free at 12 hours, and 69% were pain free at 24 hours. In contrast, 42% of the placebo group were pain free at 12 hours, and 47% were pain free at 24 hours (P < .001 for both comparisons).
The benefits AXS-07 provided were sustained; 22.7% of the active-treatment group achieved sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, compared with 12.6% of the placebo group (P = .03). Results were similar for sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours after treatment (20.5% vs. 9.6%; P = .013).
In addition, 73.5% of patients who received AXS-07 had freedom from pain progression from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, versus 47.4% of those who received placebo (P < .001). The rate of rescue medication use through 24 hours was 15.3% and 42.2%, respectively (P < .001).
AXS-07 was also linked to significant reductions in functional disability. About 74% of patients who received it reported no disability at 24 hours, compared with 47% of patients who received placebo (P < .001). Scores on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale were very much improved or much improved 2 hours after dosing for 52.4% of the AXS-07 group, versus 27.7% of the placebo group (P < .001).
The overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 17.9% in the active group and 7.7% among the control group. The rate of somnolence was 4.3%, versus 2.1%; the rate of dizziness was 2.9%, versus 1.4%; and the rate of paresthesia was 2.1%, versus 0%. There were no serious AEs.
“Unexpectedly, and it’s hard to interpret this, but the nausea associated with the use of AXS-07 is less than with either of the active components or the placebo,” said Dr. Tepper. “It’s not dramatically different for dizziness.”
Improved adherence?
Meloxicam is generally used not as an acute medication but for prevention, Dr. Tepper noted. The drug is often administered to reduce inflammation in conditions such as chronic arthritis.
AXS-07 incorporates an altered pharmacokinetic delivery system to provide a quicker onset of effect for meloxicam.
“Most headache specialists would say that of all the oral triptans, rizatriptan is the fastest,” said Dr. Tepper.
The idea for the new agent was to hasten the onset of meloxicam’s effect so that both active components would work rapidly. “We know that there is a synergy between NSAIDs and triptans, in terms of complete headache response,” Dr. Tepper said.
Data indicate that when neurologists recommend that patients take an NSAID and triptan together at the beginning of an attack, patients rarely comply. “It’s a big adherence issue,” said Dr. Tepper. “They’re more likely to get a complete response if they take them together, especially if the tablet is designed to deliver the two products together in an optimal way.”
Uncertain therapeutic advantage
Commenting on the findings, Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic science at the University of Vermont, Burlington, noted that because of favorable data from past studies for the combination of 85 mg of sumatriptan with 500 mg of naproxen sodium, the coadministration of a triptan with an NSAID has been a standard of care for the past decade.
“It’s therefore unsurprising that a combination of rizatriptan 10 mg plus meloxicam 20 mg in a proprietary MoSEIC formulation might also prove to be more effective than either individual medication taken alone for acute migraine attacks,” said Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved with the research.
It is not possible to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AXS-07 with those of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium without head-to-head trials. However, the available data suggest that the latter formulation is superior, he added.
In 2008, researchers conducted two parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium taken early in a migraine attack. These trials had protocols comparable to that of the current INTERCEPT trial for AXS-07, said Dr. Shapiro.
For the key primary endpoint of 2-hour pain freedom, the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 35% and 36%, respectively, versus 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial. The placebo response rates (17% and 15% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial) were comparable.
Similarly, for the endpoint of 2- to 24-hour pain freedom, the sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 33% and 26%, respectively, versus 15.1% for the AXS-07 trial. Again, response rates for placebo were comparable (12% and 14% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 12.6% for AXS-07).
The placebo-adjusted differences for reporting any treatment-emergent AE, otherwise known as “therapeutic penalty,” was 10.2% for AXS-07 in the INTERCEPT trial, versus 7% and 5%, respectively for participants in the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials.
“In light of these data, it’s not immediately apparent what advantage AXS-07 might offer over sumatriptan–naproxen sodium,” said Dr. Shapiro.
“Furthermore, sumatriptan–naproxen sodium is currently available in generic form,” he added.
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Tepper is a consultant to Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Shapiro has previously performed research consulting for Lilly and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. Results from the phase 3 INTERCEPT trial show that the treatment, known as AXS-07 (Axsome Therapeutics), also provided greater relief from the patients’ most bothersome symptom (MBS) compared with placebo.
In addition, about 74% of patients who received AXS-07 experienced no progression of pain from 2 to 24 hours after dosing and were less than half as likely to use rescue medication through 24 hours than those who received placebo.
Similar to a previous formulation combining naproxen sodium and sumatriptan, AXS-07 combines a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with a triptan. The combination is synergistic, investigators note, because one drug addresses pain mechanisms that the other does not.
“Rizatriptan’s primary mechanism is peripheral, and NSAIDs have both peripheral and central benefit,” said study investigator Stewart J. Tepper, MD, professor of neurology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “That is why the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” Dr. Tepper added.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Acute treatments needed
For many patients, current migraine treatments are inadequate. In addition, suboptimal acute treatment can increase risk for progression from episodic migraine to chronic migraine. It also increases the risk for medication-overuse headache.
The search for optimal acute treatments is therefore “really important for patients,” Dr. Tepper noted.
Because it contains rizatriptan, AXS-07 is believed to inhibit the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide, reverse the vasodilation that it causes, and decrease the transmission of pain signals. Meloxicam, on the other hand, is thought to reduce neuroinflammation and reverse central sensitization, which maintains chronic pain.
In the phase 3, double-blind INTERCEPT trial, the investigators examined AXS-07 for early treatment of migraine. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 65 years, had been diagnosed with migraine in accordance with ICHD-3 criteria, and averaged two to eight migraines per month.
The researchers randomly assigned a single dose of AXS-07 (n = 152) or placebo (n = 150). Participants were asked to administer treatment to themselves at the earliest sign of migraine pain.
The trial’s two primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the MBS 2 hours after dosing. Secondary endpoints included sustained pain freedom and freedom from pain progression, functional disability, and use of rescue medication.
Demographic characteristics of the study population reflected those of the general population of people with migraine, according to the researchers. More than 85% of participants were women, and the study group’s mean age was 41 years. There were no demographic differences between the two treatment groups.
Reduced pain progression
Results showed that 2 hours after treatment, rate of pain freedom was 32.6% in the AXS-07 group and 16.3% in the placebo group (P = .002). At the same time point, rate of freedom from MBS was 43.9% and 26.7%, respectively (P = .003).
Approximately 64% of patients who received AXS-07 were pain free at 12 hours, and 69% were pain free at 24 hours. In contrast, 42% of the placebo group were pain free at 12 hours, and 47% were pain free at 24 hours (P < .001 for both comparisons).
The benefits AXS-07 provided were sustained; 22.7% of the active-treatment group achieved sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, compared with 12.6% of the placebo group (P = .03). Results were similar for sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours after treatment (20.5% vs. 9.6%; P = .013).
In addition, 73.5% of patients who received AXS-07 had freedom from pain progression from 2 to 24 hours after treatment, versus 47.4% of those who received placebo (P < .001). The rate of rescue medication use through 24 hours was 15.3% and 42.2%, respectively (P < .001).
AXS-07 was also linked to significant reductions in functional disability. About 74% of patients who received it reported no disability at 24 hours, compared with 47% of patients who received placebo (P < .001). Scores on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale were very much improved or much improved 2 hours after dosing for 52.4% of the AXS-07 group, versus 27.7% of the placebo group (P < .001).
The overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 17.9% in the active group and 7.7% among the control group. The rate of somnolence was 4.3%, versus 2.1%; the rate of dizziness was 2.9%, versus 1.4%; and the rate of paresthesia was 2.1%, versus 0%. There were no serious AEs.
“Unexpectedly, and it’s hard to interpret this, but the nausea associated with the use of AXS-07 is less than with either of the active components or the placebo,” said Dr. Tepper. “It’s not dramatically different for dizziness.”
Improved adherence?
Meloxicam is generally used not as an acute medication but for prevention, Dr. Tepper noted. The drug is often administered to reduce inflammation in conditions such as chronic arthritis.
AXS-07 incorporates an altered pharmacokinetic delivery system to provide a quicker onset of effect for meloxicam.
“Most headache specialists would say that of all the oral triptans, rizatriptan is the fastest,” said Dr. Tepper.
The idea for the new agent was to hasten the onset of meloxicam’s effect so that both active components would work rapidly. “We know that there is a synergy between NSAIDs and triptans, in terms of complete headache response,” Dr. Tepper said.
Data indicate that when neurologists recommend that patients take an NSAID and triptan together at the beginning of an attack, patients rarely comply. “It’s a big adherence issue,” said Dr. Tepper. “They’re more likely to get a complete response if they take them together, especially if the tablet is designed to deliver the two products together in an optimal way.”
Uncertain therapeutic advantage
Commenting on the findings, Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic science at the University of Vermont, Burlington, noted that because of favorable data from past studies for the combination of 85 mg of sumatriptan with 500 mg of naproxen sodium, the coadministration of a triptan with an NSAID has been a standard of care for the past decade.
“It’s therefore unsurprising that a combination of rizatriptan 10 mg plus meloxicam 20 mg in a proprietary MoSEIC formulation might also prove to be more effective than either individual medication taken alone for acute migraine attacks,” said Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved with the research.
It is not possible to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AXS-07 with those of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium without head-to-head trials. However, the available data suggest that the latter formulation is superior, he added.
In 2008, researchers conducted two parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials of sumatriptan–naproxen sodium taken early in a migraine attack. These trials had protocols comparable to that of the current INTERCEPT trial for AXS-07, said Dr. Shapiro.
For the key primary endpoint of 2-hour pain freedom, the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 35% and 36%, respectively, versus 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial. The placebo response rates (17% and 15% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 16.3% for the AXS-07 trial) were comparable.
Similarly, for the endpoint of 2- to 24-hour pain freedom, the sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials found therapeutic gains of 33% and 26%, respectively, versus 15.1% for the AXS-07 trial. Again, response rates for placebo were comparable (12% and 14% for sumatriptan–naproxen sodium, vs. 12.6% for AXS-07).
The placebo-adjusted differences for reporting any treatment-emergent AE, otherwise known as “therapeutic penalty,” was 10.2% for AXS-07 in the INTERCEPT trial, versus 7% and 5%, respectively for participants in the two sumatriptan–naproxen sodium trials.
“In light of these data, it’s not immediately apparent what advantage AXS-07 might offer over sumatriptan–naproxen sodium,” said Dr. Shapiro.
“Furthermore, sumatriptan–naproxen sodium is currently available in generic form,” he added.
The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Tepper is a consultant to Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Shapiro has previously performed research consulting for Lilly and Lundbeck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From AHS 2021
No increased risk of hypertension with erenumab?
, easing earlier concerns that this may be one of the drug’s adverse events, an analysis of postmarketing data shows. Nevertheless, investigators noted that more research is needed to confirm that this is the case.
While randomized clinical trials have shown no increased risk of hypertension related to the drug, it has been reported in postmarketing data. However, many of these events occurred in patients with previously documented hypertension or risk factors for the disorder, the investigators noted.
The rate of hypertension adverse events in postmarketing data was 0.144 per 100 person-years. Most such reports described only one instance of elevated blood pressure. In April 2020, the prescribing information for the drug was updated to include a mention of the risk of hypertension.
“Given the limitations of postmarketing reports, including incomplete information, lack of a control arm, and others, additional data are certainly needed to fully characterize the nature, the timing, and the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab, and indeed other [calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP)] pathway antagonists,” said study investigator David W. Dodick, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Phoenix.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
No increased risk over time
A monoclonal antibody and CGRP antagonist, erenumab is approved in the United States for migraine prevention in adults. CGRP medications are vasodilators, and, therefore, migraine treatments that target this pathway could theoretically have hypertensive effects.
To assess the risk of hypertension in migraine patients treated with erenumab, investigators examined clinical trial and postmarketing data. The analysis included cases with limited information and patients with a different etiology for the development of hypertension.
Using Amgen Clinical Trial data, the researchers performed a pooled safety analysis of four placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 or 3 studies of the drug. Participants had episodic or chronic migraine and were between ages 18 and 60 years or age 65 years. The doses studied were 70 mg and 140 mg.
In these studies, blood pressure data for each patient were based on an average of at least two measurements taken after patients were in rested state for at least 5 minutes. The position used for blood pressure measurement for each patient was consistent throughout the study.
The investigators also analyzed postmarketing reports of hypertension from May 17, 2018, to Jan. 31, 2020, identified in Amgen Global Safety data.
The pooled studies included 1,043 participants receiving placebo, 893 receiving 70 mg of erenumab, and 507 receiving 140 mg of the drug. During the treatment phase, the incidence of hypertension was 0.9% among controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group. The proportion of patients who started a new antihypertensive medication was 1.2% in controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group.
In a long-term, open-label study, patients with episodic migraine received erenumab treatment for up to 5 years. The incidence of hypertension did not increase with time in this population.
The postmarketing data encompassed 245,682 person-years of erenumab exposure. The researchers identified 362 hypertension events (355 cases). The rate of these events was 0.144 per 100 person-years. The exposure-adjusted incidence of hypertension was 1.9 per 100 patient-years for erenumab.
Of the 362 hypertensive events, 158 (43.6%) were in patients with a medical history of hypertension or risk factors for hypertension. Information about the time to onset of hypertension was available for 121 (33.4%) adverse events.
Of this group, 56 (46.2%) occurred within 1 week of erenumab initiation, including 43 (35.5%) that occurred within 1 day. This rapid time to hypertension onset “is inconsistent with the pharmacokinetic profile of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg, which has a peak serum concentration in approximately 6 days,” said Dr. Dodick.
Hypertension ‘not a barrier’ to treatment
Commenting on the findings, Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, noted that in theory blocking CGRP could increase blood pressure. However, he noted that the data and clinical experience do not suggest erenumab poses a serious risk.
“I have rarely seen new-onset hypertension with erenumab in the patients treated at our medical center. The few cases I have seen were in older adults with pre-existing hypertension,” he said.
The investigators’ review of clinical trial data together with global safety databases was a strength of their study, said Dr. Lipton. In clinical trials, patients are monitored carefully, and a placebo control group aids in the determination of background rates.
“In the trials, the incidence of new-onset hypertension or hypertension exacerbation was 0.9%, while the placebo rate was 0.2%,” said Dr. Lipton. “The absolute increase in the risk of hypertension was 0.6% or six cases per thousand: A low rate.” But clinical trials enroll carefully selected patients who do not represent the broad group of people treated with erenumab in clinical practice, he added.
The global safety data are more representative of patients who receive erenumab in real-world settings. The weaknesses of these data, though, are the lack of a control group and the incomplete ascertainment of data associated with spontaneous reporting.
Yet both types of studies, with their complementary strengths and weaknesses, indicated low rates of hypertension.
“The low incidence of hypertension, in my view, is not a barrier to the use of erenumab, though checking blood pressure after starting any new migraine therapy is prudent,” Dr. Lipton concluded.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dodick had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lipton has consulted for and conducted studies funded by Amgen and by other companies that manufacture CGRP drugs. He has stock options in Biohaven.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, easing earlier concerns that this may be one of the drug’s adverse events, an analysis of postmarketing data shows. Nevertheless, investigators noted that more research is needed to confirm that this is the case.
While randomized clinical trials have shown no increased risk of hypertension related to the drug, it has been reported in postmarketing data. However, many of these events occurred in patients with previously documented hypertension or risk factors for the disorder, the investigators noted.
The rate of hypertension adverse events in postmarketing data was 0.144 per 100 person-years. Most such reports described only one instance of elevated blood pressure. In April 2020, the prescribing information for the drug was updated to include a mention of the risk of hypertension.
“Given the limitations of postmarketing reports, including incomplete information, lack of a control arm, and others, additional data are certainly needed to fully characterize the nature, the timing, and the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab, and indeed other [calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP)] pathway antagonists,” said study investigator David W. Dodick, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Phoenix.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
No increased risk over time
A monoclonal antibody and CGRP antagonist, erenumab is approved in the United States for migraine prevention in adults. CGRP medications are vasodilators, and, therefore, migraine treatments that target this pathway could theoretically have hypertensive effects.
To assess the risk of hypertension in migraine patients treated with erenumab, investigators examined clinical trial and postmarketing data. The analysis included cases with limited information and patients with a different etiology for the development of hypertension.
Using Amgen Clinical Trial data, the researchers performed a pooled safety analysis of four placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 or 3 studies of the drug. Participants had episodic or chronic migraine and were between ages 18 and 60 years or age 65 years. The doses studied were 70 mg and 140 mg.
In these studies, blood pressure data for each patient were based on an average of at least two measurements taken after patients were in rested state for at least 5 minutes. The position used for blood pressure measurement for each patient was consistent throughout the study.
The investigators also analyzed postmarketing reports of hypertension from May 17, 2018, to Jan. 31, 2020, identified in Amgen Global Safety data.
The pooled studies included 1,043 participants receiving placebo, 893 receiving 70 mg of erenumab, and 507 receiving 140 mg of the drug. During the treatment phase, the incidence of hypertension was 0.9% among controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group. The proportion of patients who started a new antihypertensive medication was 1.2% in controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group.
In a long-term, open-label study, patients with episodic migraine received erenumab treatment for up to 5 years. The incidence of hypertension did not increase with time in this population.
The postmarketing data encompassed 245,682 person-years of erenumab exposure. The researchers identified 362 hypertension events (355 cases). The rate of these events was 0.144 per 100 person-years. The exposure-adjusted incidence of hypertension was 1.9 per 100 patient-years for erenumab.
Of the 362 hypertensive events, 158 (43.6%) were in patients with a medical history of hypertension or risk factors for hypertension. Information about the time to onset of hypertension was available for 121 (33.4%) adverse events.
Of this group, 56 (46.2%) occurred within 1 week of erenumab initiation, including 43 (35.5%) that occurred within 1 day. This rapid time to hypertension onset “is inconsistent with the pharmacokinetic profile of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg, which has a peak serum concentration in approximately 6 days,” said Dr. Dodick.
Hypertension ‘not a barrier’ to treatment
Commenting on the findings, Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, noted that in theory blocking CGRP could increase blood pressure. However, he noted that the data and clinical experience do not suggest erenumab poses a serious risk.
“I have rarely seen new-onset hypertension with erenumab in the patients treated at our medical center. The few cases I have seen were in older adults with pre-existing hypertension,” he said.
The investigators’ review of clinical trial data together with global safety databases was a strength of their study, said Dr. Lipton. In clinical trials, patients are monitored carefully, and a placebo control group aids in the determination of background rates.
“In the trials, the incidence of new-onset hypertension or hypertension exacerbation was 0.9%, while the placebo rate was 0.2%,” said Dr. Lipton. “The absolute increase in the risk of hypertension was 0.6% or six cases per thousand: A low rate.” But clinical trials enroll carefully selected patients who do not represent the broad group of people treated with erenumab in clinical practice, he added.
The global safety data are more representative of patients who receive erenumab in real-world settings. The weaknesses of these data, though, are the lack of a control group and the incomplete ascertainment of data associated with spontaneous reporting.
Yet both types of studies, with their complementary strengths and weaknesses, indicated low rates of hypertension.
“The low incidence of hypertension, in my view, is not a barrier to the use of erenumab, though checking blood pressure after starting any new migraine therapy is prudent,” Dr. Lipton concluded.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dodick had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lipton has consulted for and conducted studies funded by Amgen and by other companies that manufacture CGRP drugs. He has stock options in Biohaven.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, easing earlier concerns that this may be one of the drug’s adverse events, an analysis of postmarketing data shows. Nevertheless, investigators noted that more research is needed to confirm that this is the case.
While randomized clinical trials have shown no increased risk of hypertension related to the drug, it has been reported in postmarketing data. However, many of these events occurred in patients with previously documented hypertension or risk factors for the disorder, the investigators noted.
The rate of hypertension adverse events in postmarketing data was 0.144 per 100 person-years. Most such reports described only one instance of elevated blood pressure. In April 2020, the prescribing information for the drug was updated to include a mention of the risk of hypertension.
“Given the limitations of postmarketing reports, including incomplete information, lack of a control arm, and others, additional data are certainly needed to fully characterize the nature, the timing, and the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab, and indeed other [calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP)] pathway antagonists,” said study investigator David W. Dodick, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Phoenix.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
No increased risk over time
A monoclonal antibody and CGRP antagonist, erenumab is approved in the United States for migraine prevention in adults. CGRP medications are vasodilators, and, therefore, migraine treatments that target this pathway could theoretically have hypertensive effects.
To assess the risk of hypertension in migraine patients treated with erenumab, investigators examined clinical trial and postmarketing data. The analysis included cases with limited information and patients with a different etiology for the development of hypertension.
Using Amgen Clinical Trial data, the researchers performed a pooled safety analysis of four placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 or 3 studies of the drug. Participants had episodic or chronic migraine and were between ages 18 and 60 years or age 65 years. The doses studied were 70 mg and 140 mg.
In these studies, blood pressure data for each patient were based on an average of at least two measurements taken after patients were in rested state for at least 5 minutes. The position used for blood pressure measurement for each patient was consistent throughout the study.
The investigators also analyzed postmarketing reports of hypertension from May 17, 2018, to Jan. 31, 2020, identified in Amgen Global Safety data.
The pooled studies included 1,043 participants receiving placebo, 893 receiving 70 mg of erenumab, and 507 receiving 140 mg of the drug. During the treatment phase, the incidence of hypertension was 0.9% among controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group. The proportion of patients who started a new antihypertensive medication was 1.2% in controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group.
In a long-term, open-label study, patients with episodic migraine received erenumab treatment for up to 5 years. The incidence of hypertension did not increase with time in this population.
The postmarketing data encompassed 245,682 person-years of erenumab exposure. The researchers identified 362 hypertension events (355 cases). The rate of these events was 0.144 per 100 person-years. The exposure-adjusted incidence of hypertension was 1.9 per 100 patient-years for erenumab.
Of the 362 hypertensive events, 158 (43.6%) were in patients with a medical history of hypertension or risk factors for hypertension. Information about the time to onset of hypertension was available for 121 (33.4%) adverse events.
Of this group, 56 (46.2%) occurred within 1 week of erenumab initiation, including 43 (35.5%) that occurred within 1 day. This rapid time to hypertension onset “is inconsistent with the pharmacokinetic profile of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg, which has a peak serum concentration in approximately 6 days,” said Dr. Dodick.
Hypertension ‘not a barrier’ to treatment
Commenting on the findings, Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, noted that in theory blocking CGRP could increase blood pressure. However, he noted that the data and clinical experience do not suggest erenumab poses a serious risk.
“I have rarely seen new-onset hypertension with erenumab in the patients treated at our medical center. The few cases I have seen were in older adults with pre-existing hypertension,” he said.
The investigators’ review of clinical trial data together with global safety databases was a strength of their study, said Dr. Lipton. In clinical trials, patients are monitored carefully, and a placebo control group aids in the determination of background rates.
“In the trials, the incidence of new-onset hypertension or hypertension exacerbation was 0.9%, while the placebo rate was 0.2%,” said Dr. Lipton. “The absolute increase in the risk of hypertension was 0.6% or six cases per thousand: A low rate.” But clinical trials enroll carefully selected patients who do not represent the broad group of people treated with erenumab in clinical practice, he added.
The global safety data are more representative of patients who receive erenumab in real-world settings. The weaknesses of these data, though, are the lack of a control group and the incomplete ascertainment of data associated with spontaneous reporting.
Yet both types of studies, with their complementary strengths and weaknesses, indicated low rates of hypertension.
“The low incidence of hypertension, in my view, is not a barrier to the use of erenumab, though checking blood pressure after starting any new migraine therapy is prudent,” Dr. Lipton concluded.
The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dodick had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lipton has consulted for and conducted studies funded by Amgen and by other companies that manufacture CGRP drugs. He has stock options in Biohaven.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2021
A large proportion of migraine patients are not offered preventive treatment
, new research suggests. Investigators found that among patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapy, more than a third were not offered this option. In addition, fewer than 10% were currently taking preventive medication, and an additional 10% had discontinued preventive therapy.
“We confirmed that as of 2012 to 2013 – the years these data were collected from a large, comprehensive survey – gaps in care remained,” said study investigator Stephanie J. Nahas, MD, director of the headache medicine fellowship program, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “In this preventive-eligible population, 35% reported never even being offered preventive medication.”
Furthermore, only 28% of patients taking preventive medication experienced a reduction in headache frequency to less than 4 days per month, which is a primary goal of treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Disease burden, as measured with scales of disability and affective comorbidities, remained substantial.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Lack of efficacy?
In 2019, the American Headache Society published a position statement recommending that preventive treatment be considered for patients who have migraine and four or more monthly headache days (MHDs), regardless of their level of associated disability. However, previous data suggest few patients who are eligible for preventive treatment receive it. In addition, many who have used preventive medications do not adhere to their regimens because of problems with tolerability, efficacy, or both.
To identify treatment gaps and characterize self-reported use of preventive medications for migraine, the investigators examined data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a web-based survey conducted in a representative U.S. sample from September 2012 through November 2013.
The survey identified and characterized patients who met modified criteria for migraine consistent with those in ICHD-3. The researchers classified respondents who had migraine and four or more MHDs as potentially eligible for migraine preventive treatment.
The investigators assessed the study population’s use of oral preventive medications, migraine-related disability and burden, willingness to take preventive treatment, and reasons for discontinuation.
Assessments included the Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 for depression, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, the Migraine Specific Quality of Life questionnaire, and the Migraine Symptom Severity Scale.
In all, 16,789 respondents met criteria for migraine, and 6,579 (39.2%) reported having at least four MHDs. The median age of this subgroup that was eligible for preventive treatment was 40.3 years, and approximately 79% were women.
Only 9.8% of respondents who were eligible for preventive medications were currently using an oral preventive medication. Among those who had ever tried an oral preventive medication, 53.6% discontinued it. Efficacy for patients who used medications appeared to be inadequate. Among all current users of preventive treatment, 68.4% continued to have at least four MHDs.
The researchers assessed treatment eligibility among patients not taking preventive medication. Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 35.7% were eligible to receive it. Among all users who had discontinued preventive medication, 61.0% were still eligible to receive it.
Attitudes toward injectables
Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 64.3% had zero to three MHDs. The remaining 35.7% had 4-7, 8-14, or 15 or more MHDs. Among current users of preventive treatments, 68.4% had four or more MHDs. Among those who had discontinued preventive treatment, 61.0% had four or more MHDs.
Patients who have never used preventive medication “have substantial management gaps,” said Dr. Nahas. High proportions of these patients have moderate or severe disability (64.7%), depression (43%), and anxiety (39%). The rates of these outcomes are higher in users who discontinued treatment, likely because of confounding by indication, she added.
The prevalence of anxiety was similar between those who currently used, formerly used, or never used preventive medications. However, there were differences between never-users and current or former users with respect to moderate to severe depression (never-users, 43%; current users, 49.4%; discontinued users, 46.5%) and moderate to severe disability (never-users, 64.7%; current users, 80.4%; discontinued users, 78.9%).
In all, 44.6% of those who discontinued preventive therapy reported safety and tolerability problems as reasons for stopping treatment. In addition, 39.7% reported that these medications did not prevent enough headaches. Some patients reported partial or temporary efficacy as a reason for discontinuation. Other reasons were related to health care costs and access and personal preferences. Only 9.2% of patients who discontinued treatment said that their headaches improved enough to stop medication.
The investigators also analyzed respondents’ interest in preventive therapies. Among respondents who had never used preventive therapies, 61.8% of those who were eligible to use them were somewhat or very interested in trying an oral prescription medication for migraine prevention. However, 59.1% of never-users who were eligible for preventive medications were not at all interested, not sure, or needed more information about trying an injectable preventive medication. About 40% were not at all interested in injectables. In general, current users and those who had discontinued medication were more interested in preventive medication, including injectables.
‘Disheartening’ discontinuation rates
There are likely multiple reasons for the low rate of migraine prevention treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Many people with migraine never consult a clinician, owing to factors such as stigma, cost, lack of access, and lack of awareness. In addition, patients with migraine are frequently misdiagnosed, she added.
“Other data suggest that only about a quarter of people with episodic migraine and under 5% of people with chronic migraine consult a clinician, receive an accurate diagnosis, and are prescribed appropriate therapy,” said Dr. Nahas.
When the data in this analysis were gathered, public awareness of migraine was much lower than it is today, and injectable migraine therapies had not gained broad acceptance, she noted. Dr. Nahas added it is possible that attitudes toward injectable preventive medications have changed.
“Would people still prefer daily oral medications? We can’t know for sure until we start asking,” she said. In addition, scientific advances and educational outreach have increased clinicians’ awareness, interest, and skill regarding injectable medications, she said.
“I would certainly hope to see that a much greater proportion of preventive-eligible persons with migraine were at least offered, if not currently taking, preventive medication,” said Dr. Nahas. “But there’s no pleasing everyone, so I think we would still see somewhat disheartening discontinuation rates. The reasons for discontinuation, however, might be less typified by concerns about safety and tolerability.”
Still relevant
Commenting on the study, Mia Tova Minen, MD, chief of headache research and associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, noted that although CaMEO is an older study, its results are still highly relevant.
“Unfortunately, primary care providers are still uncomfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications, and this accounts for the large percentage [of patients] with migraine who, while eligible for migraine preventive therapy, are not offered it,” she said.
Although the public and primary care physicians are now more aware of preventive treatments for migraine, “the number of people offered migraine preventive medication still needs to increase dramatically,” said Dr. Minen.
The American Academy of Neurology’s guidelines for migraine prevention were published in 2012 and are currently being updated. The updated guidelines may include new evidence for candesartan and emerging treatments, such as melatonin and aerobic exercise.
“It is my hope that primary care providers will become more comfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications sooner,” said Dr. Minen.
The current findings suggest a need for additional ways of educating patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapies so that they can advocate for themselves, she added. They also suggest the idea of demanding more insurance coverage of behavioral therapies for migraine, because data indicate that these treatments have long-term efficacy and good safety profiles, said Dr. Minen.
An ‘invisible’ disorder
Also commenting on the study, Barbara L. Nye, MD, director of the headache fellowship and codirector of the headache clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said the CaMEO cohort likely is representative of the general population of patients with migraine.
She noted that a significant weakness of the current study is that it examined data collected before the Food and Drug Administration approved monoclonal antibodies and therefore does not reflect patients’ current experience with medications.
“I believe that the attitudes and fears surrounding the use of injectable medication are now likely far less than previously reported, given the positive track record the new generation of once-a-month injectable medications has,” said Dr. Nye.
The findings reinforce the idea that either patients are not talking to their primary care physicians about their headaches and disability or that clinicians are not asking about them, she added. “Both issues are likely linked to the stigma that this disease state has surrounding it. This is an invisible neurological disorder to most,” Dr. Nye said.
The study was sponsored by Allergan before it was acquired by AbbVie. Dr. Nahas has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker for AbbVie/Allergan, Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel, Nesos Corp, Supernus, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano. She has not received and will not receive monetary compensation for this research. Dr. Minen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. Investigators found that among patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapy, more than a third were not offered this option. In addition, fewer than 10% were currently taking preventive medication, and an additional 10% had discontinued preventive therapy.
“We confirmed that as of 2012 to 2013 – the years these data were collected from a large, comprehensive survey – gaps in care remained,” said study investigator Stephanie J. Nahas, MD, director of the headache medicine fellowship program, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “In this preventive-eligible population, 35% reported never even being offered preventive medication.”
Furthermore, only 28% of patients taking preventive medication experienced a reduction in headache frequency to less than 4 days per month, which is a primary goal of treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Disease burden, as measured with scales of disability and affective comorbidities, remained substantial.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Lack of efficacy?
In 2019, the American Headache Society published a position statement recommending that preventive treatment be considered for patients who have migraine and four or more monthly headache days (MHDs), regardless of their level of associated disability. However, previous data suggest few patients who are eligible for preventive treatment receive it. In addition, many who have used preventive medications do not adhere to their regimens because of problems with tolerability, efficacy, or both.
To identify treatment gaps and characterize self-reported use of preventive medications for migraine, the investigators examined data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a web-based survey conducted in a representative U.S. sample from September 2012 through November 2013.
The survey identified and characterized patients who met modified criteria for migraine consistent with those in ICHD-3. The researchers classified respondents who had migraine and four or more MHDs as potentially eligible for migraine preventive treatment.
The investigators assessed the study population’s use of oral preventive medications, migraine-related disability and burden, willingness to take preventive treatment, and reasons for discontinuation.
Assessments included the Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 for depression, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, the Migraine Specific Quality of Life questionnaire, and the Migraine Symptom Severity Scale.
In all, 16,789 respondents met criteria for migraine, and 6,579 (39.2%) reported having at least four MHDs. The median age of this subgroup that was eligible for preventive treatment was 40.3 years, and approximately 79% were women.
Only 9.8% of respondents who were eligible for preventive medications were currently using an oral preventive medication. Among those who had ever tried an oral preventive medication, 53.6% discontinued it. Efficacy for patients who used medications appeared to be inadequate. Among all current users of preventive treatment, 68.4% continued to have at least four MHDs.
The researchers assessed treatment eligibility among patients not taking preventive medication. Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 35.7% were eligible to receive it. Among all users who had discontinued preventive medication, 61.0% were still eligible to receive it.
Attitudes toward injectables
Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 64.3% had zero to three MHDs. The remaining 35.7% had 4-7, 8-14, or 15 or more MHDs. Among current users of preventive treatments, 68.4% had four or more MHDs. Among those who had discontinued preventive treatment, 61.0% had four or more MHDs.
Patients who have never used preventive medication “have substantial management gaps,” said Dr. Nahas. High proportions of these patients have moderate or severe disability (64.7%), depression (43%), and anxiety (39%). The rates of these outcomes are higher in users who discontinued treatment, likely because of confounding by indication, she added.
The prevalence of anxiety was similar between those who currently used, formerly used, or never used preventive medications. However, there were differences between never-users and current or former users with respect to moderate to severe depression (never-users, 43%; current users, 49.4%; discontinued users, 46.5%) and moderate to severe disability (never-users, 64.7%; current users, 80.4%; discontinued users, 78.9%).
In all, 44.6% of those who discontinued preventive therapy reported safety and tolerability problems as reasons for stopping treatment. In addition, 39.7% reported that these medications did not prevent enough headaches. Some patients reported partial or temporary efficacy as a reason for discontinuation. Other reasons were related to health care costs and access and personal preferences. Only 9.2% of patients who discontinued treatment said that their headaches improved enough to stop medication.
The investigators also analyzed respondents’ interest in preventive therapies. Among respondents who had never used preventive therapies, 61.8% of those who were eligible to use them were somewhat or very interested in trying an oral prescription medication for migraine prevention. However, 59.1% of never-users who were eligible for preventive medications were not at all interested, not sure, or needed more information about trying an injectable preventive medication. About 40% were not at all interested in injectables. In general, current users and those who had discontinued medication were more interested in preventive medication, including injectables.
‘Disheartening’ discontinuation rates
There are likely multiple reasons for the low rate of migraine prevention treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Many people with migraine never consult a clinician, owing to factors such as stigma, cost, lack of access, and lack of awareness. In addition, patients with migraine are frequently misdiagnosed, she added.
“Other data suggest that only about a quarter of people with episodic migraine and under 5% of people with chronic migraine consult a clinician, receive an accurate diagnosis, and are prescribed appropriate therapy,” said Dr. Nahas.
When the data in this analysis were gathered, public awareness of migraine was much lower than it is today, and injectable migraine therapies had not gained broad acceptance, she noted. Dr. Nahas added it is possible that attitudes toward injectable preventive medications have changed.
“Would people still prefer daily oral medications? We can’t know for sure until we start asking,” she said. In addition, scientific advances and educational outreach have increased clinicians’ awareness, interest, and skill regarding injectable medications, she said.
“I would certainly hope to see that a much greater proportion of preventive-eligible persons with migraine were at least offered, if not currently taking, preventive medication,” said Dr. Nahas. “But there’s no pleasing everyone, so I think we would still see somewhat disheartening discontinuation rates. The reasons for discontinuation, however, might be less typified by concerns about safety and tolerability.”
Still relevant
Commenting on the study, Mia Tova Minen, MD, chief of headache research and associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, noted that although CaMEO is an older study, its results are still highly relevant.
“Unfortunately, primary care providers are still uncomfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications, and this accounts for the large percentage [of patients] with migraine who, while eligible for migraine preventive therapy, are not offered it,” she said.
Although the public and primary care physicians are now more aware of preventive treatments for migraine, “the number of people offered migraine preventive medication still needs to increase dramatically,” said Dr. Minen.
The American Academy of Neurology’s guidelines for migraine prevention were published in 2012 and are currently being updated. The updated guidelines may include new evidence for candesartan and emerging treatments, such as melatonin and aerobic exercise.
“It is my hope that primary care providers will become more comfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications sooner,” said Dr. Minen.
The current findings suggest a need for additional ways of educating patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapies so that they can advocate for themselves, she added. They also suggest the idea of demanding more insurance coverage of behavioral therapies for migraine, because data indicate that these treatments have long-term efficacy and good safety profiles, said Dr. Minen.
An ‘invisible’ disorder
Also commenting on the study, Barbara L. Nye, MD, director of the headache fellowship and codirector of the headache clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said the CaMEO cohort likely is representative of the general population of patients with migraine.
She noted that a significant weakness of the current study is that it examined data collected before the Food and Drug Administration approved monoclonal antibodies and therefore does not reflect patients’ current experience with medications.
“I believe that the attitudes and fears surrounding the use of injectable medication are now likely far less than previously reported, given the positive track record the new generation of once-a-month injectable medications has,” said Dr. Nye.
The findings reinforce the idea that either patients are not talking to their primary care physicians about their headaches and disability or that clinicians are not asking about them, she added. “Both issues are likely linked to the stigma that this disease state has surrounding it. This is an invisible neurological disorder to most,” Dr. Nye said.
The study was sponsored by Allergan before it was acquired by AbbVie. Dr. Nahas has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker for AbbVie/Allergan, Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel, Nesos Corp, Supernus, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano. She has not received and will not receive monetary compensation for this research. Dr. Minen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. Investigators found that among patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapy, more than a third were not offered this option. In addition, fewer than 10% were currently taking preventive medication, and an additional 10% had discontinued preventive therapy.
“We confirmed that as of 2012 to 2013 – the years these data were collected from a large, comprehensive survey – gaps in care remained,” said study investigator Stephanie J. Nahas, MD, director of the headache medicine fellowship program, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “In this preventive-eligible population, 35% reported never even being offered preventive medication.”
Furthermore, only 28% of patients taking preventive medication experienced a reduction in headache frequency to less than 4 days per month, which is a primary goal of treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Disease burden, as measured with scales of disability and affective comorbidities, remained substantial.
The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Lack of efficacy?
In 2019, the American Headache Society published a position statement recommending that preventive treatment be considered for patients who have migraine and four or more monthly headache days (MHDs), regardless of their level of associated disability. However, previous data suggest few patients who are eligible for preventive treatment receive it. In addition, many who have used preventive medications do not adhere to their regimens because of problems with tolerability, efficacy, or both.
To identify treatment gaps and characterize self-reported use of preventive medications for migraine, the investigators examined data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a web-based survey conducted in a representative U.S. sample from September 2012 through November 2013.
The survey identified and characterized patients who met modified criteria for migraine consistent with those in ICHD-3. The researchers classified respondents who had migraine and four or more MHDs as potentially eligible for migraine preventive treatment.
The investigators assessed the study population’s use of oral preventive medications, migraine-related disability and burden, willingness to take preventive treatment, and reasons for discontinuation.
Assessments included the Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 for depression, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, the Migraine Specific Quality of Life questionnaire, and the Migraine Symptom Severity Scale.
In all, 16,789 respondents met criteria for migraine, and 6,579 (39.2%) reported having at least four MHDs. The median age of this subgroup that was eligible for preventive treatment was 40.3 years, and approximately 79% were women.
Only 9.8% of respondents who were eligible for preventive medications were currently using an oral preventive medication. Among those who had ever tried an oral preventive medication, 53.6% discontinued it. Efficacy for patients who used medications appeared to be inadequate. Among all current users of preventive treatment, 68.4% continued to have at least four MHDs.
The researchers assessed treatment eligibility among patients not taking preventive medication. Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 35.7% were eligible to receive it. Among all users who had discontinued preventive medication, 61.0% were still eligible to receive it.
Attitudes toward injectables
Among respondents who had never used a preventive treatment, 64.3% had zero to three MHDs. The remaining 35.7% had 4-7, 8-14, or 15 or more MHDs. Among current users of preventive treatments, 68.4% had four or more MHDs. Among those who had discontinued preventive treatment, 61.0% had four or more MHDs.
Patients who have never used preventive medication “have substantial management gaps,” said Dr. Nahas. High proportions of these patients have moderate or severe disability (64.7%), depression (43%), and anxiety (39%). The rates of these outcomes are higher in users who discontinued treatment, likely because of confounding by indication, she added.
The prevalence of anxiety was similar between those who currently used, formerly used, or never used preventive medications. However, there were differences between never-users and current or former users with respect to moderate to severe depression (never-users, 43%; current users, 49.4%; discontinued users, 46.5%) and moderate to severe disability (never-users, 64.7%; current users, 80.4%; discontinued users, 78.9%).
In all, 44.6% of those who discontinued preventive therapy reported safety and tolerability problems as reasons for stopping treatment. In addition, 39.7% reported that these medications did not prevent enough headaches. Some patients reported partial or temporary efficacy as a reason for discontinuation. Other reasons were related to health care costs and access and personal preferences. Only 9.2% of patients who discontinued treatment said that their headaches improved enough to stop medication.
The investigators also analyzed respondents’ interest in preventive therapies. Among respondents who had never used preventive therapies, 61.8% of those who were eligible to use them were somewhat or very interested in trying an oral prescription medication for migraine prevention. However, 59.1% of never-users who were eligible for preventive medications were not at all interested, not sure, or needed more information about trying an injectable preventive medication. About 40% were not at all interested in injectables. In general, current users and those who had discontinued medication were more interested in preventive medication, including injectables.
‘Disheartening’ discontinuation rates
There are likely multiple reasons for the low rate of migraine prevention treatment, said Dr. Nahas. Many people with migraine never consult a clinician, owing to factors such as stigma, cost, lack of access, and lack of awareness. In addition, patients with migraine are frequently misdiagnosed, she added.
“Other data suggest that only about a quarter of people with episodic migraine and under 5% of people with chronic migraine consult a clinician, receive an accurate diagnosis, and are prescribed appropriate therapy,” said Dr. Nahas.
When the data in this analysis were gathered, public awareness of migraine was much lower than it is today, and injectable migraine therapies had not gained broad acceptance, she noted. Dr. Nahas added it is possible that attitudes toward injectable preventive medications have changed.
“Would people still prefer daily oral medications? We can’t know for sure until we start asking,” she said. In addition, scientific advances and educational outreach have increased clinicians’ awareness, interest, and skill regarding injectable medications, she said.
“I would certainly hope to see that a much greater proportion of preventive-eligible persons with migraine were at least offered, if not currently taking, preventive medication,” said Dr. Nahas. “But there’s no pleasing everyone, so I think we would still see somewhat disheartening discontinuation rates. The reasons for discontinuation, however, might be less typified by concerns about safety and tolerability.”
Still relevant
Commenting on the study, Mia Tova Minen, MD, chief of headache research and associate professor of neurology and population health at NYU Langone Health, New York, noted that although CaMEO is an older study, its results are still highly relevant.
“Unfortunately, primary care providers are still uncomfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications, and this accounts for the large percentage [of patients] with migraine who, while eligible for migraine preventive therapy, are not offered it,” she said.
Although the public and primary care physicians are now more aware of preventive treatments for migraine, “the number of people offered migraine preventive medication still needs to increase dramatically,” said Dr. Minen.
The American Academy of Neurology’s guidelines for migraine prevention were published in 2012 and are currently being updated. The updated guidelines may include new evidence for candesartan and emerging treatments, such as melatonin and aerobic exercise.
“It is my hope that primary care providers will become more comfortable prescribing migraine preventive medications sooner,” said Dr. Minen.
The current findings suggest a need for additional ways of educating patients with migraine who are eligible for preventive therapies so that they can advocate for themselves, she added. They also suggest the idea of demanding more insurance coverage of behavioral therapies for migraine, because data indicate that these treatments have long-term efficacy and good safety profiles, said Dr. Minen.
An ‘invisible’ disorder
Also commenting on the study, Barbara L. Nye, MD, director of the headache fellowship and codirector of the headache clinic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said the CaMEO cohort likely is representative of the general population of patients with migraine.
She noted that a significant weakness of the current study is that it examined data collected before the Food and Drug Administration approved monoclonal antibodies and therefore does not reflect patients’ current experience with medications.
“I believe that the attitudes and fears surrounding the use of injectable medication are now likely far less than previously reported, given the positive track record the new generation of once-a-month injectable medications has,” said Dr. Nye.
The findings reinforce the idea that either patients are not talking to their primary care physicians about their headaches and disability or that clinicians are not asking about them, she added. “Both issues are likely linked to the stigma that this disease state has surrounding it. This is an invisible neurological disorder to most,” Dr. Nye said.
The study was sponsored by Allergan before it was acquired by AbbVie. Dr. Nahas has served as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker for AbbVie/Allergan, Alder/Lundbeck, Amgen/Novartis, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Impel, Nesos Corp, Supernus, Teva, Theranica, and Zosano. She has not received and will not receive monetary compensation for this research. Dr. Minen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2021
Almost half of patients with migraine are reluctant to seek care
, new research shows. A survey of nearly 18,000 participants with migraine showed that 46% were reluctant to consult a physician about their condition. Among those who hesitated, 58% ultimately consulted a physician, but 42% did not.
Common reasons for failure to seek treatment included believing that migraine was not severe enough to warrant a consultation, worries about cost and health insurance, and concern that the health care professional would not take the disorder seriously.
This is the first study to query patients with migraine regarding whether and why they have hesitated to seek care, said coinvestigator Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic sciences and director of the division of headache medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Previous studies have noted differences in care seeking by demographic or other distinguishing characteristics but have not asked people with migraine whether they actually intended to seek or not seek such care,” he said.
Dr. Shapiro presented the findings at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Delays prevent diagnosis and care
For patients with migraine, hesitating to consult a physician causes delays in, and sometimes prevents, receiving a diagnosis and appropriate care.
To assess the proportion of patients who hesitate to seek a consultation for migraine care, as well as reasons for doing so, the investigators examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study. OVERCOME incorporated a prospective web-based survey that was administered to a representative sample of 41,925 individuals in the United States.
Eligible participants who completed the study’s baseline assessment had had at least one migraine attack in the previous year and either met criteria for migraine on the basis of a validated diagnostic screen or provided a self-report of a migraine diagnosis by a health care practitioner. In all, 39,494 participants reported whether they had hesitated to seek a consultation from a physician for migraine care. Of these, 17,951 were included in the analysis.
Among the 46% who hesitated to seek care, 58% ultimately sought migraine care, and 42% did not.
The investigators also examined sociodemographic characteristics and migraine-related data, including the number of monthly headache days and information regarding nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.
Patient-reported outcomes included days with migraine-related disability during the past 3 months, treatment optimization, and the degree to which migraine limited regular activities. Investigators also examined participants’ health care use in the previous 12 months and reasons for hesitating to seek migraine care.
Reasons for hesitancy
A total of 17,920 participants provided reasons for hesitating to seek a migraine consultation. These included a desire to take care of migraine attacks on one’s own (45%), the belief that migraine would not be taken seriously (35%), the belief that the migraine attacks were not serious or painful enough (29%), inability to afford or unwillingness to spend money on care (29%), lack of or inadequate health insurance (21%), and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (19%).
Reasons for hesitation differed between participants who ultimately sought a consultation with a physician and those who did not. Those who did not receive a consultation (n = 7,495) were more likely to want to take care of the migraine attacks on their own (48% vs. 43%) and to believe the attacks were not serious or painful enough (36% vs. 25%).
Participants who hesitated but later sought a consultation were more likely to report concerns that migraine would not be taken seriously (38% vs. 31%) and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (22% vs. 15%).
Among those who did not seek a consultation versus those who did, a significantly higher proportion were women (76% vs. 73%; P < .001).
“This is an interesting finding, since prior studies have indicated that, overall, women with migraine are more likely to have consulted a doctor for it – and also more likely to have been diagnosed with it,” Dr. Shapiro said.
On the other hand, women were 30% more likely to visit emergency departments or urgent care clinics for migraine care than men, he noted.
“These findings suggest some women may be experiencing particular barriers to receiving successful consultation care and that they may persistently hesitate to seek it,” said Dr. Shapiro. He noted that these barriers might be financial or attitudinal.
“Women are reported to be less likely to receive treatment for pain conditions, and furthermore, stigma toward migraine in particular may limit its perceived seriousness,” he said.
‘Equitable access’ needed
Those with full-time employment were significantly more likely to seek a migraine consultation than were those who were not employed full time (46% vs. 42%; P < .001). Patients who sought care were more likely to have health insurance (87% vs. 78%; P < .001).
Having health insurance (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), having previously received a migraine diagnosis (OR, 2.71), and degree of disability (severe vs. none: OR, 2.76; moderate vs. none: OR, 2.04) were associated with increased likelihood of seeking a migraine consultation among those who initially hesitated. Other factors included being male (OR, 1.49), having nausea (OR, 1.15), or being employed full time (OR, 1.24).
“Taken together, our findings suggest consultation rates may be limited by financial barriers and pervasive attitudes that migraine is either not serious or is untreatable,” said Dr. Shapiro. Consistent with this hypothesis is the finding that individuals with migraine who had received an appropriate diagnosis and were therefore better informed about the condition were more likely to continue to seek care for it, he noted.
Because most outpatient medical encounters for migraine are with primary care practitioners, it may make sense to ensure that such clinicians are “well trained in diagnosing and treating common presentations of migraine,” Dr. Shapiro said. It is equally important to ensure “equitable access to health insurance to pay for these consultations,” he added.
‘Take migraine more seriously’
Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the study was well designed.
Potential weaknesses include the fact that patients were required only to have one migraine attack per year and that not all were diagnosed by a headache specialist using ICHD-3 criteria.
Still, “online, validated, patient-reported data is quite acceptable,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research.
He noted that there is a clear message from the findings for all physicians who see patients with headache disorders: “You will increase the chance of patients consulting and continuing to consult when you make an accurate migraine diagnosis, take migraine more seriously, and understand the stigmas attached to it – and when there are reduced institutional barriers and costs of health care.”
The findings suggest that neurologists should strive to provide patients with ongoing care and medication, he added. In addition, there is a need for further education about the stigma associated with migraine and about how others view this disabling disease, Dr. Rapoport concluded.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Rapoport has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows. A survey of nearly 18,000 participants with migraine showed that 46% were reluctant to consult a physician about their condition. Among those who hesitated, 58% ultimately consulted a physician, but 42% did not.
Common reasons for failure to seek treatment included believing that migraine was not severe enough to warrant a consultation, worries about cost and health insurance, and concern that the health care professional would not take the disorder seriously.
This is the first study to query patients with migraine regarding whether and why they have hesitated to seek care, said coinvestigator Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic sciences and director of the division of headache medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Previous studies have noted differences in care seeking by demographic or other distinguishing characteristics but have not asked people with migraine whether they actually intended to seek or not seek such care,” he said.
Dr. Shapiro presented the findings at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Delays prevent diagnosis and care
For patients with migraine, hesitating to consult a physician causes delays in, and sometimes prevents, receiving a diagnosis and appropriate care.
To assess the proportion of patients who hesitate to seek a consultation for migraine care, as well as reasons for doing so, the investigators examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study. OVERCOME incorporated a prospective web-based survey that was administered to a representative sample of 41,925 individuals in the United States.
Eligible participants who completed the study’s baseline assessment had had at least one migraine attack in the previous year and either met criteria for migraine on the basis of a validated diagnostic screen or provided a self-report of a migraine diagnosis by a health care practitioner. In all, 39,494 participants reported whether they had hesitated to seek a consultation from a physician for migraine care. Of these, 17,951 were included in the analysis.
Among the 46% who hesitated to seek care, 58% ultimately sought migraine care, and 42% did not.
The investigators also examined sociodemographic characteristics and migraine-related data, including the number of monthly headache days and information regarding nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.
Patient-reported outcomes included days with migraine-related disability during the past 3 months, treatment optimization, and the degree to which migraine limited regular activities. Investigators also examined participants’ health care use in the previous 12 months and reasons for hesitating to seek migraine care.
Reasons for hesitancy
A total of 17,920 participants provided reasons for hesitating to seek a migraine consultation. These included a desire to take care of migraine attacks on one’s own (45%), the belief that migraine would not be taken seriously (35%), the belief that the migraine attacks were not serious or painful enough (29%), inability to afford or unwillingness to spend money on care (29%), lack of or inadequate health insurance (21%), and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (19%).
Reasons for hesitation differed between participants who ultimately sought a consultation with a physician and those who did not. Those who did not receive a consultation (n = 7,495) were more likely to want to take care of the migraine attacks on their own (48% vs. 43%) and to believe the attacks were not serious or painful enough (36% vs. 25%).
Participants who hesitated but later sought a consultation were more likely to report concerns that migraine would not be taken seriously (38% vs. 31%) and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (22% vs. 15%).
Among those who did not seek a consultation versus those who did, a significantly higher proportion were women (76% vs. 73%; P < .001).
“This is an interesting finding, since prior studies have indicated that, overall, women with migraine are more likely to have consulted a doctor for it – and also more likely to have been diagnosed with it,” Dr. Shapiro said.
On the other hand, women were 30% more likely to visit emergency departments or urgent care clinics for migraine care than men, he noted.
“These findings suggest some women may be experiencing particular barriers to receiving successful consultation care and that they may persistently hesitate to seek it,” said Dr. Shapiro. He noted that these barriers might be financial or attitudinal.
“Women are reported to be less likely to receive treatment for pain conditions, and furthermore, stigma toward migraine in particular may limit its perceived seriousness,” he said.
‘Equitable access’ needed
Those with full-time employment were significantly more likely to seek a migraine consultation than were those who were not employed full time (46% vs. 42%; P < .001). Patients who sought care were more likely to have health insurance (87% vs. 78%; P < .001).
Having health insurance (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), having previously received a migraine diagnosis (OR, 2.71), and degree of disability (severe vs. none: OR, 2.76; moderate vs. none: OR, 2.04) were associated with increased likelihood of seeking a migraine consultation among those who initially hesitated. Other factors included being male (OR, 1.49), having nausea (OR, 1.15), or being employed full time (OR, 1.24).
“Taken together, our findings suggest consultation rates may be limited by financial barriers and pervasive attitudes that migraine is either not serious or is untreatable,” said Dr. Shapiro. Consistent with this hypothesis is the finding that individuals with migraine who had received an appropriate diagnosis and were therefore better informed about the condition were more likely to continue to seek care for it, he noted.
Because most outpatient medical encounters for migraine are with primary care practitioners, it may make sense to ensure that such clinicians are “well trained in diagnosing and treating common presentations of migraine,” Dr. Shapiro said. It is equally important to ensure “equitable access to health insurance to pay for these consultations,” he added.
‘Take migraine more seriously’
Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the study was well designed.
Potential weaknesses include the fact that patients were required only to have one migraine attack per year and that not all were diagnosed by a headache specialist using ICHD-3 criteria.
Still, “online, validated, patient-reported data is quite acceptable,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research.
He noted that there is a clear message from the findings for all physicians who see patients with headache disorders: “You will increase the chance of patients consulting and continuing to consult when you make an accurate migraine diagnosis, take migraine more seriously, and understand the stigmas attached to it – and when there are reduced institutional barriers and costs of health care.”
The findings suggest that neurologists should strive to provide patients with ongoing care and medication, he added. In addition, there is a need for further education about the stigma associated with migraine and about how others view this disabling disease, Dr. Rapoport concluded.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Rapoport has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows. A survey of nearly 18,000 participants with migraine showed that 46% were reluctant to consult a physician about their condition. Among those who hesitated, 58% ultimately consulted a physician, but 42% did not.
Common reasons for failure to seek treatment included believing that migraine was not severe enough to warrant a consultation, worries about cost and health insurance, and concern that the health care professional would not take the disorder seriously.
This is the first study to query patients with migraine regarding whether and why they have hesitated to seek care, said coinvestigator Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurologic sciences and director of the division of headache medicine at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Previous studies have noted differences in care seeking by demographic or other distinguishing characteristics but have not asked people with migraine whether they actually intended to seek or not seek such care,” he said.
Dr. Shapiro presented the findings at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
Delays prevent diagnosis and care
For patients with migraine, hesitating to consult a physician causes delays in, and sometimes prevents, receiving a diagnosis and appropriate care.
To assess the proportion of patients who hesitate to seek a consultation for migraine care, as well as reasons for doing so, the investigators examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study. OVERCOME incorporated a prospective web-based survey that was administered to a representative sample of 41,925 individuals in the United States.
Eligible participants who completed the study’s baseline assessment had had at least one migraine attack in the previous year and either met criteria for migraine on the basis of a validated diagnostic screen or provided a self-report of a migraine diagnosis by a health care practitioner. In all, 39,494 participants reported whether they had hesitated to seek a consultation from a physician for migraine care. Of these, 17,951 were included in the analysis.
Among the 46% who hesitated to seek care, 58% ultimately sought migraine care, and 42% did not.
The investigators also examined sociodemographic characteristics and migraine-related data, including the number of monthly headache days and information regarding nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia.
Patient-reported outcomes included days with migraine-related disability during the past 3 months, treatment optimization, and the degree to which migraine limited regular activities. Investigators also examined participants’ health care use in the previous 12 months and reasons for hesitating to seek migraine care.
Reasons for hesitancy
A total of 17,920 participants provided reasons for hesitating to seek a migraine consultation. These included a desire to take care of migraine attacks on one’s own (45%), the belief that migraine would not be taken seriously (35%), the belief that the migraine attacks were not serious or painful enough (29%), inability to afford or unwillingness to spend money on care (29%), lack of or inadequate health insurance (21%), and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (19%).
Reasons for hesitation differed between participants who ultimately sought a consultation with a physician and those who did not. Those who did not receive a consultation (n = 7,495) were more likely to want to take care of the migraine attacks on their own (48% vs. 43%) and to believe the attacks were not serious or painful enough (36% vs. 25%).
Participants who hesitated but later sought a consultation were more likely to report concerns that migraine would not be taken seriously (38% vs. 31%) and fear of receiving a serious diagnosis (22% vs. 15%).
Among those who did not seek a consultation versus those who did, a significantly higher proportion were women (76% vs. 73%; P < .001).
“This is an interesting finding, since prior studies have indicated that, overall, women with migraine are more likely to have consulted a doctor for it – and also more likely to have been diagnosed with it,” Dr. Shapiro said.
On the other hand, women were 30% more likely to visit emergency departments or urgent care clinics for migraine care than men, he noted.
“These findings suggest some women may be experiencing particular barriers to receiving successful consultation care and that they may persistently hesitate to seek it,” said Dr. Shapiro. He noted that these barriers might be financial or attitudinal.
“Women are reported to be less likely to receive treatment for pain conditions, and furthermore, stigma toward migraine in particular may limit its perceived seriousness,” he said.
‘Equitable access’ needed
Those with full-time employment were significantly more likely to seek a migraine consultation than were those who were not employed full time (46% vs. 42%; P < .001). Patients who sought care were more likely to have health insurance (87% vs. 78%; P < .001).
Having health insurance (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), having previously received a migraine diagnosis (OR, 2.71), and degree of disability (severe vs. none: OR, 2.76; moderate vs. none: OR, 2.04) were associated with increased likelihood of seeking a migraine consultation among those who initially hesitated. Other factors included being male (OR, 1.49), having nausea (OR, 1.15), or being employed full time (OR, 1.24).
“Taken together, our findings suggest consultation rates may be limited by financial barriers and pervasive attitudes that migraine is either not serious or is untreatable,” said Dr. Shapiro. Consistent with this hypothesis is the finding that individuals with migraine who had received an appropriate diagnosis and were therefore better informed about the condition were more likely to continue to seek care for it, he noted.
Because most outpatient medical encounters for migraine are with primary care practitioners, it may make sense to ensure that such clinicians are “well trained in diagnosing and treating common presentations of migraine,” Dr. Shapiro said. It is equally important to ensure “equitable access to health insurance to pay for these consultations,” he added.
‘Take migraine more seriously’
Commenting on the findings, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the study was well designed.
Potential weaknesses include the fact that patients were required only to have one migraine attack per year and that not all were diagnosed by a headache specialist using ICHD-3 criteria.
Still, “online, validated, patient-reported data is quite acceptable,” said Dr. Rapoport, who was not involved in the research.
He noted that there is a clear message from the findings for all physicians who see patients with headache disorders: “You will increase the chance of patients consulting and continuing to consult when you make an accurate migraine diagnosis, take migraine more seriously, and understand the stigmas attached to it – and when there are reduced institutional barriers and costs of health care.”
The findings suggest that neurologists should strive to provide patients with ongoing care and medication, he added. In addition, there is a need for further education about the stigma associated with migraine and about how others view this disabling disease, Dr. Rapoport concluded.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Rapoport has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2021
A new biomarker of traumatic brain injury?
, new research suggests. “Reliable detection of this biomarker at very early time points may allow for prompt TBI detection and therefore intervention,” said study investigator Rachel Elizabeth Thomas, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, while presenting study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
“The level reflects the degree of severity and provides some degree of prognostic information,” she added.
A specific marker of acute injury?
Von Willebrand factor is a glycoprotein released in the endothelium in response to local trauma. It plays a part in hemostasis and inflammation and is an indicator of traumatic microvascular injury. Research has shown that it is a biomarker of cerebrovascular pathology. In addition, increased expression of the factor is associated with vascular and neurodegenerative dementia.
The researchers examined whether von Willebrand factor is a biomarker of mild, repetitive TBI. They measured plasma levels of von Willebrand factor in 17 professional boxers before and after boxing bouts.
Eligible participants were between the ages of 18 and 35 years. They had a score of greater than or equal to 1 on the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ-3), had competed in at least three 3-minute bouts, and had withstood 25 or more blows to the head.
The investigators compared the plasma levels of von Willebrand factor of the boxers with those of 42 patients who presented to the University of Pennsylvania Trauma Center with TBI and with those of 23 uninjured control persons.
There was no significant difference in plasma levels of von Willebrand factor between boxers before the bout (13.15 µg/mL) and the control persons (6.16 µg/mL). Among the boxers, levels of von Willebrand factor increased by a factor of 1.8 within 30 minutes after bouts, compared with the levels among the control persons. The mean post-bout von Willebrand factor level was 25.09 µg/mL.
“Von Willebrand factor may be more specific for acute injuries, given that it does not seem to stay chronically elevated,” said Dr. Thomas.
In addition, the researchers found a significant positive correlation (r = 0.51; P = .03) between the fold change in plasma von Willebrand factor levels and the number of blows to the head that the athletes sustained.
They also found a significant positive correlation between fold change in von Willebrand factor and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.69; P = .002). These objective and subjective data suggest that levels of von Willebrand factor reflect injury severity, said Dr. Thomas.
Among patients hospitalized with TBI, levels of von Willebrand factor were significantly higher than among control persons (73.2 µg/mL vs. 40.8 µg/mL; P < .0009). The investigators found a linear correlation between plasma von Willebrand factor level and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.24) that was not statistically significant.
Levels of von Willebrand factor among patients hospitalized with TBI were higher on average and demonstrated a greater degree of variability than the levels among boxers immediately after a bout.
“This is not unexpected, given that this group represents a more heterogeneous population with varied forms of acute blunt injury, as compared to the boxers, who have undergone relatively repetitive, milder trauma,” Dr. Thomas said.
The traditional biomarkers of neurotrauma reflect neuronal and glial injury, whereas von Willebrand factor is an indicator of vascular trauma.
“Although on its own, von Willebrand factor is not specific to intracranial vascular injury, paired together with markers such as neurofilament light, GFAP [glial fibrillary acidic protein], and tau, it could be utilized to identify TBI-associated microvascular injury and thus delineate between specific TBI endophenotypes,” said Dr. Thomas. It could distinguish, for example, predominantly neuronal injury from predominantly vascular injury.
Because von Willebrand factor plays a role in the neurovascular unit and is a marker of microvascular injury, the investigators intend to pair measurements of plasma von Willebrand factor with advanced imaging techniques to evaluate cerebral blood flow or cerebrovascular reactivity. Such a study could help determine whether von Willebrand factor levels correlate with the degree of vascular injury and cerebrovascular dysregulation.
Point-of-care test?
Commenting on the findings, Kristine O’Phelan, MD, professor of clinical neurology and director of neurocritical care in the department of neurology at the University of Miami, said von Willebrand factor’s likely utility would be as a marker of injury in patients with mild TBI or sports-related concussion.
Imaging and clinical exams do not always reveal these injuries, Dr. O’Phelan added. “Having a biomarker that you can easily test in the blood would be extremely helpful,” she said.
The most exciting part of this study is that it indicates the potential to develop a point-of-care test for use on the athletic field or the battlefield for early detection of mild TBI, she added.
The fact that the test for von Willebrand factor has already been developed is an advantage, said Dr. O’Phelan. The normal and abnormal values of the test are clearly understood. “I do think that they will still need to calibrate it for head injury, because that’s not usually what the test is used for,” said Dr. O’Phelan.
One of the study’s strengths is that the investigators compared patients with TBI with control persons who had exercised, she added, because such a comparison helps clarify the biomarker’s relationship to the injury. Another strength is the application of the test to injuries of various types and of different degrees of severity.
But the biomarker will need to be tested in a larger population, said Dr. O’Phelan. In addition, there is a need to identify the right patient population for this test, as well as the best time frame for its application and potential factors that could confound the test results.
“I do worry a little bit about using early biomarkers for prognosis, particularly in severe TBI, because there’s so many variables that go into outcome,” said Dr. O’Phelan. This test likely would be administered in the first hours after injury, but many factors might affect patients’ outcomes, she added.
One influential factor is age. “If you have a von Willebrand factor of whatever number, that might have different importance in a 30-year-old than in an 80-year-old,” said Dr. O’Phelan. “We need to understand how to interpret those findings better.”
The study was supported by the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Phelan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. “Reliable detection of this biomarker at very early time points may allow for prompt TBI detection and therefore intervention,” said study investigator Rachel Elizabeth Thomas, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, while presenting study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
“The level reflects the degree of severity and provides some degree of prognostic information,” she added.
A specific marker of acute injury?
Von Willebrand factor is a glycoprotein released in the endothelium in response to local trauma. It plays a part in hemostasis and inflammation and is an indicator of traumatic microvascular injury. Research has shown that it is a biomarker of cerebrovascular pathology. In addition, increased expression of the factor is associated with vascular and neurodegenerative dementia.
The researchers examined whether von Willebrand factor is a biomarker of mild, repetitive TBI. They measured plasma levels of von Willebrand factor in 17 professional boxers before and after boxing bouts.
Eligible participants were between the ages of 18 and 35 years. They had a score of greater than or equal to 1 on the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ-3), had competed in at least three 3-minute bouts, and had withstood 25 or more blows to the head.
The investigators compared the plasma levels of von Willebrand factor of the boxers with those of 42 patients who presented to the University of Pennsylvania Trauma Center with TBI and with those of 23 uninjured control persons.
There was no significant difference in plasma levels of von Willebrand factor between boxers before the bout (13.15 µg/mL) and the control persons (6.16 µg/mL). Among the boxers, levels of von Willebrand factor increased by a factor of 1.8 within 30 minutes after bouts, compared with the levels among the control persons. The mean post-bout von Willebrand factor level was 25.09 µg/mL.
“Von Willebrand factor may be more specific for acute injuries, given that it does not seem to stay chronically elevated,” said Dr. Thomas.
In addition, the researchers found a significant positive correlation (r = 0.51; P = .03) between the fold change in plasma von Willebrand factor levels and the number of blows to the head that the athletes sustained.
They also found a significant positive correlation between fold change in von Willebrand factor and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.69; P = .002). These objective and subjective data suggest that levels of von Willebrand factor reflect injury severity, said Dr. Thomas.
Among patients hospitalized with TBI, levels of von Willebrand factor were significantly higher than among control persons (73.2 µg/mL vs. 40.8 µg/mL; P < .0009). The investigators found a linear correlation between plasma von Willebrand factor level and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.24) that was not statistically significant.
Levels of von Willebrand factor among patients hospitalized with TBI were higher on average and demonstrated a greater degree of variability than the levels among boxers immediately after a bout.
“This is not unexpected, given that this group represents a more heterogeneous population with varied forms of acute blunt injury, as compared to the boxers, who have undergone relatively repetitive, milder trauma,” Dr. Thomas said.
The traditional biomarkers of neurotrauma reflect neuronal and glial injury, whereas von Willebrand factor is an indicator of vascular trauma.
“Although on its own, von Willebrand factor is not specific to intracranial vascular injury, paired together with markers such as neurofilament light, GFAP [glial fibrillary acidic protein], and tau, it could be utilized to identify TBI-associated microvascular injury and thus delineate between specific TBI endophenotypes,” said Dr. Thomas. It could distinguish, for example, predominantly neuronal injury from predominantly vascular injury.
Because von Willebrand factor plays a role in the neurovascular unit and is a marker of microvascular injury, the investigators intend to pair measurements of plasma von Willebrand factor with advanced imaging techniques to evaluate cerebral blood flow or cerebrovascular reactivity. Such a study could help determine whether von Willebrand factor levels correlate with the degree of vascular injury and cerebrovascular dysregulation.
Point-of-care test?
Commenting on the findings, Kristine O’Phelan, MD, professor of clinical neurology and director of neurocritical care in the department of neurology at the University of Miami, said von Willebrand factor’s likely utility would be as a marker of injury in patients with mild TBI or sports-related concussion.
Imaging and clinical exams do not always reveal these injuries, Dr. O’Phelan added. “Having a biomarker that you can easily test in the blood would be extremely helpful,” she said.
The most exciting part of this study is that it indicates the potential to develop a point-of-care test for use on the athletic field or the battlefield for early detection of mild TBI, she added.
The fact that the test for von Willebrand factor has already been developed is an advantage, said Dr. O’Phelan. The normal and abnormal values of the test are clearly understood. “I do think that they will still need to calibrate it for head injury, because that’s not usually what the test is used for,” said Dr. O’Phelan.
One of the study’s strengths is that the investigators compared patients with TBI with control persons who had exercised, she added, because such a comparison helps clarify the biomarker’s relationship to the injury. Another strength is the application of the test to injuries of various types and of different degrees of severity.
But the biomarker will need to be tested in a larger population, said Dr. O’Phelan. In addition, there is a need to identify the right patient population for this test, as well as the best time frame for its application and potential factors that could confound the test results.
“I do worry a little bit about using early biomarkers for prognosis, particularly in severe TBI, because there’s so many variables that go into outcome,” said Dr. O’Phelan. This test likely would be administered in the first hours after injury, but many factors might affect patients’ outcomes, she added.
One influential factor is age. “If you have a von Willebrand factor of whatever number, that might have different importance in a 30-year-old than in an 80-year-old,” said Dr. O’Phelan. “We need to understand how to interpret those findings better.”
The study was supported by the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Phelan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. “Reliable detection of this biomarker at very early time points may allow for prompt TBI detection and therefore intervention,” said study investigator Rachel Elizabeth Thomas, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, while presenting study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
“The level reflects the degree of severity and provides some degree of prognostic information,” she added.
A specific marker of acute injury?
Von Willebrand factor is a glycoprotein released in the endothelium in response to local trauma. It plays a part in hemostasis and inflammation and is an indicator of traumatic microvascular injury. Research has shown that it is a biomarker of cerebrovascular pathology. In addition, increased expression of the factor is associated with vascular and neurodegenerative dementia.
The researchers examined whether von Willebrand factor is a biomarker of mild, repetitive TBI. They measured plasma levels of von Willebrand factor in 17 professional boxers before and after boxing bouts.
Eligible participants were between the ages of 18 and 35 years. They had a score of greater than or equal to 1 on the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ-3), had competed in at least three 3-minute bouts, and had withstood 25 or more blows to the head.
The investigators compared the plasma levels of von Willebrand factor of the boxers with those of 42 patients who presented to the University of Pennsylvania Trauma Center with TBI and with those of 23 uninjured control persons.
There was no significant difference in plasma levels of von Willebrand factor between boxers before the bout (13.15 µg/mL) and the control persons (6.16 µg/mL). Among the boxers, levels of von Willebrand factor increased by a factor of 1.8 within 30 minutes after bouts, compared with the levels among the control persons. The mean post-bout von Willebrand factor level was 25.09 µg/mL.
“Von Willebrand factor may be more specific for acute injuries, given that it does not seem to stay chronically elevated,” said Dr. Thomas.
In addition, the researchers found a significant positive correlation (r = 0.51; P = .03) between the fold change in plasma von Willebrand factor levels and the number of blows to the head that the athletes sustained.
They also found a significant positive correlation between fold change in von Willebrand factor and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.69; P = .002). These objective and subjective data suggest that levels of von Willebrand factor reflect injury severity, said Dr. Thomas.
Among patients hospitalized with TBI, levels of von Willebrand factor were significantly higher than among control persons (73.2 µg/mL vs. 40.8 µg/mL; P < .0009). The investigators found a linear correlation between plasma von Willebrand factor level and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.24) that was not statistically significant.
Levels of von Willebrand factor among patients hospitalized with TBI were higher on average and demonstrated a greater degree of variability than the levels among boxers immediately after a bout.
“This is not unexpected, given that this group represents a more heterogeneous population with varied forms of acute blunt injury, as compared to the boxers, who have undergone relatively repetitive, milder trauma,” Dr. Thomas said.
The traditional biomarkers of neurotrauma reflect neuronal and glial injury, whereas von Willebrand factor is an indicator of vascular trauma.
“Although on its own, von Willebrand factor is not specific to intracranial vascular injury, paired together with markers such as neurofilament light, GFAP [glial fibrillary acidic protein], and tau, it could be utilized to identify TBI-associated microvascular injury and thus delineate between specific TBI endophenotypes,” said Dr. Thomas. It could distinguish, for example, predominantly neuronal injury from predominantly vascular injury.
Because von Willebrand factor plays a role in the neurovascular unit and is a marker of microvascular injury, the investigators intend to pair measurements of plasma von Willebrand factor with advanced imaging techniques to evaluate cerebral blood flow or cerebrovascular reactivity. Such a study could help determine whether von Willebrand factor levels correlate with the degree of vascular injury and cerebrovascular dysregulation.
Point-of-care test?
Commenting on the findings, Kristine O’Phelan, MD, professor of clinical neurology and director of neurocritical care in the department of neurology at the University of Miami, said von Willebrand factor’s likely utility would be as a marker of injury in patients with mild TBI or sports-related concussion.
Imaging and clinical exams do not always reveal these injuries, Dr. O’Phelan added. “Having a biomarker that you can easily test in the blood would be extremely helpful,” she said.
The most exciting part of this study is that it indicates the potential to develop a point-of-care test for use on the athletic field or the battlefield for early detection of mild TBI, she added.
The fact that the test for von Willebrand factor has already been developed is an advantage, said Dr. O’Phelan. The normal and abnormal values of the test are clearly understood. “I do think that they will still need to calibrate it for head injury, because that’s not usually what the test is used for,” said Dr. O’Phelan.
One of the study’s strengths is that the investigators compared patients with TBI with control persons who had exercised, she added, because such a comparison helps clarify the biomarker’s relationship to the injury. Another strength is the application of the test to injuries of various types and of different degrees of severity.
But the biomarker will need to be tested in a larger population, said Dr. O’Phelan. In addition, there is a need to identify the right patient population for this test, as well as the best time frame for its application and potential factors that could confound the test results.
“I do worry a little bit about using early biomarkers for prognosis, particularly in severe TBI, because there’s so many variables that go into outcome,” said Dr. O’Phelan. This test likely would be administered in the first hours after injury, but many factors might affect patients’ outcomes, she added.
One influential factor is age. “If you have a von Willebrand factor of whatever number, that might have different importance in a 30-year-old than in an 80-year-old,” said Dr. O’Phelan. “We need to understand how to interpret those findings better.”
The study was supported by the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Phelan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From AAN 2021
NfL beats T-tau as a prognostic marker of cognitive decline
, new research suggests. In certain contexts, T-tau improves cross-sectional analyses of these outcomes, but adding T-tau measurements to NfL measurements does not improve the predictive power of NfL, results of a longitudinal analysis show.
“The major distinction, for cognition at least, was that NfL cross-sectionally was associated with most cognitive outcomes, and longitudinally, higher NfL at baseline was associated with cognitive decline in every domain,” said study investigator Jordan Marks, an MD/PhD student at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
New tool for dementia diagnosis?
In recent years, researchers have studied NfL and T-tau as potential blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration. In cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, NfL and T-tau have been associated with worse cognition and with neuroimaging measures of cortical thickness, cortical atrophy, white-matter hyperintensity, and white-matter integrity. However, no previous research has directly compared the prognostic ability of these two biomarkers.
The study included 995 participants without dementia in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. All participants underwent measurement of NfL and T-tau and assessment of cognitive status, as well as neuroimaging. The investigators measured NfL and T-tau on the Simoa HD-1 platform. They reexamined patients approximately every 15 months. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years.
To examine associations between baseline plasma NfL or T-tau and cognitive or neuroimaging outcomes, the researchers conducted data analyses using linear mixed effects models and adjusted the data for age, sex, and education. They replicated these analyses using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). For these analyses, they selected 387 participants without dementia who had been followed for a median of 3.0 years.
In all analyses, baseline plasma NfL was more strongly associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes than T-tau. “Baseline plasma NfL was associated with cognitive decline in all domains measured, while T-tau was not associated with cognitive decline,” said Mr. Marks.
Plasma NfL was more strongly associated with decreases in cortical thickness over time than T-tau was. NfL was also more strongly associated with declining hippocampal volume and white-matter changes.
However, in cross-sectional analysis, the combination of elevated NfL levels and elevated T-tau levels at baseline was more strongly associated with decreased global cognition and memory, compared with elevated NfL levels alone. The combination also was more strongly associated with neuroimaging measures, such as temporal cortex thickness and increased number of infarcts. However, in longitudinal analyses, T-tau did not add to the predictive value of NfL.
The analyses using ADNI data yielded similar results. Overall, the results suggest that NfL is a better prognostic marker of neurodegeneration in general, said Mr. Marks.
These findings, he said, may have implications for screening and diagnosis. “I’m definitely hopeful that NfL will be useful in a clinical setting to screen for those at risk of dementia and will be helpful, along with other modalities, like cognitive testing, for dementia diagnosis,” said Mr. Marks.
Future research should examine how changes in these biomarkers are associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes over time.
“We used plasma levels at one point in time in this study, but we need a better sense of how to interpret, for example, what a rise in plasma NfL over a certain time period means for someone’s risk of developing neurodegenerative disease,” Mr. Marks added.
An ‘exciting’ prospect
Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Memory and Cognition Program for Geisinger Health in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., said the findings add to neurologists’ ability to screen for brain diseases. “Evidence of neurodegeneration is part of the modern diagnosis of several disorders. While brain imaging can also provide that and may be needed for other reasons, this could provide an easy, potentially inexpensive way to screen for damage to the brain, giving us an added tool,” said Dr. Finney.
The prospect of using blood plasma markers to explore disease of the brain is exciting, Dr. Finney added. “I would like to see ongoing refinement of this approach and would like to see if there’s other markers in blood that could be used to find what specifically may be causing the damage,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, and the GHR Foundation. Mr. Marks and Dr. Finney have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. In certain contexts, T-tau improves cross-sectional analyses of these outcomes, but adding T-tau measurements to NfL measurements does not improve the predictive power of NfL, results of a longitudinal analysis show.
“The major distinction, for cognition at least, was that NfL cross-sectionally was associated with most cognitive outcomes, and longitudinally, higher NfL at baseline was associated with cognitive decline in every domain,” said study investigator Jordan Marks, an MD/PhD student at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
New tool for dementia diagnosis?
In recent years, researchers have studied NfL and T-tau as potential blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration. In cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, NfL and T-tau have been associated with worse cognition and with neuroimaging measures of cortical thickness, cortical atrophy, white-matter hyperintensity, and white-matter integrity. However, no previous research has directly compared the prognostic ability of these two biomarkers.
The study included 995 participants without dementia in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. All participants underwent measurement of NfL and T-tau and assessment of cognitive status, as well as neuroimaging. The investigators measured NfL and T-tau on the Simoa HD-1 platform. They reexamined patients approximately every 15 months. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years.
To examine associations between baseline plasma NfL or T-tau and cognitive or neuroimaging outcomes, the researchers conducted data analyses using linear mixed effects models and adjusted the data for age, sex, and education. They replicated these analyses using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). For these analyses, they selected 387 participants without dementia who had been followed for a median of 3.0 years.
In all analyses, baseline plasma NfL was more strongly associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes than T-tau. “Baseline plasma NfL was associated with cognitive decline in all domains measured, while T-tau was not associated with cognitive decline,” said Mr. Marks.
Plasma NfL was more strongly associated with decreases in cortical thickness over time than T-tau was. NfL was also more strongly associated with declining hippocampal volume and white-matter changes.
However, in cross-sectional analysis, the combination of elevated NfL levels and elevated T-tau levels at baseline was more strongly associated with decreased global cognition and memory, compared with elevated NfL levels alone. The combination also was more strongly associated with neuroimaging measures, such as temporal cortex thickness and increased number of infarcts. However, in longitudinal analyses, T-tau did not add to the predictive value of NfL.
The analyses using ADNI data yielded similar results. Overall, the results suggest that NfL is a better prognostic marker of neurodegeneration in general, said Mr. Marks.
These findings, he said, may have implications for screening and diagnosis. “I’m definitely hopeful that NfL will be useful in a clinical setting to screen for those at risk of dementia and will be helpful, along with other modalities, like cognitive testing, for dementia diagnosis,” said Mr. Marks.
Future research should examine how changes in these biomarkers are associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes over time.
“We used plasma levels at one point in time in this study, but we need a better sense of how to interpret, for example, what a rise in plasma NfL over a certain time period means for someone’s risk of developing neurodegenerative disease,” Mr. Marks added.
An ‘exciting’ prospect
Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Memory and Cognition Program for Geisinger Health in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., said the findings add to neurologists’ ability to screen for brain diseases. “Evidence of neurodegeneration is part of the modern diagnosis of several disorders. While brain imaging can also provide that and may be needed for other reasons, this could provide an easy, potentially inexpensive way to screen for damage to the brain, giving us an added tool,” said Dr. Finney.
The prospect of using blood plasma markers to explore disease of the brain is exciting, Dr. Finney added. “I would like to see ongoing refinement of this approach and would like to see if there’s other markers in blood that could be used to find what specifically may be causing the damage,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, and the GHR Foundation. Mr. Marks and Dr. Finney have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. In certain contexts, T-tau improves cross-sectional analyses of these outcomes, but adding T-tau measurements to NfL measurements does not improve the predictive power of NfL, results of a longitudinal analysis show.
“The major distinction, for cognition at least, was that NfL cross-sectionally was associated with most cognitive outcomes, and longitudinally, higher NfL at baseline was associated with cognitive decline in every domain,” said study investigator Jordan Marks, an MD/PhD student at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.
The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
New tool for dementia diagnosis?
In recent years, researchers have studied NfL and T-tau as potential blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration. In cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, NfL and T-tau have been associated with worse cognition and with neuroimaging measures of cortical thickness, cortical atrophy, white-matter hyperintensity, and white-matter integrity. However, no previous research has directly compared the prognostic ability of these two biomarkers.
The study included 995 participants without dementia in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. All participants underwent measurement of NfL and T-tau and assessment of cognitive status, as well as neuroimaging. The investigators measured NfL and T-tau on the Simoa HD-1 platform. They reexamined patients approximately every 15 months. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years.
To examine associations between baseline plasma NfL or T-tau and cognitive or neuroimaging outcomes, the researchers conducted data analyses using linear mixed effects models and adjusted the data for age, sex, and education. They replicated these analyses using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). For these analyses, they selected 387 participants without dementia who had been followed for a median of 3.0 years.
In all analyses, baseline plasma NfL was more strongly associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes than T-tau. “Baseline plasma NfL was associated with cognitive decline in all domains measured, while T-tau was not associated with cognitive decline,” said Mr. Marks.
Plasma NfL was more strongly associated with decreases in cortical thickness over time than T-tau was. NfL was also more strongly associated with declining hippocampal volume and white-matter changes.
However, in cross-sectional analysis, the combination of elevated NfL levels and elevated T-tau levels at baseline was more strongly associated with decreased global cognition and memory, compared with elevated NfL levels alone. The combination also was more strongly associated with neuroimaging measures, such as temporal cortex thickness and increased number of infarcts. However, in longitudinal analyses, T-tau did not add to the predictive value of NfL.
The analyses using ADNI data yielded similar results. Overall, the results suggest that NfL is a better prognostic marker of neurodegeneration in general, said Mr. Marks.
These findings, he said, may have implications for screening and diagnosis. “I’m definitely hopeful that NfL will be useful in a clinical setting to screen for those at risk of dementia and will be helpful, along with other modalities, like cognitive testing, for dementia diagnosis,” said Mr. Marks.
Future research should examine how changes in these biomarkers are associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes over time.
“We used plasma levels at one point in time in this study, but we need a better sense of how to interpret, for example, what a rise in plasma NfL over a certain time period means for someone’s risk of developing neurodegenerative disease,” Mr. Marks added.
An ‘exciting’ prospect
Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Memory and Cognition Program for Geisinger Health in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., said the findings add to neurologists’ ability to screen for brain diseases. “Evidence of neurodegeneration is part of the modern diagnosis of several disorders. While brain imaging can also provide that and may be needed for other reasons, this could provide an easy, potentially inexpensive way to screen for damage to the brain, giving us an added tool,” said Dr. Finney.
The prospect of using blood plasma markers to explore disease of the brain is exciting, Dr. Finney added. “I would like to see ongoing refinement of this approach and would like to see if there’s other markers in blood that could be used to find what specifically may be causing the damage,” he said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, and the GHR Foundation. Mr. Marks and Dr. Finney have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From AAN 2021
Investigational drug reduces brain lesions in highly active MS
new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.
The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.
The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
New drug class
BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.
Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.
Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.
The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.
Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.
At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.
The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.
The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
Good safety, tolerability
After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.
After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).
Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.
No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.
One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.
Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.
“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
Not an unmet need
Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.
“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.
Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.
In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.
“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.
Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.
The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.
The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
New drug class
BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.
Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.
Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.
The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.
Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.
At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.
The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.
The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
Good safety, tolerability
After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.
After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).
Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.
No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.
One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.
Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.
“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
Not an unmet need
Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.
“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.
Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.
In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.
“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.
Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.
The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.
The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
New drug class
BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.
Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.
Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.
The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.
Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.
At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.
The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.
The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
Good safety, tolerability
After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.
After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).
Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.
No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.
One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.
Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.
“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.
Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
Not an unmet need
Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.
“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.
Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.
In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.
“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.
Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2021
Infective endocarditis from IV drug use tied to hemorrhagic stroke
One consequence of the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States may be an increase in the number of hemorrhagic strokes caused by infective endocarditis, research suggests.
Intravenous drug use (IVDU) can cause this bacterial infection of the heart. In a single-center study, infective endocarditis was associated with an increase in the risk for hemorrhagic stroke as well as an increase in health care use and costs.
“Patients who are known IV drug users who have endocarditis should be more carefully screened for symptoms of cardiovascular disease,” Shahid M. Nimjee, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery and surgical director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in a press release.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
In the United States, 47,000 patients are treated in the hospital for endocarditis each year. Endocarditis increases the risk for stroke, which can entail significant morbidity and mortality, the authors noted.
IVDU is a risk factor for endocarditis. In the context of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Nimjee and colleagues sought to compare the risk for stroke among patients with endocarditis from IVDU with the risk among patients with endocarditis from other causes.
They retrospectively studied patients who had undergone treatment for infective endocarditis at Wexner Medical Center between Jan. 1, 2014, and July 1, 2018. They examined patients’ concomitant intravenous drug abuse and evaluated demographics, risk factors, and associated costs.
Dramatic increase
In all, 351 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria, and 170 (48%) had a history of IVDU-associated endocarditis. The incidence of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis increased 630% from 2014 to 2018.
The prevalence of overall intracranial hemorrhage was increased among patients with IVDU, compared with those without (25.9% vs. 13.9%; P = .005).
This increase in prevalence included increases in intraparenchymal hemorrhage (12.4% vs. 5.1%; P = .012), subarachnoid hemorrhage (17.6% vs. 4.4%; P = .0001), and cerebral microbleeds (14.1% vs. 7.2%; P = .022).
IVDU also was associated with an increase in prevalence of infectious intracranial aneurysm (10.6% vs. 1.8%; P = .0001) and brain abscess (4.7% vs. 1.1%; P = .025).
Compared with patients with endocarditis from other causes, significantly higher numbers of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis were homeless (5.9% vs. 1.1%; P = .014), uninsured (10.0% vs. 2.8%; P = .005), and unemployed (75.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .0001).
Medical costs were more than twice as high among patients with endocarditis from IVDU than among those with endocarditis from other causes. The difference in health care costs during admission per patient was more than $100,000.
“The wider societal impact of the opioid epidemic is not well understood,” Dr. Nimjee said in the press release. “Our research suggests that the impact of the opioid epidemic is far-reaching and contributes to increased costs in the criminal justice, health care systems, and the workplace. The increased costs can be particularly substantial for stroke care.”
Nationwide data desirable
“Past publications from the U.S. have shown an increase in incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, and the current publication emphasizes this worrying trend,” Manuel Bolognese, MD, head of the stroke center at the Lucerne (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital, said in an interview. “The higher degree of hemorrhagic strokes and brain abscesses as further complications is alarming as well and shows that IVDU-related endocarditis is becoming a more and more relevant medical problem in the U.S., with high morbidity and mortality.”
The study period is long enough to show a clear trend of increasing incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, Dr. Bolognese said. The study’s biggest weaknesses are its retrospective design and restriction to a single center.
“Without knowing the prevalence of drug abuse and the socioeconomical situation in Columbus, it is difficult to generalize these findings to other regions in the U.S.A. or even abroad,” he said.
Also, the abstract does not provide some essential information, said Dr. Bolognese. It would be important to know which valve was affected in each patient, which bacteria were identified, whether patients also used nonopioid drugs, and what each patient’s immune status was.
A lack of sterile material such as syringes could explain the apparent association between IVDU-associated endocarditis and low socioeconomic status, said Dr. Bolognese. Delayed presentation to medical institutions because of a lack of insurance could have led to a more complicated course.
“It would be interesting to see numbers from a broader spectrum in a nationwide registry,” said Dr. Bolognese. “It might be worth studying interventions to improve the hygienic aspects (like supply of sterile material, especially in the most vulnerable groups, like homeless people) or to provide easier access to emergency health care despite lack of insurance, which could decrease the incidence of IVDU.”
Dr. Nimjee and Dr. Bolognese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One consequence of the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States may be an increase in the number of hemorrhagic strokes caused by infective endocarditis, research suggests.
Intravenous drug use (IVDU) can cause this bacterial infection of the heart. In a single-center study, infective endocarditis was associated with an increase in the risk for hemorrhagic stroke as well as an increase in health care use and costs.
“Patients who are known IV drug users who have endocarditis should be more carefully screened for symptoms of cardiovascular disease,” Shahid M. Nimjee, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery and surgical director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in a press release.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
In the United States, 47,000 patients are treated in the hospital for endocarditis each year. Endocarditis increases the risk for stroke, which can entail significant morbidity and mortality, the authors noted.
IVDU is a risk factor for endocarditis. In the context of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Nimjee and colleagues sought to compare the risk for stroke among patients with endocarditis from IVDU with the risk among patients with endocarditis from other causes.
They retrospectively studied patients who had undergone treatment for infective endocarditis at Wexner Medical Center between Jan. 1, 2014, and July 1, 2018. They examined patients’ concomitant intravenous drug abuse and evaluated demographics, risk factors, and associated costs.
Dramatic increase
In all, 351 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria, and 170 (48%) had a history of IVDU-associated endocarditis. The incidence of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis increased 630% from 2014 to 2018.
The prevalence of overall intracranial hemorrhage was increased among patients with IVDU, compared with those without (25.9% vs. 13.9%; P = .005).
This increase in prevalence included increases in intraparenchymal hemorrhage (12.4% vs. 5.1%; P = .012), subarachnoid hemorrhage (17.6% vs. 4.4%; P = .0001), and cerebral microbleeds (14.1% vs. 7.2%; P = .022).
IVDU also was associated with an increase in prevalence of infectious intracranial aneurysm (10.6% vs. 1.8%; P = .0001) and brain abscess (4.7% vs. 1.1%; P = .025).
Compared with patients with endocarditis from other causes, significantly higher numbers of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis were homeless (5.9% vs. 1.1%; P = .014), uninsured (10.0% vs. 2.8%; P = .005), and unemployed (75.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .0001).
Medical costs were more than twice as high among patients with endocarditis from IVDU than among those with endocarditis from other causes. The difference in health care costs during admission per patient was more than $100,000.
“The wider societal impact of the opioid epidemic is not well understood,” Dr. Nimjee said in the press release. “Our research suggests that the impact of the opioid epidemic is far-reaching and contributes to increased costs in the criminal justice, health care systems, and the workplace. The increased costs can be particularly substantial for stroke care.”
Nationwide data desirable
“Past publications from the U.S. have shown an increase in incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, and the current publication emphasizes this worrying trend,” Manuel Bolognese, MD, head of the stroke center at the Lucerne (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital, said in an interview. “The higher degree of hemorrhagic strokes and brain abscesses as further complications is alarming as well and shows that IVDU-related endocarditis is becoming a more and more relevant medical problem in the U.S., with high morbidity and mortality.”
The study period is long enough to show a clear trend of increasing incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, Dr. Bolognese said. The study’s biggest weaknesses are its retrospective design and restriction to a single center.
“Without knowing the prevalence of drug abuse and the socioeconomical situation in Columbus, it is difficult to generalize these findings to other regions in the U.S.A. or even abroad,” he said.
Also, the abstract does not provide some essential information, said Dr. Bolognese. It would be important to know which valve was affected in each patient, which bacteria were identified, whether patients also used nonopioid drugs, and what each patient’s immune status was.
A lack of sterile material such as syringes could explain the apparent association between IVDU-associated endocarditis and low socioeconomic status, said Dr. Bolognese. Delayed presentation to medical institutions because of a lack of insurance could have led to a more complicated course.
“It would be interesting to see numbers from a broader spectrum in a nationwide registry,” said Dr. Bolognese. “It might be worth studying interventions to improve the hygienic aspects (like supply of sterile material, especially in the most vulnerable groups, like homeless people) or to provide easier access to emergency health care despite lack of insurance, which could decrease the incidence of IVDU.”
Dr. Nimjee and Dr. Bolognese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
One consequence of the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States may be an increase in the number of hemorrhagic strokes caused by infective endocarditis, research suggests.
Intravenous drug use (IVDU) can cause this bacterial infection of the heart. In a single-center study, infective endocarditis was associated with an increase in the risk for hemorrhagic stroke as well as an increase in health care use and costs.
“Patients who are known IV drug users who have endocarditis should be more carefully screened for symptoms of cardiovascular disease,” Shahid M. Nimjee, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery and surgical director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in a press release.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
In the United States, 47,000 patients are treated in the hospital for endocarditis each year. Endocarditis increases the risk for stroke, which can entail significant morbidity and mortality, the authors noted.
IVDU is a risk factor for endocarditis. In the context of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Nimjee and colleagues sought to compare the risk for stroke among patients with endocarditis from IVDU with the risk among patients with endocarditis from other causes.
They retrospectively studied patients who had undergone treatment for infective endocarditis at Wexner Medical Center between Jan. 1, 2014, and July 1, 2018. They examined patients’ concomitant intravenous drug abuse and evaluated demographics, risk factors, and associated costs.
Dramatic increase
In all, 351 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria, and 170 (48%) had a history of IVDU-associated endocarditis. The incidence of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis increased 630% from 2014 to 2018.
The prevalence of overall intracranial hemorrhage was increased among patients with IVDU, compared with those without (25.9% vs. 13.9%; P = .005).
This increase in prevalence included increases in intraparenchymal hemorrhage (12.4% vs. 5.1%; P = .012), subarachnoid hemorrhage (17.6% vs. 4.4%; P = .0001), and cerebral microbleeds (14.1% vs. 7.2%; P = .022).
IVDU also was associated with an increase in prevalence of infectious intracranial aneurysm (10.6% vs. 1.8%; P = .0001) and brain abscess (4.7% vs. 1.1%; P = .025).
Compared with patients with endocarditis from other causes, significantly higher numbers of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis were homeless (5.9% vs. 1.1%; P = .014), uninsured (10.0% vs. 2.8%; P = .005), and unemployed (75.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .0001).
Medical costs were more than twice as high among patients with endocarditis from IVDU than among those with endocarditis from other causes. The difference in health care costs during admission per patient was more than $100,000.
“The wider societal impact of the opioid epidemic is not well understood,” Dr. Nimjee said in the press release. “Our research suggests that the impact of the opioid epidemic is far-reaching and contributes to increased costs in the criminal justice, health care systems, and the workplace. The increased costs can be particularly substantial for stroke care.”
Nationwide data desirable
“Past publications from the U.S. have shown an increase in incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, and the current publication emphasizes this worrying trend,” Manuel Bolognese, MD, head of the stroke center at the Lucerne (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital, said in an interview. “The higher degree of hemorrhagic strokes and brain abscesses as further complications is alarming as well and shows that IVDU-related endocarditis is becoming a more and more relevant medical problem in the U.S., with high morbidity and mortality.”
The study period is long enough to show a clear trend of increasing incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, Dr. Bolognese said. The study’s biggest weaknesses are its retrospective design and restriction to a single center.
“Without knowing the prevalence of drug abuse and the socioeconomical situation in Columbus, it is difficult to generalize these findings to other regions in the U.S.A. or even abroad,” he said.
Also, the abstract does not provide some essential information, said Dr. Bolognese. It would be important to know which valve was affected in each patient, which bacteria were identified, whether patients also used nonopioid drugs, and what each patient’s immune status was.
A lack of sterile material such as syringes could explain the apparent association between IVDU-associated endocarditis and low socioeconomic status, said Dr. Bolognese. Delayed presentation to medical institutions because of a lack of insurance could have led to a more complicated course.
“It would be interesting to see numbers from a broader spectrum in a nationwide registry,” said Dr. Bolognese. “It might be worth studying interventions to improve the hygienic aspects (like supply of sterile material, especially in the most vulnerable groups, like homeless people) or to provide easier access to emergency health care despite lack of insurance, which could decrease the incidence of IVDU.”
Dr. Nimjee and Dr. Bolognese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.