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.
Consensus document reviews determination of brain death
The document, a result of the World Brain Death Project, surveys the clinical aspects of this determination, such as clinical testing, apnea testing, and the number of examinations required, as well as its social and legal aspects, including documentation, qualifications for making the determination, and religious attitudes toward BD/DNC.
The recommendations are the minimum criteria for BD/DNC, and countries and professional societies may choose to adopt stricter criteria, the authors noted. Seventeen supplements to the consensus statement contain detailed reports on topics the statement examines, including focuses on both adults and children.
“Perhaps the most important points of this project are, first, to show the worldwide acceptance of the concept of BD/DNC and what the minimum requirements are for BD/DNC,” said corresponding author Gene Sung, MD, MPH, director of the neurocritical care and stroke division at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Second, “this standard is centered around a clinical determination without the need for other testing.”
The consensus document and supplements were published online Aug. 3 in JAMA.
Comprehensive review
A lack of rigor has led to many differences in the determination of BD/DNC, said Dr. Sung. “Some of the variance that is common are the numbers of exams and examiners that are required and whether ancillary tests are required for determination of BD/DNC. In addition, a lot of guidelines and protocols that are in use are not thorough in detailing how to do the examinations and what to do in different circumstances.”
Professional societies such as the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care recruited experts in BD/DNC to develop recommendations, which were based on relevant articles that they identified during a literature search. “We wanted to develop a fairly comprehensive document that, along with the 17 supplements, builds a foundation to show how to determine BD/DNC – what the minimum clinical criteria needed are and what to do in special circumstances,” Dr. Sung said.
Major sections of the statement include recommendations for the minimum clinical standards for the determination of BD/DNC in adults and children.
Determination must begin by establishing that the patient has sustained an irreversible brain injury that resulted in the loss of all brain function, according to the authors. Confounders such as pharmacologic paralysis and the effect of CNS depressant medications should be ruled out.
In addition, clinical evaluation must include an assessment for coma and an evaluation for brain stem areflexia. Among other criteria, the pupils should be fixed and nonresponsive to light, the face should not move in response to noxious cranial stimulation, and the gag and cough reflexes should be absent. Apnea testing is recommended to evaluate the responsiveness of respiratory centers in the medulla.
Although the definition of BD/DNC is the same in children as in adults, less evidence is available for the determination of BD/DNC in the very young. The authors thus advised a cautious approach to the evaluation of infants and younger children.
Recommendations vary by age and often require serial examinations, including apnea testing, they noted.
Ancillary testing
The consensus statement also reviews ancillary testing, which the authors recommend be required when the minimum clinical examination, including the apnea test, cannot be completed and when it is in the presence of confounding conditions that cannot be resolved.
The authors recommended digital subtraction angiography, radionuclide studies, and transcranial Doppler ultrasonography as ancillary tests based on blood flow in the brain. However, CT angiography and magnetic resonance angiography not be used.
A lack of guidance makes performing an apnea test in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) challenging, according to the authors. Nevertheless, they recommended that the same principles of BD/DNC be applied to adults and children receiving ECMO.
They further recommended a period of preoxygenation before the apnea test, and the document describes in detail the method for administering this test to people receiving ECMO.
Another potentially challenging situation pointed out in the consensus document is the determination of BD/DNC in patients who have been treated with targeted temperature management. Therapeutic hypothermia, particularly if it is preceded or accompanied by sedation, can temporarily impair brain stem reflexes, thus mimicking BD/DNC.
The new document includes a flowchart and step-by-step recommendations as well as suggestions for determining BD/DNC under these circumstances.
Among document limitations acknowledged by the authors is the lack of high-quality data from randomized, controlled trials on which to base their recommendations.
In addition, economic, technological, or personnel limitations may reduce the available options for ancillary testing, they added. Also, the recommendations do not incorporate contributions from patients or social or religious groups, although the authors were mindful of their concerns.
To promote the national and international harmonization of BD/DNC criteria, “medical societies and countries can evaluate their own policies in relation to this document and fix any deficiencies,” Dr. Sung said.
“Many countries do not have any BD/DNC policies and can use the documents from this project to create their own. There may need to be discussions with legal, governmental, religious, and societal leaders to help understand and accept BD/DNC and to help enact policies in different communities,” he added.
Divergent definitions
The determination of death is not simply a scientific question, but also a philosophical, religious, and cultural question, wrote Robert D. Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Center for Bioethics, Boston, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Future research should consider cultural differences over these questions.
“Most important is that there be a clear and logical consistency between the definition of death and the tests that are used to diagnose it,” Dr. Truog said.
The concept of whole brain death was advanced as an equivalent to biological death, “such that, when the brain dies, the body literally disintegrates, just as it does after cardiac arrest,” but evidence indicates that this claim is untrue, Dr. Truog said. Current tests also do not diagnose the death of the whole brain.
Another hypothesis is that brain stem death represents the irreversible loss of consciousness and the capacity for spontaneous respiration.
“Instead of focusing on biology, [this definition] focuses on values and is based on the claim that when a person is in a state of irreversible apneic unconsciousness, we may consider them to be dead,” said Dr. Truog. He and his coeditorialists argued that the concept of whole brain death should be replaced with that of brain stem death.
“This report should be a call for our profession, as well as for federal and state lawmakers, to reform our laws so that they are consistent with our diagnostic criteria,” Dr. Truog said.
“The most straightforward way of doing this would be to change U.S. law and adopt the British standard of brain stem death, and then refine our testing to make the diagnosis of irreversible apneic unconsciousness as reliable and safe as possible,” he concluded.
The drafting of the consensus statement was not supported by outside funding. Dr. Sung reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Truog reported receiving compensation from Sanofi and Covance for participating in data and safety monitoring boards unrelated to the consensus document.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The document, a result of the World Brain Death Project, surveys the clinical aspects of this determination, such as clinical testing, apnea testing, and the number of examinations required, as well as its social and legal aspects, including documentation, qualifications for making the determination, and religious attitudes toward BD/DNC.
The recommendations are the minimum criteria for BD/DNC, and countries and professional societies may choose to adopt stricter criteria, the authors noted. Seventeen supplements to the consensus statement contain detailed reports on topics the statement examines, including focuses on both adults and children.
“Perhaps the most important points of this project are, first, to show the worldwide acceptance of the concept of BD/DNC and what the minimum requirements are for BD/DNC,” said corresponding author Gene Sung, MD, MPH, director of the neurocritical care and stroke division at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Second, “this standard is centered around a clinical determination without the need for other testing.”
The consensus document and supplements were published online Aug. 3 in JAMA.
Comprehensive review
A lack of rigor has led to many differences in the determination of BD/DNC, said Dr. Sung. “Some of the variance that is common are the numbers of exams and examiners that are required and whether ancillary tests are required for determination of BD/DNC. In addition, a lot of guidelines and protocols that are in use are not thorough in detailing how to do the examinations and what to do in different circumstances.”
Professional societies such as the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care recruited experts in BD/DNC to develop recommendations, which were based on relevant articles that they identified during a literature search. “We wanted to develop a fairly comprehensive document that, along with the 17 supplements, builds a foundation to show how to determine BD/DNC – what the minimum clinical criteria needed are and what to do in special circumstances,” Dr. Sung said.
Major sections of the statement include recommendations for the minimum clinical standards for the determination of BD/DNC in adults and children.
Determination must begin by establishing that the patient has sustained an irreversible brain injury that resulted in the loss of all brain function, according to the authors. Confounders such as pharmacologic paralysis and the effect of CNS depressant medications should be ruled out.
In addition, clinical evaluation must include an assessment for coma and an evaluation for brain stem areflexia. Among other criteria, the pupils should be fixed and nonresponsive to light, the face should not move in response to noxious cranial stimulation, and the gag and cough reflexes should be absent. Apnea testing is recommended to evaluate the responsiveness of respiratory centers in the medulla.
Although the definition of BD/DNC is the same in children as in adults, less evidence is available for the determination of BD/DNC in the very young. The authors thus advised a cautious approach to the evaluation of infants and younger children.
Recommendations vary by age and often require serial examinations, including apnea testing, they noted.
Ancillary testing
The consensus statement also reviews ancillary testing, which the authors recommend be required when the minimum clinical examination, including the apnea test, cannot be completed and when it is in the presence of confounding conditions that cannot be resolved.
The authors recommended digital subtraction angiography, radionuclide studies, and transcranial Doppler ultrasonography as ancillary tests based on blood flow in the brain. However, CT angiography and magnetic resonance angiography not be used.
A lack of guidance makes performing an apnea test in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) challenging, according to the authors. Nevertheless, they recommended that the same principles of BD/DNC be applied to adults and children receiving ECMO.
They further recommended a period of preoxygenation before the apnea test, and the document describes in detail the method for administering this test to people receiving ECMO.
Another potentially challenging situation pointed out in the consensus document is the determination of BD/DNC in patients who have been treated with targeted temperature management. Therapeutic hypothermia, particularly if it is preceded or accompanied by sedation, can temporarily impair brain stem reflexes, thus mimicking BD/DNC.
The new document includes a flowchart and step-by-step recommendations as well as suggestions for determining BD/DNC under these circumstances.
Among document limitations acknowledged by the authors is the lack of high-quality data from randomized, controlled trials on which to base their recommendations.
In addition, economic, technological, or personnel limitations may reduce the available options for ancillary testing, they added. Also, the recommendations do not incorporate contributions from patients or social or religious groups, although the authors were mindful of their concerns.
To promote the national and international harmonization of BD/DNC criteria, “medical societies and countries can evaluate their own policies in relation to this document and fix any deficiencies,” Dr. Sung said.
“Many countries do not have any BD/DNC policies and can use the documents from this project to create their own. There may need to be discussions with legal, governmental, religious, and societal leaders to help understand and accept BD/DNC and to help enact policies in different communities,” he added.
Divergent definitions
The determination of death is not simply a scientific question, but also a philosophical, religious, and cultural question, wrote Robert D. Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Center for Bioethics, Boston, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Future research should consider cultural differences over these questions.
“Most important is that there be a clear and logical consistency between the definition of death and the tests that are used to diagnose it,” Dr. Truog said.
The concept of whole brain death was advanced as an equivalent to biological death, “such that, when the brain dies, the body literally disintegrates, just as it does after cardiac arrest,” but evidence indicates that this claim is untrue, Dr. Truog said. Current tests also do not diagnose the death of the whole brain.
Another hypothesis is that brain stem death represents the irreversible loss of consciousness and the capacity for spontaneous respiration.
“Instead of focusing on biology, [this definition] focuses on values and is based on the claim that when a person is in a state of irreversible apneic unconsciousness, we may consider them to be dead,” said Dr. Truog. He and his coeditorialists argued that the concept of whole brain death should be replaced with that of brain stem death.
“This report should be a call for our profession, as well as for federal and state lawmakers, to reform our laws so that they are consistent with our diagnostic criteria,” Dr. Truog said.
“The most straightforward way of doing this would be to change U.S. law and adopt the British standard of brain stem death, and then refine our testing to make the diagnosis of irreversible apneic unconsciousness as reliable and safe as possible,” he concluded.
The drafting of the consensus statement was not supported by outside funding. Dr. Sung reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Truog reported receiving compensation from Sanofi and Covance for participating in data and safety monitoring boards unrelated to the consensus document.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The document, a result of the World Brain Death Project, surveys the clinical aspects of this determination, such as clinical testing, apnea testing, and the number of examinations required, as well as its social and legal aspects, including documentation, qualifications for making the determination, and religious attitudes toward BD/DNC.
The recommendations are the minimum criteria for BD/DNC, and countries and professional societies may choose to adopt stricter criteria, the authors noted. Seventeen supplements to the consensus statement contain detailed reports on topics the statement examines, including focuses on both adults and children.
“Perhaps the most important points of this project are, first, to show the worldwide acceptance of the concept of BD/DNC and what the minimum requirements are for BD/DNC,” said corresponding author Gene Sung, MD, MPH, director of the neurocritical care and stroke division at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Second, “this standard is centered around a clinical determination without the need for other testing.”
The consensus document and supplements were published online Aug. 3 in JAMA.
Comprehensive review
A lack of rigor has led to many differences in the determination of BD/DNC, said Dr. Sung. “Some of the variance that is common are the numbers of exams and examiners that are required and whether ancillary tests are required for determination of BD/DNC. In addition, a lot of guidelines and protocols that are in use are not thorough in detailing how to do the examinations and what to do in different circumstances.”
Professional societies such as the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care recruited experts in BD/DNC to develop recommendations, which were based on relevant articles that they identified during a literature search. “We wanted to develop a fairly comprehensive document that, along with the 17 supplements, builds a foundation to show how to determine BD/DNC – what the minimum clinical criteria needed are and what to do in special circumstances,” Dr. Sung said.
Major sections of the statement include recommendations for the minimum clinical standards for the determination of BD/DNC in adults and children.
Determination must begin by establishing that the patient has sustained an irreversible brain injury that resulted in the loss of all brain function, according to the authors. Confounders such as pharmacologic paralysis and the effect of CNS depressant medications should be ruled out.
In addition, clinical evaluation must include an assessment for coma and an evaluation for brain stem areflexia. Among other criteria, the pupils should be fixed and nonresponsive to light, the face should not move in response to noxious cranial stimulation, and the gag and cough reflexes should be absent. Apnea testing is recommended to evaluate the responsiveness of respiratory centers in the medulla.
Although the definition of BD/DNC is the same in children as in adults, less evidence is available for the determination of BD/DNC in the very young. The authors thus advised a cautious approach to the evaluation of infants and younger children.
Recommendations vary by age and often require serial examinations, including apnea testing, they noted.
Ancillary testing
The consensus statement also reviews ancillary testing, which the authors recommend be required when the minimum clinical examination, including the apnea test, cannot be completed and when it is in the presence of confounding conditions that cannot be resolved.
The authors recommended digital subtraction angiography, radionuclide studies, and transcranial Doppler ultrasonography as ancillary tests based on blood flow in the brain. However, CT angiography and magnetic resonance angiography not be used.
A lack of guidance makes performing an apnea test in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) challenging, according to the authors. Nevertheless, they recommended that the same principles of BD/DNC be applied to adults and children receiving ECMO.
They further recommended a period of preoxygenation before the apnea test, and the document describes in detail the method for administering this test to people receiving ECMO.
Another potentially challenging situation pointed out in the consensus document is the determination of BD/DNC in patients who have been treated with targeted temperature management. Therapeutic hypothermia, particularly if it is preceded or accompanied by sedation, can temporarily impair brain stem reflexes, thus mimicking BD/DNC.
The new document includes a flowchart and step-by-step recommendations as well as suggestions for determining BD/DNC under these circumstances.
Among document limitations acknowledged by the authors is the lack of high-quality data from randomized, controlled trials on which to base their recommendations.
In addition, economic, technological, or personnel limitations may reduce the available options for ancillary testing, they added. Also, the recommendations do not incorporate contributions from patients or social or religious groups, although the authors were mindful of their concerns.
To promote the national and international harmonization of BD/DNC criteria, “medical societies and countries can evaluate their own policies in relation to this document and fix any deficiencies,” Dr. Sung said.
“Many countries do not have any BD/DNC policies and can use the documents from this project to create their own. There may need to be discussions with legal, governmental, religious, and societal leaders to help understand and accept BD/DNC and to help enact policies in different communities,” he added.
Divergent definitions
The determination of death is not simply a scientific question, but also a philosophical, religious, and cultural question, wrote Robert D. Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Center for Bioethics, Boston, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Future research should consider cultural differences over these questions.
“Most important is that there be a clear and logical consistency between the definition of death and the tests that are used to diagnose it,” Dr. Truog said.
The concept of whole brain death was advanced as an equivalent to biological death, “such that, when the brain dies, the body literally disintegrates, just as it does after cardiac arrest,” but evidence indicates that this claim is untrue, Dr. Truog said. Current tests also do not diagnose the death of the whole brain.
Another hypothesis is that brain stem death represents the irreversible loss of consciousness and the capacity for spontaneous respiration.
“Instead of focusing on biology, [this definition] focuses on values and is based on the claim that when a person is in a state of irreversible apneic unconsciousness, we may consider them to be dead,” said Dr. Truog. He and his coeditorialists argued that the concept of whole brain death should be replaced with that of brain stem death.
“This report should be a call for our profession, as well as for federal and state lawmakers, to reform our laws so that they are consistent with our diagnostic criteria,” Dr. Truog said.
“The most straightforward way of doing this would be to change U.S. law and adopt the British standard of brain stem death, and then refine our testing to make the diagnosis of irreversible apneic unconsciousness as reliable and safe as possible,” he concluded.
The drafting of the consensus statement was not supported by outside funding. Dr. Sung reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Truog reported receiving compensation from Sanofi and Covance for participating in data and safety monitoring boards unrelated to the consensus document.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiovascular risk factors tied to midlife cognitive decline
new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.
“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.
The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
New insight
Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.
To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.
The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.
Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
Dose-dependent effect
Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.
The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.
Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).
The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”
The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.
Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
More to explore
Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”
She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.
“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.
“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.
“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”
CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.
“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.
The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
New insight
Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.
To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.
The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.
Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
Dose-dependent effect
Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.
The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.
Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).
The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”
The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.
Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
More to explore
Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”
She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.
“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.
“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.
“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”
CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.
“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.
The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
New insight
Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.
To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.
The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.
Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
Dose-dependent effect
Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.
The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.
Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).
The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”
The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.
Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
More to explore
Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”
She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.
“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.
“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.
“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”
CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Less REM sleep tied to higher mortality
Less rapid eye movement (REM) sleep is associated with an increased risk for death in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests.
Investigators at the University of California, San Diego, found that, over a 12-year period, each 5% reduction in REM sleep was associated with a 13% increase in mortality rate. However, the investigators noted that this is only an association and does not indicate cause and effect.
“Determining causality can be difficult,” study investigator Sonia Ancoli-Israel, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“It is therefore important that physicians and the public understand that our findings suggest an increased risk, but that does not mean that reduced REM will always result in shorter survival. With all the self-monitoring sleep gadgets available to the public, I would caution against any panic if one notices reduced REM. But mentioning it to a physician may be a clue to examine what else might be going on with that patient that could more easily be targeted,” Dr. Ancoli-Israel added.
The research was published online July 6 in JAMA Neurology.
Negative consequences
Approximately 50-70 million Americans have problems with sleep. Such problems have a multitude of consequences for health, including cardiovascular disease; metabolic, psychiatric, and cognitive disorders; lower quality of life; and increased mortality.
The investigators noted that the aspects of sleep that may be driving this association remain unclear. Because decreased REM sleep has been associated with poor mental and physical health outcomes, the researchers hypothesized that decreased REM sleep may be associated with an increased risk for death.
To test this hypothesis, they conducted a multicenter, population-based, cross-sectional investigation using data from independent cohorts – the Outcomes of Sleep Disorders in Older Men (MrOS) Sleep Study and the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort (WSC). The MrOS cohort included 2,675 men (mean age, 76.3 years) who were recruited from December 2003 to March 2005 at six U.S. centers and were followed for a median of 12.1 years. The WSC cohort included 1,386 individuals (54.3% men; mean age, 51.5 years) and had a median follow-up of 20.8 years. Data from this study were used to replicate the findings from the MrOS study.
Primary outcome measures included all-cause and cause-specific mortality, which were confirmed using death certificates.
Participants in both cohorts underwent polysomnography and evaluation with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. For MrOS participants, investigators calculated the total number of minutes per night spent in REM sleep and the corresponding percentage of total sleep time.
Less sleep, more death
Self-report sleep measures in MrOS participants were collected using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire
The investigators contacted participants in MrOS every 4 months to determine vital status. Cause of death was categorized by the ICD-9 as cardiovascular, cancer, and other. In WSC, the researchers identified deaths by matching participants’ social security numbers with national and state registries. The cause of death was categorized in the same manner as in the MrOS cohort.
Approximately half (53%) of the MrOS cohort died during follow-up. For each mortality category, the highest percentage of deaths occurred among those in the lowest quartile percentage of REM sleep. Adjusted analyses revealed that the MrOS participants had a 13% higher mortality rate for every 5% reduction in REM sleep (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.19). These findings were similar for cardiovascular and other causes of death but were not significant for cancer-related mortality. For all mortality categories, the mortality rate was higher for participants who had less than 15% REM sleep per night in comparison with individuals who had 15% or more.
The findings were similar in the WSC cohort despite its younger age, the inclusion of women, and longer follow-up (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19). Compared with MrOS participants, WSC participants were more likely to be obese and to use more antidepressants or sedatives. Overall, the mean percentage of REM sleep was 19.2%. Participants in the lowest quartile of REM sleep generally were older, had higher rates of antidepressant use, hypertension, heart attack, and transient ischemic attack, as well as engaging in less physical activity.
Ask about sleep
When the data were stratified by sex, the association between decreased REM sleep and mortality was significant for women but not for men.
“Obtaining a sleep study, representative of the patient’s usual sleep, that shows reduced REM time should alert the neurologist to look for reasons for low REM,” the study’s coinvestigator, Susan Redline, MD, MPH, Peter C. Farrell Professor of Sleep Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said in an interview.
Dr. Redline added that measures to promote sleep health, such as encouraging regular, sufficient nightly sleep; offering guidance on avoiding alcohol before bedtime and on other healthy sleep practices; and treating sleep disorders may be beneficial.
Low REM time, especially interpreted with other relevant clinical information, may alert the neurologist that a patient may have risk factors for poorer health, she added.
Sleep studies are expensive and are in high demand, so “the most realistic approach is for the neurologist to be asking each and every patient about their sleep,” said Ancoli-Israel.
“By asking a few more questions in every intake, the neurologist is more likely to determine if there are any occult sleep disorders that need to be addressed. By improving sleep in general, one is more likely to also improve any REM abnormalities,” she said.
Disease indicator?
In an accompanying editorial, Michael S. Jaffee, MD, vice chair of neurology at the University of Florida in Gainesville, and colleagues noted that the study raises the question of whether REM sleep “could serve as a biomarker for general health.”
“Since the known roles of REM sleep do not easily suggest a causal link with mortality ... it seems more likely that REM sleep reduction is either a crude marker of health or specific disease states that decrease REM sleep may play an important role in contributing to mortality,” they wrote.
Neurologists should remember that certain medications affect sleep architecture, the editorialists advised. They note that serotonin reuptake inhibitors, selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants reduce REM sleep, and that gabapentin, prazosin, and bupropion, on the other hand, increase REM sleep. However, data regarding whether these medications have an effect on mortality are insufficient.
The editorialists wrote that the study findings are a “welcome addition to the literature and demonstrate definitively that the association between sleep and mortality extends beyond the simple measure of total sleep time.”
Funding for the MrOS and WSC studies was provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Ancoli-Israel consults for Eisai and Merck on matters unrelated to the study. Dr. Redline has received grants and personal fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, consulting fees from Respicardia, and personal fees from Eisai unrelated to the study. Dr. Jaffee served on a data and safety monitoring board for Helius Medical Technologies and consulted for the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Department of Defense.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Less rapid eye movement (REM) sleep is associated with an increased risk for death in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests.
Investigators at the University of California, San Diego, found that, over a 12-year period, each 5% reduction in REM sleep was associated with a 13% increase in mortality rate. However, the investigators noted that this is only an association and does not indicate cause and effect.
“Determining causality can be difficult,” study investigator Sonia Ancoli-Israel, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“It is therefore important that physicians and the public understand that our findings suggest an increased risk, but that does not mean that reduced REM will always result in shorter survival. With all the self-monitoring sleep gadgets available to the public, I would caution against any panic if one notices reduced REM. But mentioning it to a physician may be a clue to examine what else might be going on with that patient that could more easily be targeted,” Dr. Ancoli-Israel added.
The research was published online July 6 in JAMA Neurology.
Negative consequences
Approximately 50-70 million Americans have problems with sleep. Such problems have a multitude of consequences for health, including cardiovascular disease; metabolic, psychiatric, and cognitive disorders; lower quality of life; and increased mortality.
The investigators noted that the aspects of sleep that may be driving this association remain unclear. Because decreased REM sleep has been associated with poor mental and physical health outcomes, the researchers hypothesized that decreased REM sleep may be associated with an increased risk for death.
To test this hypothesis, they conducted a multicenter, population-based, cross-sectional investigation using data from independent cohorts – the Outcomes of Sleep Disorders in Older Men (MrOS) Sleep Study and the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort (WSC). The MrOS cohort included 2,675 men (mean age, 76.3 years) who were recruited from December 2003 to March 2005 at six U.S. centers and were followed for a median of 12.1 years. The WSC cohort included 1,386 individuals (54.3% men; mean age, 51.5 years) and had a median follow-up of 20.8 years. Data from this study were used to replicate the findings from the MrOS study.
Primary outcome measures included all-cause and cause-specific mortality, which were confirmed using death certificates.
Participants in both cohorts underwent polysomnography and evaluation with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. For MrOS participants, investigators calculated the total number of minutes per night spent in REM sleep and the corresponding percentage of total sleep time.
Less sleep, more death
Self-report sleep measures in MrOS participants were collected using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire
The investigators contacted participants in MrOS every 4 months to determine vital status. Cause of death was categorized by the ICD-9 as cardiovascular, cancer, and other. In WSC, the researchers identified deaths by matching participants’ social security numbers with national and state registries. The cause of death was categorized in the same manner as in the MrOS cohort.
Approximately half (53%) of the MrOS cohort died during follow-up. For each mortality category, the highest percentage of deaths occurred among those in the lowest quartile percentage of REM sleep. Adjusted analyses revealed that the MrOS participants had a 13% higher mortality rate for every 5% reduction in REM sleep (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.19). These findings were similar for cardiovascular and other causes of death but were not significant for cancer-related mortality. For all mortality categories, the mortality rate was higher for participants who had less than 15% REM sleep per night in comparison with individuals who had 15% or more.
The findings were similar in the WSC cohort despite its younger age, the inclusion of women, and longer follow-up (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19). Compared with MrOS participants, WSC participants were more likely to be obese and to use more antidepressants or sedatives. Overall, the mean percentage of REM sleep was 19.2%. Participants in the lowest quartile of REM sleep generally were older, had higher rates of antidepressant use, hypertension, heart attack, and transient ischemic attack, as well as engaging in less physical activity.
Ask about sleep
When the data were stratified by sex, the association between decreased REM sleep and mortality was significant for women but not for men.
“Obtaining a sleep study, representative of the patient’s usual sleep, that shows reduced REM time should alert the neurologist to look for reasons for low REM,” the study’s coinvestigator, Susan Redline, MD, MPH, Peter C. Farrell Professor of Sleep Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said in an interview.
Dr. Redline added that measures to promote sleep health, such as encouraging regular, sufficient nightly sleep; offering guidance on avoiding alcohol before bedtime and on other healthy sleep practices; and treating sleep disorders may be beneficial.
Low REM time, especially interpreted with other relevant clinical information, may alert the neurologist that a patient may have risk factors for poorer health, she added.
Sleep studies are expensive and are in high demand, so “the most realistic approach is for the neurologist to be asking each and every patient about their sleep,” said Ancoli-Israel.
“By asking a few more questions in every intake, the neurologist is more likely to determine if there are any occult sleep disorders that need to be addressed. By improving sleep in general, one is more likely to also improve any REM abnormalities,” she said.
Disease indicator?
In an accompanying editorial, Michael S. Jaffee, MD, vice chair of neurology at the University of Florida in Gainesville, and colleagues noted that the study raises the question of whether REM sleep “could serve as a biomarker for general health.”
“Since the known roles of REM sleep do not easily suggest a causal link with mortality ... it seems more likely that REM sleep reduction is either a crude marker of health or specific disease states that decrease REM sleep may play an important role in contributing to mortality,” they wrote.
Neurologists should remember that certain medications affect sleep architecture, the editorialists advised. They note that serotonin reuptake inhibitors, selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants reduce REM sleep, and that gabapentin, prazosin, and bupropion, on the other hand, increase REM sleep. However, data regarding whether these medications have an effect on mortality are insufficient.
The editorialists wrote that the study findings are a “welcome addition to the literature and demonstrate definitively that the association between sleep and mortality extends beyond the simple measure of total sleep time.”
Funding for the MrOS and WSC studies was provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Ancoli-Israel consults for Eisai and Merck on matters unrelated to the study. Dr. Redline has received grants and personal fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, consulting fees from Respicardia, and personal fees from Eisai unrelated to the study. Dr. Jaffee served on a data and safety monitoring board for Helius Medical Technologies and consulted for the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Department of Defense.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Less rapid eye movement (REM) sleep is associated with an increased risk for death in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests.
Investigators at the University of California, San Diego, found that, over a 12-year period, each 5% reduction in REM sleep was associated with a 13% increase in mortality rate. However, the investigators noted that this is only an association and does not indicate cause and effect.
“Determining causality can be difficult,” study investigator Sonia Ancoli-Israel, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
“It is therefore important that physicians and the public understand that our findings suggest an increased risk, but that does not mean that reduced REM will always result in shorter survival. With all the self-monitoring sleep gadgets available to the public, I would caution against any panic if one notices reduced REM. But mentioning it to a physician may be a clue to examine what else might be going on with that patient that could more easily be targeted,” Dr. Ancoli-Israel added.
The research was published online July 6 in JAMA Neurology.
Negative consequences
Approximately 50-70 million Americans have problems with sleep. Such problems have a multitude of consequences for health, including cardiovascular disease; metabolic, psychiatric, and cognitive disorders; lower quality of life; and increased mortality.
The investigators noted that the aspects of sleep that may be driving this association remain unclear. Because decreased REM sleep has been associated with poor mental and physical health outcomes, the researchers hypothesized that decreased REM sleep may be associated with an increased risk for death.
To test this hypothesis, they conducted a multicenter, population-based, cross-sectional investigation using data from independent cohorts – the Outcomes of Sleep Disorders in Older Men (MrOS) Sleep Study and the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort (WSC). The MrOS cohort included 2,675 men (mean age, 76.3 years) who were recruited from December 2003 to March 2005 at six U.S. centers and were followed for a median of 12.1 years. The WSC cohort included 1,386 individuals (54.3% men; mean age, 51.5 years) and had a median follow-up of 20.8 years. Data from this study were used to replicate the findings from the MrOS study.
Primary outcome measures included all-cause and cause-specific mortality, which were confirmed using death certificates.
Participants in both cohorts underwent polysomnography and evaluation with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. For MrOS participants, investigators calculated the total number of minutes per night spent in REM sleep and the corresponding percentage of total sleep time.
Less sleep, more death
Self-report sleep measures in MrOS participants were collected using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire
The investigators contacted participants in MrOS every 4 months to determine vital status. Cause of death was categorized by the ICD-9 as cardiovascular, cancer, and other. In WSC, the researchers identified deaths by matching participants’ social security numbers with national and state registries. The cause of death was categorized in the same manner as in the MrOS cohort.
Approximately half (53%) of the MrOS cohort died during follow-up. For each mortality category, the highest percentage of deaths occurred among those in the lowest quartile percentage of REM sleep. Adjusted analyses revealed that the MrOS participants had a 13% higher mortality rate for every 5% reduction in REM sleep (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.19). These findings were similar for cardiovascular and other causes of death but were not significant for cancer-related mortality. For all mortality categories, the mortality rate was higher for participants who had less than 15% REM sleep per night in comparison with individuals who had 15% or more.
The findings were similar in the WSC cohort despite its younger age, the inclusion of women, and longer follow-up (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19). Compared with MrOS participants, WSC participants were more likely to be obese and to use more antidepressants or sedatives. Overall, the mean percentage of REM sleep was 19.2%. Participants in the lowest quartile of REM sleep generally were older, had higher rates of antidepressant use, hypertension, heart attack, and transient ischemic attack, as well as engaging in less physical activity.
Ask about sleep
When the data were stratified by sex, the association between decreased REM sleep and mortality was significant for women but not for men.
“Obtaining a sleep study, representative of the patient’s usual sleep, that shows reduced REM time should alert the neurologist to look for reasons for low REM,” the study’s coinvestigator, Susan Redline, MD, MPH, Peter C. Farrell Professor of Sleep Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said in an interview.
Dr. Redline added that measures to promote sleep health, such as encouraging regular, sufficient nightly sleep; offering guidance on avoiding alcohol before bedtime and on other healthy sleep practices; and treating sleep disorders may be beneficial.
Low REM time, especially interpreted with other relevant clinical information, may alert the neurologist that a patient may have risk factors for poorer health, she added.
Sleep studies are expensive and are in high demand, so “the most realistic approach is for the neurologist to be asking each and every patient about their sleep,” said Ancoli-Israel.
“By asking a few more questions in every intake, the neurologist is more likely to determine if there are any occult sleep disorders that need to be addressed. By improving sleep in general, one is more likely to also improve any REM abnormalities,” she said.
Disease indicator?
In an accompanying editorial, Michael S. Jaffee, MD, vice chair of neurology at the University of Florida in Gainesville, and colleagues noted that the study raises the question of whether REM sleep “could serve as a biomarker for general health.”
“Since the known roles of REM sleep do not easily suggest a causal link with mortality ... it seems more likely that REM sleep reduction is either a crude marker of health or specific disease states that decrease REM sleep may play an important role in contributing to mortality,” they wrote.
Neurologists should remember that certain medications affect sleep architecture, the editorialists advised. They note that serotonin reuptake inhibitors, selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants reduce REM sleep, and that gabapentin, prazosin, and bupropion, on the other hand, increase REM sleep. However, data regarding whether these medications have an effect on mortality are insufficient.
The editorialists wrote that the study findings are a “welcome addition to the literature and demonstrate definitively that the association between sleep and mortality extends beyond the simple measure of total sleep time.”
Funding for the MrOS and WSC studies was provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Ancoli-Israel consults for Eisai and Merck on matters unrelated to the study. Dr. Redline has received grants and personal fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, consulting fees from Respicardia, and personal fees from Eisai unrelated to the study. Dr. Jaffee served on a data and safety monitoring board for Helius Medical Technologies and consulted for the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Department of Defense.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Can DBS in early Parkinson’s disease reduce disease progression?
According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.
Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.
“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
An extension of a pilot trial
Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.
Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.
Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
DBS may slow progression of rest tremor
Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.
At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.
Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.
In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.
In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.
The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.
The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.
The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”
Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
Effect on dyskinesia is unclear
“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.
“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”
Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.
SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.
According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.
Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.
“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
An extension of a pilot trial
Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.
Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.
Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
DBS may slow progression of rest tremor
Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.
At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.
Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.
In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.
In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.
The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.
The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.
The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”
Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
Effect on dyskinesia is unclear
“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.
“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”
Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.
SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.
According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.
Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.
“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
An extension of a pilot trial
Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.
Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.
Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
DBS may slow progression of rest tremor
Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.
At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.
Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.
In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.
In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.
The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.
The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.
The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”
Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
Effect on dyskinesia is unclear
“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.
“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”
Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.
SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Migraine is often a deciding factor in pregnancy planning
new research shows. Results from a multicenter study of more than 600 women showed that, among participants with migraine, those who were younger, had menstrual migraine, or had chronic migraine were more likely to decide to not become pregnant.
Although women with migraine who avoided pregnancy believed their migraines would worsen during pregnancy or make their pregnancy difficult, previous observational research indicates that migraine often improves during pregnancy.
“Women who avoided pregnancy due to migraine were most concerned that migraine would make raising a child difficult, that the migraine medications they take would have a negative impact on their child’s development, and that their migraine pattern would worsen during or just after pregnancy,” said study investigator Ryotaro Ishii, MD, PhD, a visiting scientist at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Plans for the future
There is a paucity of research on the effects of migraine on pregnancy planning, the researchers noted. The few studies that have investigated this issue have focused on women’s previous family planning decisions and experience rather than on plans for the future, the researchers noted.
To evaluate how migraine in women influences pregnancy planning, the investigators analyzed data from the American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR). The registry, which was established by the American Migraine Foundation, collects clinical data about individuals with migraine and other headache disorders from multiple centers.
Participants eligible for the current analysis were women who had been diagnosed with migraine on the basis of the International Classification of Headache Disorders–3 criteria. All completed the ARMR questionnaire between February 2016 and September 2019. The investigators excluded patients with trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, secondary headache, painful cranial neuropathies, other facial pain, and other headaches.
They identified 895 eligible women with migraine. Of these, 607 completed the pregnancy question. Among those participants, 121 women (19.9%) reported that migraine was a factor in their decision to not become pregnant. Of this group, 70 (11.5%) reported that migraine was a “significant” factor in deciding to not have children, and 8.4% said it was “somewhat” of a factor. The remainder of the cohort (479) reported that migraine had no influence on their pregnancy plans.
There were no between-group differences by race, marital status, employment, or income. This finding suggests that sociodemographic differences “have less impact on pregnancy planning than migraine-specific characteristics like headache frequency and experience with having migraine attacks triggered by menstruation,” Dr. Ishii said.
“Substantial burden”
Not surprisingly, women who avoided pregnancy had fewer children than the rest of the sample. About 60% of those who made the decision to not become pregnant had no children, and 72% had not been pregnant since they began experiencing migraine.
Compared with women who reported that migraine had no influence on their pregnancy plans, those who avoided pregnancy were more likely to have chronic migraine at 81.8% versus 70.2%. They were also more likely to have menstrual migraine at 4.1% versus 1%. In addition, women who decided to not have children because of migraine were significantly younger at an average age of 37.5 versus 47.2 years.
The number of days with headache per 3-month interval was 53.9 among women who avoided pregnancy versus 42.5 among the other women. The Migraine Disability Assessment score was also higher for women who avoided pregnancy (132.5) than for it was the other women (91.7), indicating more severe disability.
In addition, more of the women who avoided pregnancy had a history of depression (48.8%) compared with the other women (37.7%). The average score on the Patient Health Questionnaire–4 was higher among women who avoided pregnancy (4.0) than among other women (3.1), which indicates greater anxiety or depression. Among women who avoided pregnancy, 72.5% believed their migraine would worsen during pregnancy, and 68.3% believed that migraine would make pregnancy very difficult.
“Clinicians need to recognize that migraine often has a substantial burden on multiple aspects of life, including one’s plans for having children,” Dr. Ishii said.
“Clinicians should educate their patients who are considering pregnancy about the most likely course of migraine during pregnancy, migraine treatment during pregnancy, and the potential impacts of migraine and its treatment on pregnancy outcomes,” he added.
More education needed
Commenting on the study, Susan Hutchinson, MD, director of the Orange County Migraine and Headache Center, Irvine, California, said that not knowing how pregnancy is going to affect patients’ migraines can be “very scary” for women. In addition, patients often wonder what migraine treatments they can safely take once they do become pregnant, said Dr. Hutchinson, who was not involved in the research.
She noted that advantages of the ARMR data are that they are derived from a multicenter study and that migraine diagnoses were made by a headache specialist. A potential limitation of the study is that the population may not reflect outcomes of the millions of women who have migraine and become pregnant but never see a specialist.
“These findings show that more education is needed,” Dr. Hutchinson said.
Most women, especially those who have migraine without aura, note improvement with migraine during pregnancy, primarily because of the high, steady levels of estradiol, especially in the second and third trimesters, she said. In light of this, neurologists should reassure women that migraine is not a contraindication to pregnancy, she added.
There is also a need for additional research to assess how past experience with migraine and pregnancy influences a woman’s comfort level with additional pregnancies. Studies as to which treatments are safest for acute and preventive treatment of migraine during prepregnancy, pregnancy, and lactation are also needed, Dr. Hutchinson noted.
“If women knew they had treatment options that were evidence-based, they might be much more comfortable contemplating a pregnancy,” she said.
Dr. Ishii and Dr. Hutchinson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows. Results from a multicenter study of more than 600 women showed that, among participants with migraine, those who were younger, had menstrual migraine, or had chronic migraine were more likely to decide to not become pregnant.
Although women with migraine who avoided pregnancy believed their migraines would worsen during pregnancy or make their pregnancy difficult, previous observational research indicates that migraine often improves during pregnancy.
“Women who avoided pregnancy due to migraine were most concerned that migraine would make raising a child difficult, that the migraine medications they take would have a negative impact on their child’s development, and that their migraine pattern would worsen during or just after pregnancy,” said study investigator Ryotaro Ishii, MD, PhD, a visiting scientist at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Plans for the future
There is a paucity of research on the effects of migraine on pregnancy planning, the researchers noted. The few studies that have investigated this issue have focused on women’s previous family planning decisions and experience rather than on plans for the future, the researchers noted.
To evaluate how migraine in women influences pregnancy planning, the investigators analyzed data from the American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR). The registry, which was established by the American Migraine Foundation, collects clinical data about individuals with migraine and other headache disorders from multiple centers.
Participants eligible for the current analysis were women who had been diagnosed with migraine on the basis of the International Classification of Headache Disorders–3 criteria. All completed the ARMR questionnaire between February 2016 and September 2019. The investigators excluded patients with trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, secondary headache, painful cranial neuropathies, other facial pain, and other headaches.
They identified 895 eligible women with migraine. Of these, 607 completed the pregnancy question. Among those participants, 121 women (19.9%) reported that migraine was a factor in their decision to not become pregnant. Of this group, 70 (11.5%) reported that migraine was a “significant” factor in deciding to not have children, and 8.4% said it was “somewhat” of a factor. The remainder of the cohort (479) reported that migraine had no influence on their pregnancy plans.
There were no between-group differences by race, marital status, employment, or income. This finding suggests that sociodemographic differences “have less impact on pregnancy planning than migraine-specific characteristics like headache frequency and experience with having migraine attacks triggered by menstruation,” Dr. Ishii said.
“Substantial burden”
Not surprisingly, women who avoided pregnancy had fewer children than the rest of the sample. About 60% of those who made the decision to not become pregnant had no children, and 72% had not been pregnant since they began experiencing migraine.
Compared with women who reported that migraine had no influence on their pregnancy plans, those who avoided pregnancy were more likely to have chronic migraine at 81.8% versus 70.2%. They were also more likely to have menstrual migraine at 4.1% versus 1%. In addition, women who decided to not have children because of migraine were significantly younger at an average age of 37.5 versus 47.2 years.
The number of days with headache per 3-month interval was 53.9 among women who avoided pregnancy versus 42.5 among the other women. The Migraine Disability Assessment score was also higher for women who avoided pregnancy (132.5) than for it was the other women (91.7), indicating more severe disability.
In addition, more of the women who avoided pregnancy had a history of depression (48.8%) compared with the other women (37.7%). The average score on the Patient Health Questionnaire–4 was higher among women who avoided pregnancy (4.0) than among other women (3.1), which indicates greater anxiety or depression. Among women who avoided pregnancy, 72.5% believed their migraine would worsen during pregnancy, and 68.3% believed that migraine would make pregnancy very difficult.
“Clinicians need to recognize that migraine often has a substantial burden on multiple aspects of life, including one’s plans for having children,” Dr. Ishii said.
“Clinicians should educate their patients who are considering pregnancy about the most likely course of migraine during pregnancy, migraine treatment during pregnancy, and the potential impacts of migraine and its treatment on pregnancy outcomes,” he added.
More education needed
Commenting on the study, Susan Hutchinson, MD, director of the Orange County Migraine and Headache Center, Irvine, California, said that not knowing how pregnancy is going to affect patients’ migraines can be “very scary” for women. In addition, patients often wonder what migraine treatments they can safely take once they do become pregnant, said Dr. Hutchinson, who was not involved in the research.
She noted that advantages of the ARMR data are that they are derived from a multicenter study and that migraine diagnoses were made by a headache specialist. A potential limitation of the study is that the population may not reflect outcomes of the millions of women who have migraine and become pregnant but never see a specialist.
“These findings show that more education is needed,” Dr. Hutchinson said.
Most women, especially those who have migraine without aura, note improvement with migraine during pregnancy, primarily because of the high, steady levels of estradiol, especially in the second and third trimesters, she said. In light of this, neurologists should reassure women that migraine is not a contraindication to pregnancy, she added.
There is also a need for additional research to assess how past experience with migraine and pregnancy influences a woman’s comfort level with additional pregnancies. Studies as to which treatments are safest for acute and preventive treatment of migraine during prepregnancy, pregnancy, and lactation are also needed, Dr. Hutchinson noted.
“If women knew they had treatment options that were evidence-based, they might be much more comfortable contemplating a pregnancy,” she said.
Dr. Ishii and Dr. Hutchinson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows. Results from a multicenter study of more than 600 women showed that, among participants with migraine, those who were younger, had menstrual migraine, or had chronic migraine were more likely to decide to not become pregnant.
Although women with migraine who avoided pregnancy believed their migraines would worsen during pregnancy or make their pregnancy difficult, previous observational research indicates that migraine often improves during pregnancy.
“Women who avoided pregnancy due to migraine were most concerned that migraine would make raising a child difficult, that the migraine medications they take would have a negative impact on their child’s development, and that their migraine pattern would worsen during or just after pregnancy,” said study investigator Ryotaro Ishii, MD, PhD, a visiting scientist at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Plans for the future
There is a paucity of research on the effects of migraine on pregnancy planning, the researchers noted. The few studies that have investigated this issue have focused on women’s previous family planning decisions and experience rather than on plans for the future, the researchers noted.
To evaluate how migraine in women influences pregnancy planning, the investigators analyzed data from the American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR). The registry, which was established by the American Migraine Foundation, collects clinical data about individuals with migraine and other headache disorders from multiple centers.
Participants eligible for the current analysis were women who had been diagnosed with migraine on the basis of the International Classification of Headache Disorders–3 criteria. All completed the ARMR questionnaire between February 2016 and September 2019. The investigators excluded patients with trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia, secondary headache, painful cranial neuropathies, other facial pain, and other headaches.
They identified 895 eligible women with migraine. Of these, 607 completed the pregnancy question. Among those participants, 121 women (19.9%) reported that migraine was a factor in their decision to not become pregnant. Of this group, 70 (11.5%) reported that migraine was a “significant” factor in deciding to not have children, and 8.4% said it was “somewhat” of a factor. The remainder of the cohort (479) reported that migraine had no influence on their pregnancy plans.
There were no between-group differences by race, marital status, employment, or income. This finding suggests that sociodemographic differences “have less impact on pregnancy planning than migraine-specific characteristics like headache frequency and experience with having migraine attacks triggered by menstruation,” Dr. Ishii said.
“Substantial burden”
Not surprisingly, women who avoided pregnancy had fewer children than the rest of the sample. About 60% of those who made the decision to not become pregnant had no children, and 72% had not been pregnant since they began experiencing migraine.
Compared with women who reported that migraine had no influence on their pregnancy plans, those who avoided pregnancy were more likely to have chronic migraine at 81.8% versus 70.2%. They were also more likely to have menstrual migraine at 4.1% versus 1%. In addition, women who decided to not have children because of migraine were significantly younger at an average age of 37.5 versus 47.2 years.
The number of days with headache per 3-month interval was 53.9 among women who avoided pregnancy versus 42.5 among the other women. The Migraine Disability Assessment score was also higher for women who avoided pregnancy (132.5) than for it was the other women (91.7), indicating more severe disability.
In addition, more of the women who avoided pregnancy had a history of depression (48.8%) compared with the other women (37.7%). The average score on the Patient Health Questionnaire–4 was higher among women who avoided pregnancy (4.0) than among other women (3.1), which indicates greater anxiety or depression. Among women who avoided pregnancy, 72.5% believed their migraine would worsen during pregnancy, and 68.3% believed that migraine would make pregnancy very difficult.
“Clinicians need to recognize that migraine often has a substantial burden on multiple aspects of life, including one’s plans for having children,” Dr. Ishii said.
“Clinicians should educate their patients who are considering pregnancy about the most likely course of migraine during pregnancy, migraine treatment during pregnancy, and the potential impacts of migraine and its treatment on pregnancy outcomes,” he added.
More education needed
Commenting on the study, Susan Hutchinson, MD, director of the Orange County Migraine and Headache Center, Irvine, California, said that not knowing how pregnancy is going to affect patients’ migraines can be “very scary” for women. In addition, patients often wonder what migraine treatments they can safely take once they do become pregnant, said Dr. Hutchinson, who was not involved in the research.
She noted that advantages of the ARMR data are that they are derived from a multicenter study and that migraine diagnoses were made by a headache specialist. A potential limitation of the study is that the population may not reflect outcomes of the millions of women who have migraine and become pregnant but never see a specialist.
“These findings show that more education is needed,” Dr. Hutchinson said.
Most women, especially those who have migraine without aura, note improvement with migraine during pregnancy, primarily because of the high, steady levels of estradiol, especially in the second and third trimesters, she said. In light of this, neurologists should reassure women that migraine is not a contraindication to pregnancy, she added.
There is also a need for additional research to assess how past experience with migraine and pregnancy influences a woman’s comfort level with additional pregnancies. Studies as to which treatments are safest for acute and preventive treatment of migraine during prepregnancy, pregnancy, and lactation are also needed, Dr. Hutchinson noted.
“If women knew they had treatment options that were evidence-based, they might be much more comfortable contemplating a pregnancy,” she said.
Dr. Ishii and Dr. Hutchinson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2020
Consistent effects for galcanezumab in cluster headache
new research suggests. A post hoc analysis of patients from the phase 3 CGAL study who also entered the open-label CGAR extension study was conducted. Results showed that the majority of participants whose scores on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) showed improvement 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab in the CGAL study also showed improvement after treatment for subsequent cluster bouts during the CGAR study.
“There was good agreement between PGI-I between the two [cluster headache] periods,” noted the investigators, led by Brian Plato, DO, a neurologist at Norton Neuroscience Institute in Louisville, Ky.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Two cluster periods
Galcanezumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for the treatment of episodic cluster headache in adults.
In cluster headache, attacks of recurrent, unilateral headaches with cranial autonomic symptoms last for weeks or months and are followed by periods of remission. Most studies of therapies for cluster headache examine only one cluster period. Few data about the consistency of treatment response throughout consecutive cluster periods are available, the investigators noted.
The current analysis was undertaken to examine the consistency of galcanezumab’s effect in episodic cluster headache during two cluster periods. Patients eligible for inclusion in the analysis had completed the double-blind phase of the CGAL study and had entered the open-label CGAR study.
CGAL was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in which patients with episodic cluster headache were assigned to receive galcanezumab 300 mg per month or placebo. Patients who completed the double-blind and washout phases of this study were eligible for enrollment into CGAR, a phase 3b, single-arm safety study. The investigators determined the dose of galcanezumab in accordance with each patient’s symptoms and clinical response.
Response agreement
In both studies, the PGI-I was administered 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab. Only patients who were in an active cluster bout on entry into CGAR and who had valid PGI-I results 1 month after the first dose in CGAL and CGAR were included in the analysis.
PGI-I responses ranged from 1, signifying very much better, to 7, signifying very much worse. The investigators summarized the proportions of patients who reported each level of PGI-I score in CGAR and analyzed the results by dichotomizing PGI-I scores at both time points in two ways.
Fifty patients entered CGAR (78% men; mean age, 46.8 years). Of this group, Dr. Plato and colleagues included 39 in their analysis. Of the 17 patients who had a PGI-I score of 1 or 2 in CGAL, 12 (70.6%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. All four participants who had a score of 3 or higher in CGAL had a score in the same range in CGAR. Eighteen participants had a PGI-I score of 1, 2, or 3 in CGAL. Of this group, 15 patients (83.3%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. Of the three patients who had a score above 3 in CGAL, two (66.7%) had a score in the same range in CGAR.
The results indicate that most patients whose PGI-I score improved in one cluster bout, such as in CGAL, also improved in a subsequent bout, such as in CGAR, the investigators noted.
‘Encouraging’ results
Commenting on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, a neurologist at the John R. Graham Headache Center, Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, Boston, noted that the PGI-I is an “easy-to-understand” outcome that has been widely used in headache medicine.
“Patient-assessed outcomes have become increasingly important and are an important complement to other outcomes,” said Dr. McGeeney, who was not involved in the research. However, a disadvantage is that “it is entirely subjective and may or may not reflect a change on other outcome measures that reflect the disorder itself,” he said.
“It can be difficult to demonstrate how much usefulness a treatment has with the helpful but simple outcome measures that are seen in CGAL and CGAR,” Dr. McGeeney added. “This is due to the nature of cluster headache and not to any methodological shortcomings of those studies.”
He said this is a core problem in general with cluster headache studies, “of which there are very few.”
In addition, CGAR only included episodic cluster headache, and the study period was relatively short; and CGAL only explored one cluster period per patient, Dr. McGeeney noted.
The current research attempts to provide insight that was previously unavailable, he said. “Many headache medicine clinical trial results reflect only one episode, and in general, we infer repeated usefulness – although it is not demonstrated in clinical trials,” said Dr. McGeeney.
“In this recent presentation, the authors attempt to go further and demonstrate some consistency across multiple cluster periods. The results are encouraging and what one might expect,” he said. However, “the small numbers and ad hoc nature preclude much inference from this study alone.”
Dr. Plato has received honoraria for speaking from Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He has also received research grants and support from Electrocore and Teva. Dr. McGeeney has consulted for Upsher-Smith and Theranica.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. A post hoc analysis of patients from the phase 3 CGAL study who also entered the open-label CGAR extension study was conducted. Results showed that the majority of participants whose scores on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) showed improvement 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab in the CGAL study also showed improvement after treatment for subsequent cluster bouts during the CGAR study.
“There was good agreement between PGI-I between the two [cluster headache] periods,” noted the investigators, led by Brian Plato, DO, a neurologist at Norton Neuroscience Institute in Louisville, Ky.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Two cluster periods
Galcanezumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for the treatment of episodic cluster headache in adults.
In cluster headache, attacks of recurrent, unilateral headaches with cranial autonomic symptoms last for weeks or months and are followed by periods of remission. Most studies of therapies for cluster headache examine only one cluster period. Few data about the consistency of treatment response throughout consecutive cluster periods are available, the investigators noted.
The current analysis was undertaken to examine the consistency of galcanezumab’s effect in episodic cluster headache during two cluster periods. Patients eligible for inclusion in the analysis had completed the double-blind phase of the CGAL study and had entered the open-label CGAR study.
CGAL was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in which patients with episodic cluster headache were assigned to receive galcanezumab 300 mg per month or placebo. Patients who completed the double-blind and washout phases of this study were eligible for enrollment into CGAR, a phase 3b, single-arm safety study. The investigators determined the dose of galcanezumab in accordance with each patient’s symptoms and clinical response.
Response agreement
In both studies, the PGI-I was administered 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab. Only patients who were in an active cluster bout on entry into CGAR and who had valid PGI-I results 1 month after the first dose in CGAL and CGAR were included in the analysis.
PGI-I responses ranged from 1, signifying very much better, to 7, signifying very much worse. The investigators summarized the proportions of patients who reported each level of PGI-I score in CGAR and analyzed the results by dichotomizing PGI-I scores at both time points in two ways.
Fifty patients entered CGAR (78% men; mean age, 46.8 years). Of this group, Dr. Plato and colleagues included 39 in their analysis. Of the 17 patients who had a PGI-I score of 1 or 2 in CGAL, 12 (70.6%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. All four participants who had a score of 3 or higher in CGAL had a score in the same range in CGAR. Eighteen participants had a PGI-I score of 1, 2, or 3 in CGAL. Of this group, 15 patients (83.3%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. Of the three patients who had a score above 3 in CGAL, two (66.7%) had a score in the same range in CGAR.
The results indicate that most patients whose PGI-I score improved in one cluster bout, such as in CGAL, also improved in a subsequent bout, such as in CGAR, the investigators noted.
‘Encouraging’ results
Commenting on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, a neurologist at the John R. Graham Headache Center, Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, Boston, noted that the PGI-I is an “easy-to-understand” outcome that has been widely used in headache medicine.
“Patient-assessed outcomes have become increasingly important and are an important complement to other outcomes,” said Dr. McGeeney, who was not involved in the research. However, a disadvantage is that “it is entirely subjective and may or may not reflect a change on other outcome measures that reflect the disorder itself,” he said.
“It can be difficult to demonstrate how much usefulness a treatment has with the helpful but simple outcome measures that are seen in CGAL and CGAR,” Dr. McGeeney added. “This is due to the nature of cluster headache and not to any methodological shortcomings of those studies.”
He said this is a core problem in general with cluster headache studies, “of which there are very few.”
In addition, CGAR only included episodic cluster headache, and the study period was relatively short; and CGAL only explored one cluster period per patient, Dr. McGeeney noted.
The current research attempts to provide insight that was previously unavailable, he said. “Many headache medicine clinical trial results reflect only one episode, and in general, we infer repeated usefulness – although it is not demonstrated in clinical trials,” said Dr. McGeeney.
“In this recent presentation, the authors attempt to go further and demonstrate some consistency across multiple cluster periods. The results are encouraging and what one might expect,” he said. However, “the small numbers and ad hoc nature preclude much inference from this study alone.”
Dr. Plato has received honoraria for speaking from Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He has also received research grants and support from Electrocore and Teva. Dr. McGeeney has consulted for Upsher-Smith and Theranica.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. A post hoc analysis of patients from the phase 3 CGAL study who also entered the open-label CGAR extension study was conducted. Results showed that the majority of participants whose scores on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) showed improvement 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab in the CGAL study also showed improvement after treatment for subsequent cluster bouts during the CGAR study.
“There was good agreement between PGI-I between the two [cluster headache] periods,” noted the investigators, led by Brian Plato, DO, a neurologist at Norton Neuroscience Institute in Louisville, Ky.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Two cluster periods
Galcanezumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for the treatment of episodic cluster headache in adults.
In cluster headache, attacks of recurrent, unilateral headaches with cranial autonomic symptoms last for weeks or months and are followed by periods of remission. Most studies of therapies for cluster headache examine only one cluster period. Few data about the consistency of treatment response throughout consecutive cluster periods are available, the investigators noted.
The current analysis was undertaken to examine the consistency of galcanezumab’s effect in episodic cluster headache during two cluster periods. Patients eligible for inclusion in the analysis had completed the double-blind phase of the CGAL study and had entered the open-label CGAR study.
CGAL was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in which patients with episodic cluster headache were assigned to receive galcanezumab 300 mg per month or placebo. Patients who completed the double-blind and washout phases of this study were eligible for enrollment into CGAR, a phase 3b, single-arm safety study. The investigators determined the dose of galcanezumab in accordance with each patient’s symptoms and clinical response.
Response agreement
In both studies, the PGI-I was administered 1 month after the initial dose of galcanezumab. Only patients who were in an active cluster bout on entry into CGAR and who had valid PGI-I results 1 month after the first dose in CGAL and CGAR were included in the analysis.
PGI-I responses ranged from 1, signifying very much better, to 7, signifying very much worse. The investigators summarized the proportions of patients who reported each level of PGI-I score in CGAR and analyzed the results by dichotomizing PGI-I scores at both time points in two ways.
Fifty patients entered CGAR (78% men; mean age, 46.8 years). Of this group, Dr. Plato and colleagues included 39 in their analysis. Of the 17 patients who had a PGI-I score of 1 or 2 in CGAL, 12 (70.6%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. All four participants who had a score of 3 or higher in CGAL had a score in the same range in CGAR. Eighteen participants had a PGI-I score of 1, 2, or 3 in CGAL. Of this group, 15 patients (83.3%) had a score in the same range in CGAR. Of the three patients who had a score above 3 in CGAL, two (66.7%) had a score in the same range in CGAR.
The results indicate that most patients whose PGI-I score improved in one cluster bout, such as in CGAL, also improved in a subsequent bout, such as in CGAR, the investigators noted.
‘Encouraging’ results
Commenting on the study, Brian E. McGeeney, MD, a neurologist at the John R. Graham Headache Center, Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, Boston, noted that the PGI-I is an “easy-to-understand” outcome that has been widely used in headache medicine.
“Patient-assessed outcomes have become increasingly important and are an important complement to other outcomes,” said Dr. McGeeney, who was not involved in the research. However, a disadvantage is that “it is entirely subjective and may or may not reflect a change on other outcome measures that reflect the disorder itself,” he said.
“It can be difficult to demonstrate how much usefulness a treatment has with the helpful but simple outcome measures that are seen in CGAL and CGAR,” Dr. McGeeney added. “This is due to the nature of cluster headache and not to any methodological shortcomings of those studies.”
He said this is a core problem in general with cluster headache studies, “of which there are very few.”
In addition, CGAR only included episodic cluster headache, and the study period was relatively short; and CGAL only explored one cluster period per patient, Dr. McGeeney noted.
The current research attempts to provide insight that was previously unavailable, he said. “Many headache medicine clinical trial results reflect only one episode, and in general, we infer repeated usefulness – although it is not demonstrated in clinical trials,” said Dr. McGeeney.
“In this recent presentation, the authors attempt to go further and demonstrate some consistency across multiple cluster periods. The results are encouraging and what one might expect,” he said. However, “the small numbers and ad hoc nature preclude much inference from this study alone.”
Dr. Plato has received honoraria for speaking from Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He has also received research grants and support from Electrocore and Teva. Dr. McGeeney has consulted for Upsher-Smith and Theranica.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2020
Headache may predict clinical evolution of COVID-19
new research suggests. An observational study of more than 100 patients showed that headache onset could occur during the presymptomatic or symptomatic phase of COVID-19 and could resemble tension-type or migraine headache.
Headache itself was associated with a shorter symptomatic period, while headache and anosmia were associated with a shorter hospitalization period. In a subgroup of participants, headache persisted even after the symptoms of COVID-19 had been resolved.
Investigators noted that understanding the pathophysiology of headache in COVID-19 could improve understanding of migraine and other headache disorders. “It seems that those patients who start early on, during the asymptomatic or early symptomatic period of COVID-19, with headache have a more localized inflammatory response that may reflect the ability of the body to better control and respond to the infection by SARS-CoV-2,” lead investigator Patricia Pozo-Rosich, MD, PhD, head of the headache and craniofacial pain unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, said in an interview.
She presented the findings at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Systemic inflammation
Headache is one of the main symptoms of COVID-19. A recent study of 214 patients with COVID-19 showed that approximately 13% of the participants had headache and 5% had anosmia.
SARS-CoV-2 penetrates the cells through the ACE2 receptor, which is present throughout the body. “SARS-CoV-2 enters the body through the nasal cavity and it probably penetrates the nervous system in the periphery through afferent branches of the olfactory and trigeminal nerve,” Dr. Pozo-Rosich said. It travels to the lungs and, later, the bloodstream. This generates systemic inflammation that may turn into a cytokine storm. Evidence has identified cortical hyperintensities and olfactory bulb hyperintensities in patients with COVID-19, suggesting that the virus directly infects the CNS.
Interleukin-6, one of the main inflammatory molecules, has been proven to be related to COVID-19 and has become a therapeutic target. Levels of IL-6 may be lower and tend to be more stable in patients with both COVID-19 and headache than in patients with COVID-19 only.
The researchers observed 130 patients (51% women; mean age, 54 years) with COVID-19 who were attended by neurologists at Vall d’Hebron. In this group, 74.4% had headache. Patients with headache tended to be younger than those without headache (mean age, 50 years vs. 63 years, respectively) and tended to be women (58.6% vs. 29.4%).
Approximately one-third of patients with headache had a history of migraine. Most reported mild to moderate pain that resembled tension-type headache. In participants with severe pain and migraine-like features, headache more often began during the asymptomatic phase of COVID-19.
Disease evolution predictor?
The investigators followed up on 100 of the 130 patients with COVID-19, of whom 74 had headache. About 38% of these patients had ongoing headache after 6 weeks, which suggests that some patients may develop a new daily persistent headache once a 3-month period has elapsed. Half of this group had no previous headache history. Headache had been the prodromal symptom of COVID-19 for 21.4% of these patients.
Results showed that headache predicted the clinical evolution of COVID-19. The symptomatic phase of COVID-19 was 7 days shorter for patients with headache than for those without headache. In addition, the period of hospitalization was 7 days shorter for patients with headache and anosmia, compared with patients who had neither headache nor anosmia.
Most therapies, including ibuprofen, candesartan, and anti–calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, are safe for treating headache in COVID-19, the investigators noted. “We should just try to initially avoid steroids to avoid interference with the body’s reaction to SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Pozo-Rosich said.
Researchers at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, are currently studying intranasal vazegepant, an anti-CGRP therapy, as a way to potentially blunt the severe inflammatory response in the lungs of patients with COVID-19, she noted, adding that this peptide may have a future role not only in headache, but also in COVID-19.
Historical link to viral infections
Commenting on the study, Matthew S. Robbins, MD, associate professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said the findings associating headache with a shorter symptomatic phase of COVID-19 were “interesting.”
“Headache is common with mild viral infections. More severe viral infections may simply feature more overwhelming respiratory symptoms and fever that lead to underreporting or underascertainment of headache,” said Dr. Robbins, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that the finding showing an association of headache and COVID-19 with a younger age and in women “may be related to a higher prevalence of migraine biology in such patients, and being triggered by the virus or the psychological stress associated with it.”
Dr. Robbins added that viral illnesses have long been associated with new daily persistent headache, “dating back to the early 1980s,” when it was first described in association with Epstein-Barr virus. These infections have also been implicated in the progression of migraine to chronic migraine in adolescents.
“In my view, treatment should be aimed at the symptomatic headache type for which new daily persistent headache resembles, regardless of the potential inciting factor,” Dr. Robbins said.
Dr. Pozo-Rosich has received consulting fees from Allergan, Amgen, Almirall, Biohaven, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Robbins has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. An observational study of more than 100 patients showed that headache onset could occur during the presymptomatic or symptomatic phase of COVID-19 and could resemble tension-type or migraine headache.
Headache itself was associated with a shorter symptomatic period, while headache and anosmia were associated with a shorter hospitalization period. In a subgroup of participants, headache persisted even after the symptoms of COVID-19 had been resolved.
Investigators noted that understanding the pathophysiology of headache in COVID-19 could improve understanding of migraine and other headache disorders. “It seems that those patients who start early on, during the asymptomatic or early symptomatic period of COVID-19, with headache have a more localized inflammatory response that may reflect the ability of the body to better control and respond to the infection by SARS-CoV-2,” lead investigator Patricia Pozo-Rosich, MD, PhD, head of the headache and craniofacial pain unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, said in an interview.
She presented the findings at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Systemic inflammation
Headache is one of the main symptoms of COVID-19. A recent study of 214 patients with COVID-19 showed that approximately 13% of the participants had headache and 5% had anosmia.
SARS-CoV-2 penetrates the cells through the ACE2 receptor, which is present throughout the body. “SARS-CoV-2 enters the body through the nasal cavity and it probably penetrates the nervous system in the periphery through afferent branches of the olfactory and trigeminal nerve,” Dr. Pozo-Rosich said. It travels to the lungs and, later, the bloodstream. This generates systemic inflammation that may turn into a cytokine storm. Evidence has identified cortical hyperintensities and olfactory bulb hyperintensities in patients with COVID-19, suggesting that the virus directly infects the CNS.
Interleukin-6, one of the main inflammatory molecules, has been proven to be related to COVID-19 and has become a therapeutic target. Levels of IL-6 may be lower and tend to be more stable in patients with both COVID-19 and headache than in patients with COVID-19 only.
The researchers observed 130 patients (51% women; mean age, 54 years) with COVID-19 who were attended by neurologists at Vall d’Hebron. In this group, 74.4% had headache. Patients with headache tended to be younger than those without headache (mean age, 50 years vs. 63 years, respectively) and tended to be women (58.6% vs. 29.4%).
Approximately one-third of patients with headache had a history of migraine. Most reported mild to moderate pain that resembled tension-type headache. In participants with severe pain and migraine-like features, headache more often began during the asymptomatic phase of COVID-19.
Disease evolution predictor?
The investigators followed up on 100 of the 130 patients with COVID-19, of whom 74 had headache. About 38% of these patients had ongoing headache after 6 weeks, which suggests that some patients may develop a new daily persistent headache once a 3-month period has elapsed. Half of this group had no previous headache history. Headache had been the prodromal symptom of COVID-19 for 21.4% of these patients.
Results showed that headache predicted the clinical evolution of COVID-19. The symptomatic phase of COVID-19 was 7 days shorter for patients with headache than for those without headache. In addition, the period of hospitalization was 7 days shorter for patients with headache and anosmia, compared with patients who had neither headache nor anosmia.
Most therapies, including ibuprofen, candesartan, and anti–calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, are safe for treating headache in COVID-19, the investigators noted. “We should just try to initially avoid steroids to avoid interference with the body’s reaction to SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Pozo-Rosich said.
Researchers at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, are currently studying intranasal vazegepant, an anti-CGRP therapy, as a way to potentially blunt the severe inflammatory response in the lungs of patients with COVID-19, she noted, adding that this peptide may have a future role not only in headache, but also in COVID-19.
Historical link to viral infections
Commenting on the study, Matthew S. Robbins, MD, associate professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said the findings associating headache with a shorter symptomatic phase of COVID-19 were “interesting.”
“Headache is common with mild viral infections. More severe viral infections may simply feature more overwhelming respiratory symptoms and fever that lead to underreporting or underascertainment of headache,” said Dr. Robbins, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that the finding showing an association of headache and COVID-19 with a younger age and in women “may be related to a higher prevalence of migraine biology in such patients, and being triggered by the virus or the psychological stress associated with it.”
Dr. Robbins added that viral illnesses have long been associated with new daily persistent headache, “dating back to the early 1980s,” when it was first described in association with Epstein-Barr virus. These infections have also been implicated in the progression of migraine to chronic migraine in adolescents.
“In my view, treatment should be aimed at the symptomatic headache type for which new daily persistent headache resembles, regardless of the potential inciting factor,” Dr. Robbins said.
Dr. Pozo-Rosich has received consulting fees from Allergan, Amgen, Almirall, Biohaven, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Robbins has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. An observational study of more than 100 patients showed that headache onset could occur during the presymptomatic or symptomatic phase of COVID-19 and could resemble tension-type or migraine headache.
Headache itself was associated with a shorter symptomatic period, while headache and anosmia were associated with a shorter hospitalization period. In a subgroup of participants, headache persisted even after the symptoms of COVID-19 had been resolved.
Investigators noted that understanding the pathophysiology of headache in COVID-19 could improve understanding of migraine and other headache disorders. “It seems that those patients who start early on, during the asymptomatic or early symptomatic period of COVID-19, with headache have a more localized inflammatory response that may reflect the ability of the body to better control and respond to the infection by SARS-CoV-2,” lead investigator Patricia Pozo-Rosich, MD, PhD, head of the headache and craniofacial pain unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, said in an interview.
She presented the findings at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Systemic inflammation
Headache is one of the main symptoms of COVID-19. A recent study of 214 patients with COVID-19 showed that approximately 13% of the participants had headache and 5% had anosmia.
SARS-CoV-2 penetrates the cells through the ACE2 receptor, which is present throughout the body. “SARS-CoV-2 enters the body through the nasal cavity and it probably penetrates the nervous system in the periphery through afferent branches of the olfactory and trigeminal nerve,” Dr. Pozo-Rosich said. It travels to the lungs and, later, the bloodstream. This generates systemic inflammation that may turn into a cytokine storm. Evidence has identified cortical hyperintensities and olfactory bulb hyperintensities in patients with COVID-19, suggesting that the virus directly infects the CNS.
Interleukin-6, one of the main inflammatory molecules, has been proven to be related to COVID-19 and has become a therapeutic target. Levels of IL-6 may be lower and tend to be more stable in patients with both COVID-19 and headache than in patients with COVID-19 only.
The researchers observed 130 patients (51% women; mean age, 54 years) with COVID-19 who were attended by neurologists at Vall d’Hebron. In this group, 74.4% had headache. Patients with headache tended to be younger than those without headache (mean age, 50 years vs. 63 years, respectively) and tended to be women (58.6% vs. 29.4%).
Approximately one-third of patients with headache had a history of migraine. Most reported mild to moderate pain that resembled tension-type headache. In participants with severe pain and migraine-like features, headache more often began during the asymptomatic phase of COVID-19.
Disease evolution predictor?
The investigators followed up on 100 of the 130 patients with COVID-19, of whom 74 had headache. About 38% of these patients had ongoing headache after 6 weeks, which suggests that some patients may develop a new daily persistent headache once a 3-month period has elapsed. Half of this group had no previous headache history. Headache had been the prodromal symptom of COVID-19 for 21.4% of these patients.
Results showed that headache predicted the clinical evolution of COVID-19. The symptomatic phase of COVID-19 was 7 days shorter for patients with headache than for those without headache. In addition, the period of hospitalization was 7 days shorter for patients with headache and anosmia, compared with patients who had neither headache nor anosmia.
Most therapies, including ibuprofen, candesartan, and anti–calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, are safe for treating headache in COVID-19, the investigators noted. “We should just try to initially avoid steroids to avoid interference with the body’s reaction to SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Pozo-Rosich said.
Researchers at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, are currently studying intranasal vazegepant, an anti-CGRP therapy, as a way to potentially blunt the severe inflammatory response in the lungs of patients with COVID-19, she noted, adding that this peptide may have a future role not only in headache, but also in COVID-19.
Historical link to viral infections
Commenting on the study, Matthew S. Robbins, MD, associate professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said the findings associating headache with a shorter symptomatic phase of COVID-19 were “interesting.”
“Headache is common with mild viral infections. More severe viral infections may simply feature more overwhelming respiratory symptoms and fever that lead to underreporting or underascertainment of headache,” said Dr. Robbins, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that the finding showing an association of headache and COVID-19 with a younger age and in women “may be related to a higher prevalence of migraine biology in such patients, and being triggered by the virus or the psychological stress associated with it.”
Dr. Robbins added that viral illnesses have long been associated with new daily persistent headache, “dating back to the early 1980s,” when it was first described in association with Epstein-Barr virus. These infections have also been implicated in the progression of migraine to chronic migraine in adolescents.
“In my view, treatment should be aimed at the symptomatic headache type for which new daily persistent headache resembles, regardless of the potential inciting factor,” Dr. Robbins said.
Dr. Pozo-Rosich has received consulting fees from Allergan, Amgen, Almirall, Biohaven, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Robbins has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2020
Adding CGRP to Botox is safe and effective for migraine prevention
Investigators found the CGRP-mAbs significantly reduced the number of headache days and pain severity with adverse event rates similar to those reported in previous trials of these medications.
“The addition of a CGRP monoclonal antibody provided statistically significantly fewer monthly headache days,” said study investigator Fred Cohen, MD, an internal medicine resident physician at Montefiore Health System, New York. “However, this was a retrospective chart review, which is hindered by elements such as recall bias. Therefore, future prospective studies are warranted for higher quality data.”
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Fewer headache days
Although Botox is associated with significant clinical improvement in chronic migraine, it often fails to adequately control headache frequency and additional medications are needed.
The CGRP-mAbs fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and erenumab, have recently been approved for migraine prevention, with results from clinical trials demonstrating they are effective for both chronic and episodic migraine. However, patients treated with Botox were excluded from these trials and to date there are no data on combination treatment with Botox and CGRP-mAbs.
To determine whether adjunctive treatment with CGRP-mAbs augments Botox therapy in chronic migraine the investigators conducted a retrospective chart review of patients receiving Botox and prescribed a CGRP-mAb.
Eligible patients met the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for chronic migraine; were age 18 years or older; and presented at a single headache center between May 2018 and May 2019. Patients who received another new therapy during the study or those taking CGRP-mAb treatment for less than 2 months were excluded.
The study’s primary outcome was change in the number of reported monthly headache days, and change in pain severity was the secondary outcome.
The final analysis included data on 153 patients. The population’s mean age was 47.1 years, and 139 patients (90.8%) were women. In all, 89 patients (58.0%) received erenumab (35 received 70 mg and 54 received 140 mg), 51 (33.0%) received galcanezumab, and 13 (9.0%) received fremanezumab.
Overall, 114 (74.5%) patients reported a decrease in monthly headache days or pain severity. In the group of 66 patients for whom quantitative data were available, the average number of monthly headache days before Botox treatment was 25.7. After Botox treatment, patients had an average decrease of 10.9 monthly headache days, a 42.4% reduction, so on average study participants continued to have an average of 14.8 monthly headache days.
After treatment with a CGRP-mAb the number decreased by 5.6 additional days (37.8%). Patients receiving combined therapy had an average of 9.1 monthly headache days. The total decrease from baseline was 16.6 fewer monthly headache days, a 64.6% reduction.
The number of headache days per month was reduced to 9.3 for erenumab and galcanezumab and 5.8 for fremanezumab. However, few patients in the study took fremanezumab so this result had less statistical power than the results for the other CGRP-mAbs.
A total of 13 patients (8.5%) reported side effects associated with the CGRP-mAbs, which included constipation, injection-site reaction, and fatigue.
More evidence is needed
Commenting on the findings, Peter McAllister, MD, medical director of the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Conn., said the study’s main limitation is that it is a retrospective chart review, which yields lower level evidence than a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Dr. McAllister, who was not involved in the research, also noted that the sample size was small, particularly with respect to fremanezumab.
“This study, despite its limitations, shows that addition of a monoclonal antibody to onabotulinumtoxinA is safe and well tolerated, and may confer additional reduction in migraine or headache days. The authors correctly state that more evidence via prospective study is warranted,” said Dr. McAllister, who is also chief medical officer of the New England Institute for Clinical Research and was not involved in the investigation.
Dr. Cohen has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McAllister was an investigator in the PREEMPT trial of onabotulinumtoxinA, as well as in all of the phase 3 monoclonal antibody studies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found the CGRP-mAbs significantly reduced the number of headache days and pain severity with adverse event rates similar to those reported in previous trials of these medications.
“The addition of a CGRP monoclonal antibody provided statistically significantly fewer monthly headache days,” said study investigator Fred Cohen, MD, an internal medicine resident physician at Montefiore Health System, New York. “However, this was a retrospective chart review, which is hindered by elements such as recall bias. Therefore, future prospective studies are warranted for higher quality data.”
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Fewer headache days
Although Botox is associated with significant clinical improvement in chronic migraine, it often fails to adequately control headache frequency and additional medications are needed.
The CGRP-mAbs fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and erenumab, have recently been approved for migraine prevention, with results from clinical trials demonstrating they are effective for both chronic and episodic migraine. However, patients treated with Botox were excluded from these trials and to date there are no data on combination treatment with Botox and CGRP-mAbs.
To determine whether adjunctive treatment with CGRP-mAbs augments Botox therapy in chronic migraine the investigators conducted a retrospective chart review of patients receiving Botox and prescribed a CGRP-mAb.
Eligible patients met the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for chronic migraine; were age 18 years or older; and presented at a single headache center between May 2018 and May 2019. Patients who received another new therapy during the study or those taking CGRP-mAb treatment for less than 2 months were excluded.
The study’s primary outcome was change in the number of reported monthly headache days, and change in pain severity was the secondary outcome.
The final analysis included data on 153 patients. The population’s mean age was 47.1 years, and 139 patients (90.8%) were women. In all, 89 patients (58.0%) received erenumab (35 received 70 mg and 54 received 140 mg), 51 (33.0%) received galcanezumab, and 13 (9.0%) received fremanezumab.
Overall, 114 (74.5%) patients reported a decrease in monthly headache days or pain severity. In the group of 66 patients for whom quantitative data were available, the average number of monthly headache days before Botox treatment was 25.7. After Botox treatment, patients had an average decrease of 10.9 monthly headache days, a 42.4% reduction, so on average study participants continued to have an average of 14.8 monthly headache days.
After treatment with a CGRP-mAb the number decreased by 5.6 additional days (37.8%). Patients receiving combined therapy had an average of 9.1 monthly headache days. The total decrease from baseline was 16.6 fewer monthly headache days, a 64.6% reduction.
The number of headache days per month was reduced to 9.3 for erenumab and galcanezumab and 5.8 for fremanezumab. However, few patients in the study took fremanezumab so this result had less statistical power than the results for the other CGRP-mAbs.
A total of 13 patients (8.5%) reported side effects associated with the CGRP-mAbs, which included constipation, injection-site reaction, and fatigue.
More evidence is needed
Commenting on the findings, Peter McAllister, MD, medical director of the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Conn., said the study’s main limitation is that it is a retrospective chart review, which yields lower level evidence than a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Dr. McAllister, who was not involved in the research, also noted that the sample size was small, particularly with respect to fremanezumab.
“This study, despite its limitations, shows that addition of a monoclonal antibody to onabotulinumtoxinA is safe and well tolerated, and may confer additional reduction in migraine or headache days. The authors correctly state that more evidence via prospective study is warranted,” said Dr. McAllister, who is also chief medical officer of the New England Institute for Clinical Research and was not involved in the investigation.
Dr. Cohen has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McAllister was an investigator in the PREEMPT trial of onabotulinumtoxinA, as well as in all of the phase 3 monoclonal antibody studies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found the CGRP-mAbs significantly reduced the number of headache days and pain severity with adverse event rates similar to those reported in previous trials of these medications.
“The addition of a CGRP monoclonal antibody provided statistically significantly fewer monthly headache days,” said study investigator Fred Cohen, MD, an internal medicine resident physician at Montefiore Health System, New York. “However, this was a retrospective chart review, which is hindered by elements such as recall bias. Therefore, future prospective studies are warranted for higher quality data.”
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Fewer headache days
Although Botox is associated with significant clinical improvement in chronic migraine, it often fails to adequately control headache frequency and additional medications are needed.
The CGRP-mAbs fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and erenumab, have recently been approved for migraine prevention, with results from clinical trials demonstrating they are effective for both chronic and episodic migraine. However, patients treated with Botox were excluded from these trials and to date there are no data on combination treatment with Botox and CGRP-mAbs.
To determine whether adjunctive treatment with CGRP-mAbs augments Botox therapy in chronic migraine the investigators conducted a retrospective chart review of patients receiving Botox and prescribed a CGRP-mAb.
Eligible patients met the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for chronic migraine; were age 18 years or older; and presented at a single headache center between May 2018 and May 2019. Patients who received another new therapy during the study or those taking CGRP-mAb treatment for less than 2 months were excluded.
The study’s primary outcome was change in the number of reported monthly headache days, and change in pain severity was the secondary outcome.
The final analysis included data on 153 patients. The population’s mean age was 47.1 years, and 139 patients (90.8%) were women. In all, 89 patients (58.0%) received erenumab (35 received 70 mg and 54 received 140 mg), 51 (33.0%) received galcanezumab, and 13 (9.0%) received fremanezumab.
Overall, 114 (74.5%) patients reported a decrease in monthly headache days or pain severity. In the group of 66 patients for whom quantitative data were available, the average number of monthly headache days before Botox treatment was 25.7. After Botox treatment, patients had an average decrease of 10.9 monthly headache days, a 42.4% reduction, so on average study participants continued to have an average of 14.8 monthly headache days.
After treatment with a CGRP-mAb the number decreased by 5.6 additional days (37.8%). Patients receiving combined therapy had an average of 9.1 monthly headache days. The total decrease from baseline was 16.6 fewer monthly headache days, a 64.6% reduction.
The number of headache days per month was reduced to 9.3 for erenumab and galcanezumab and 5.8 for fremanezumab. However, few patients in the study took fremanezumab so this result had less statistical power than the results for the other CGRP-mAbs.
A total of 13 patients (8.5%) reported side effects associated with the CGRP-mAbs, which included constipation, injection-site reaction, and fatigue.
More evidence is needed
Commenting on the findings, Peter McAllister, MD, medical director of the New England Institute for Neurology and Headache in Stamford, Conn., said the study’s main limitation is that it is a retrospective chart review, which yields lower level evidence than a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Dr. McAllister, who was not involved in the research, also noted that the sample size was small, particularly with respect to fremanezumab.
“This study, despite its limitations, shows that addition of a monoclonal antibody to onabotulinumtoxinA is safe and well tolerated, and may confer additional reduction in migraine or headache days. The authors correctly state that more evidence via prospective study is warranted,” said Dr. McAllister, who is also chief medical officer of the New England Institute for Clinical Research and was not involved in the investigation.
Dr. Cohen has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McAllister was an investigator in the PREEMPT trial of onabotulinumtoxinA, as well as in all of the phase 3 monoclonal antibody studies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2020
Few patients with migraine clear barriers to optimal care
, new research shows.
Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.
The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.
“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.
The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Ongoing challenges
Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.
Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.
The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.
Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.
In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.
A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.
Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.
Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.
Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.
“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.
Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.
The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.
“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.
“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.
The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows.
Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.
The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.
“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.
The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Ongoing challenges
Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.
Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.
The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.
Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.
In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.
A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.
Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.
Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.
Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.
“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.
Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.
The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.
“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.
“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.
The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows.
Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.
The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.
“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.
The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Ongoing challenges
Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.
Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.
The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.
Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.
In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.
A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.
Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.
Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.
Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.
“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.
Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.
The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.
“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.
“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.
The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From AHS 2020
Function in MS may vary significantly within EDSS scores
Preferred walking speed, for example, may vary by as much as 20% among patients with the same EDSS score. “Even though it is considered a walking scale, your scale defined groups of homogeneous disability are not even homogeneous for quantified measurement of walking ability,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y. “That’s a problem.”
Dr. Gudesblatt’s study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
John F. Kurtzke, MD, developed the EDSS in 1967. The scale has become a standard outcome of clinical trials, alongside MRI measures and annualized relapse rates. More than 15 therapies for MS have received regulatory approval in part based on their effects on EDSS outcomes. Furthermore, the recently proposed treatment goal of no evidence of disease activity includes the EDSS among its criteria.
Functional ability, however, which the EDSS measures, depends on various factors such as cognitive function, manual dexterity, and ambulation. If the degree of variability of these factors is greater than 20% within groups defined as having similar disability, this scale would no longer be valid, according to Dr. Gudesblatt.
To analyze the variability in functional performance in groups of patients with similar disability, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues retrospectively reviewed data from a prospective MS registry. Participants underwent multidimensional computerized cognitive testing and digital gait analysis. They also submitted patient-reported outcomes for hand function while undergoing simultaneous measurements of Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) or EDSS. For the analysis, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues defined groups of “adjacent” EDSS scores as follows: from 0 to 2.5, from 3 to 4.5, from 5 to 6.5, and greater than 7.
In all, 258 patients with MS underwent cognitive testing. Of this group, 73% of patients were women, and mean age was 46 years. The proportion of overlap in multidomain computerized cognitive testing global summary score of 7 domains among patients with adjacent EDSS scores was 65%. The researchers found 42% overlap among patients at the extremes of the EDSS scale. The proportion of overlap in accumulative cognitive impairment (i.e., the number of cognitive domains impaired by greater than one standard deviation) was 72% across adjacent EDSS groups and 38% across extreme EDSS groups.
Among 254 patients with MS who underwent evaluation of walking, 72% were women, and mean age was 46 years. The mean normalized velocity of preferred walking speed varied by more than 20% within EDSS groups and overlapped by more than 20% between groups.
A total of 783 patients underwent evaluation of hand function and tremor. About 74% of these participants were women, and mean age was 49 years. The variability across all PDDS groups (i.e., 0 to 1, 2 to 4, and greater than 4) was greater than 50%. Adjacent PDDS groups had overlap of more than 50%, and the extremes had an overlap of greater than 32%.
“The criteria for the diagnosis [of MS] have undergone multiple revisions, but the scale to define the disability remains unchanged,” said Dr. Gudesblatt. “It’s all about trying to do the right thing for the right patient at the right time for the right reason. We cannot go by our own perceptions. You need to have objective not subjective information to appropriately improve measurements of disease trajectory. The neurologist must move beyond the hammer and tuning fork, must move to objective, quantitative, examiner-independent, multidimensional measures of important aspects of disease to enhance identification of critical disease impact along a continuum so as to improved shared decision making with patient centric objective data to improve outcomes and reduce disability.”
Dr. Gudesblatt has served on speakers bureaus for Acorda, Amgen, Medtronic, and Saol Therapeutics. He has performed contracted research for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. The study was conducted without external funding.
SOURCE: Gudesblatt M et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract QOL15.
Preferred walking speed, for example, may vary by as much as 20% among patients with the same EDSS score. “Even though it is considered a walking scale, your scale defined groups of homogeneous disability are not even homogeneous for quantified measurement of walking ability,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y. “That’s a problem.”
Dr. Gudesblatt’s study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
John F. Kurtzke, MD, developed the EDSS in 1967. The scale has become a standard outcome of clinical trials, alongside MRI measures and annualized relapse rates. More than 15 therapies for MS have received regulatory approval in part based on their effects on EDSS outcomes. Furthermore, the recently proposed treatment goal of no evidence of disease activity includes the EDSS among its criteria.
Functional ability, however, which the EDSS measures, depends on various factors such as cognitive function, manual dexterity, and ambulation. If the degree of variability of these factors is greater than 20% within groups defined as having similar disability, this scale would no longer be valid, according to Dr. Gudesblatt.
To analyze the variability in functional performance in groups of patients with similar disability, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues retrospectively reviewed data from a prospective MS registry. Participants underwent multidimensional computerized cognitive testing and digital gait analysis. They also submitted patient-reported outcomes for hand function while undergoing simultaneous measurements of Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) or EDSS. For the analysis, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues defined groups of “adjacent” EDSS scores as follows: from 0 to 2.5, from 3 to 4.5, from 5 to 6.5, and greater than 7.
In all, 258 patients with MS underwent cognitive testing. Of this group, 73% of patients were women, and mean age was 46 years. The proportion of overlap in multidomain computerized cognitive testing global summary score of 7 domains among patients with adjacent EDSS scores was 65%. The researchers found 42% overlap among patients at the extremes of the EDSS scale. The proportion of overlap in accumulative cognitive impairment (i.e., the number of cognitive domains impaired by greater than one standard deviation) was 72% across adjacent EDSS groups and 38% across extreme EDSS groups.
Among 254 patients with MS who underwent evaluation of walking, 72% were women, and mean age was 46 years. The mean normalized velocity of preferred walking speed varied by more than 20% within EDSS groups and overlapped by more than 20% between groups.
A total of 783 patients underwent evaluation of hand function and tremor. About 74% of these participants were women, and mean age was 49 years. The variability across all PDDS groups (i.e., 0 to 1, 2 to 4, and greater than 4) was greater than 50%. Adjacent PDDS groups had overlap of more than 50%, and the extremes had an overlap of greater than 32%.
“The criteria for the diagnosis [of MS] have undergone multiple revisions, but the scale to define the disability remains unchanged,” said Dr. Gudesblatt. “It’s all about trying to do the right thing for the right patient at the right time for the right reason. We cannot go by our own perceptions. You need to have objective not subjective information to appropriately improve measurements of disease trajectory. The neurologist must move beyond the hammer and tuning fork, must move to objective, quantitative, examiner-independent, multidimensional measures of important aspects of disease to enhance identification of critical disease impact along a continuum so as to improved shared decision making with patient centric objective data to improve outcomes and reduce disability.”
Dr. Gudesblatt has served on speakers bureaus for Acorda, Amgen, Medtronic, and Saol Therapeutics. He has performed contracted research for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. The study was conducted without external funding.
SOURCE: Gudesblatt M et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract QOL15.
Preferred walking speed, for example, may vary by as much as 20% among patients with the same EDSS score. “Even though it is considered a walking scale, your scale defined groups of homogeneous disability are not even homogeneous for quantified measurement of walking ability,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y. “That’s a problem.”
Dr. Gudesblatt’s study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
John F. Kurtzke, MD, developed the EDSS in 1967. The scale has become a standard outcome of clinical trials, alongside MRI measures and annualized relapse rates. More than 15 therapies for MS have received regulatory approval in part based on their effects on EDSS outcomes. Furthermore, the recently proposed treatment goal of no evidence of disease activity includes the EDSS among its criteria.
Functional ability, however, which the EDSS measures, depends on various factors such as cognitive function, manual dexterity, and ambulation. If the degree of variability of these factors is greater than 20% within groups defined as having similar disability, this scale would no longer be valid, according to Dr. Gudesblatt.
To analyze the variability in functional performance in groups of patients with similar disability, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues retrospectively reviewed data from a prospective MS registry. Participants underwent multidimensional computerized cognitive testing and digital gait analysis. They also submitted patient-reported outcomes for hand function while undergoing simultaneous measurements of Patient-Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) or EDSS. For the analysis, Dr. Gudesblatt and colleagues defined groups of “adjacent” EDSS scores as follows: from 0 to 2.5, from 3 to 4.5, from 5 to 6.5, and greater than 7.
In all, 258 patients with MS underwent cognitive testing. Of this group, 73% of patients were women, and mean age was 46 years. The proportion of overlap in multidomain computerized cognitive testing global summary score of 7 domains among patients with adjacent EDSS scores was 65%. The researchers found 42% overlap among patients at the extremes of the EDSS scale. The proportion of overlap in accumulative cognitive impairment (i.e., the number of cognitive domains impaired by greater than one standard deviation) was 72% across adjacent EDSS groups and 38% across extreme EDSS groups.
Among 254 patients with MS who underwent evaluation of walking, 72% were women, and mean age was 46 years. The mean normalized velocity of preferred walking speed varied by more than 20% within EDSS groups and overlapped by more than 20% between groups.
A total of 783 patients underwent evaluation of hand function and tremor. About 74% of these participants were women, and mean age was 49 years. The variability across all PDDS groups (i.e., 0 to 1, 2 to 4, and greater than 4) was greater than 50%. Adjacent PDDS groups had overlap of more than 50%, and the extremes had an overlap of greater than 32%.
“The criteria for the diagnosis [of MS] have undergone multiple revisions, but the scale to define the disability remains unchanged,” said Dr. Gudesblatt. “It’s all about trying to do the right thing for the right patient at the right time for the right reason. We cannot go by our own perceptions. You need to have objective not subjective information to appropriately improve measurements of disease trajectory. The neurologist must move beyond the hammer and tuning fork, must move to objective, quantitative, examiner-independent, multidimensional measures of important aspects of disease to enhance identification of critical disease impact along a continuum so as to improved shared decision making with patient centric objective data to improve outcomes and reduce disability.”
Dr. Gudesblatt has served on speakers bureaus for Acorda, Amgen, Medtronic, and Saol Therapeutics. He has performed contracted research for Biogen, EMD Serono, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. The study was conducted without external funding.
SOURCE: Gudesblatt M et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract QOL15.
FROM CMSC 2020