User login
New guideline weighs medication options for chronic constipation
The guideline, published simultaneously in the American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastroenterology, was developed jointly by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology. It marks the AGA’s first update on chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC), also called functional constipation, in a decade.
In an interview, guideline lead author Lin Chang, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that CIC – defined as constipation lasting at least 3 months in the absence of malignancy or obstruction, a medication side effect, or inflammatory bowel disease – is common, affecting between 8% and 12% of all U.S. adults. Most will be treated by primary care physicians, not specialists, Dr. Chang said. And most will see their physicians having already tried different over-the-counter treatments.
“The criteria for CIC or functional constipation hasn’t really changed” since the last AGA guideline on it was published in 2013, Dr. Chang said, adding that the diagnostic standard currently used is the Rome IV criteria for functional constipation. “There are just more medications right now than there were 10 years ago.”
The new guideline, into which evidence from 28 studies was integrated, offers recommendations regarding different types of fiber; the osmotic laxatives polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, and lactulose; and the stimulant laxatives bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, and senna. It also assesses the secretagogues lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide, and the serotonin type 4 agonist prucalopride.
One commonly used agent in clinical practice, the stool softener docusate sodium, does not appear in the guideline, as there was too little data available on it to make an assessment, Dr. Chang said. Fruit-based laxatives were excluded because they were the subject of a recent evidence review. Lifestyle modifications such as exercise, surgical interventions, and probiotics were not assessed.
The guideline’s strongest recommendations are for polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride, with conditional recommendations for fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone.
As costs of the recommended therapies vary from less than $10 a month to over $500, the authors also included price information, noting that “patient values, costs, and health equity considerations” must be factored into treatment choices. “For polyethylene glycol there’s a strong recommendation, although the certainty of evidence was moderate,” Dr. Chang said. “And with fiber, even though we made only a conditional recommendation based on the evidence, our remarks and our algorithm make clear that it should be considered as a first-line treatment.”
In general, “if someone has more mild symptoms, you should try fiber or increase their fiber intake in their diet,” Dr. Chang commented. “If that doesn’t work, try over-the-counter remedies like polyethylene glycol. Then if symptoms are more severe, or if they fail the first-line treatments, then you go to prescription agents.”
In clinical practice, “there always considerations besides scientific evidence of safety and efficacy,” Dr. Chang stressed. “You have to personalize treatment for the patient.” A patient may present having already failed with fiber, or who does not want to use magnesium or can’t afford a costlier agent.
The guidelines contain implementation advice that might guide choice of therapy or dosing. With the prescription osmotic laxative lactulose, for example, “you may not wish to use it as a first-line treatment because bloating and flatulence are very common,” Dr. Chang said. “Our implementation advice makes that clear.” For senna, a stimulant laxative derived from the leaves of the senna plant and for which quality evidence is limited, the guideline authors stressed that patients should be started on low doses to avoid cramping.
Dr. Chang said that, while the new guideline covers medication options for otherwise-healthy adults, clinicians should be mindful that patients presenting with CIC might still have a defecatory disorder. “A person could also have pelvic floor dysfunction as a primary cause or contributing factor. If someone fails fiber or polyethylene glycol, consider a digital rectal examination as part of the physical exam. If this is abnormal, consider referring them for anorectal manometry.”
Untreated constipation carries risks, Dr. Chang noted, but “sometimes people with bothersome symptoms don’t treat them because they’re worried they’ll become dependent on treatment. It’s a dependency in the sense that you have to treat any chronic condition, such as high blood pressure or diabetes, but the treatments aren’t addictive, except for some stimulant laxatives to which people can develop tolerance.”
Hemorrhoids and defecatory disorders can occur over time because of straining, Dr. Chang said. “The pelvic wall can also get very lax, and that is hard to fix. Or, one can develop a rectal prolapse. Another thing that happens when people have longstanding constipation for many years is they start losing the urge to have a bowel movement.”
For more information, see the related clinical decision support tool in Gastroenterology.
The guideline’s development was funded by the AGA and ACG, without industry support. Authors with conflicts of interest regarding a specific intervention or drug were not allowed to weigh in on those interventions.
The guideline, published simultaneously in the American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastroenterology, was developed jointly by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology. It marks the AGA’s first update on chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC), also called functional constipation, in a decade.
In an interview, guideline lead author Lin Chang, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that CIC – defined as constipation lasting at least 3 months in the absence of malignancy or obstruction, a medication side effect, or inflammatory bowel disease – is common, affecting between 8% and 12% of all U.S. adults. Most will be treated by primary care physicians, not specialists, Dr. Chang said. And most will see their physicians having already tried different over-the-counter treatments.
“The criteria for CIC or functional constipation hasn’t really changed” since the last AGA guideline on it was published in 2013, Dr. Chang said, adding that the diagnostic standard currently used is the Rome IV criteria for functional constipation. “There are just more medications right now than there were 10 years ago.”
The new guideline, into which evidence from 28 studies was integrated, offers recommendations regarding different types of fiber; the osmotic laxatives polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, and lactulose; and the stimulant laxatives bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, and senna. It also assesses the secretagogues lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide, and the serotonin type 4 agonist prucalopride.
One commonly used agent in clinical practice, the stool softener docusate sodium, does not appear in the guideline, as there was too little data available on it to make an assessment, Dr. Chang said. Fruit-based laxatives were excluded because they were the subject of a recent evidence review. Lifestyle modifications such as exercise, surgical interventions, and probiotics were not assessed.
The guideline’s strongest recommendations are for polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride, with conditional recommendations for fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone.
As costs of the recommended therapies vary from less than $10 a month to over $500, the authors also included price information, noting that “patient values, costs, and health equity considerations” must be factored into treatment choices. “For polyethylene glycol there’s a strong recommendation, although the certainty of evidence was moderate,” Dr. Chang said. “And with fiber, even though we made only a conditional recommendation based on the evidence, our remarks and our algorithm make clear that it should be considered as a first-line treatment.”
In general, “if someone has more mild symptoms, you should try fiber or increase their fiber intake in their diet,” Dr. Chang commented. “If that doesn’t work, try over-the-counter remedies like polyethylene glycol. Then if symptoms are more severe, or if they fail the first-line treatments, then you go to prescription agents.”
In clinical practice, “there always considerations besides scientific evidence of safety and efficacy,” Dr. Chang stressed. “You have to personalize treatment for the patient.” A patient may present having already failed with fiber, or who does not want to use magnesium or can’t afford a costlier agent.
The guidelines contain implementation advice that might guide choice of therapy or dosing. With the prescription osmotic laxative lactulose, for example, “you may not wish to use it as a first-line treatment because bloating and flatulence are very common,” Dr. Chang said. “Our implementation advice makes that clear.” For senna, a stimulant laxative derived from the leaves of the senna plant and for which quality evidence is limited, the guideline authors stressed that patients should be started on low doses to avoid cramping.
Dr. Chang said that, while the new guideline covers medication options for otherwise-healthy adults, clinicians should be mindful that patients presenting with CIC might still have a defecatory disorder. “A person could also have pelvic floor dysfunction as a primary cause or contributing factor. If someone fails fiber or polyethylene glycol, consider a digital rectal examination as part of the physical exam. If this is abnormal, consider referring them for anorectal manometry.”
Untreated constipation carries risks, Dr. Chang noted, but “sometimes people with bothersome symptoms don’t treat them because they’re worried they’ll become dependent on treatment. It’s a dependency in the sense that you have to treat any chronic condition, such as high blood pressure or diabetes, but the treatments aren’t addictive, except for some stimulant laxatives to which people can develop tolerance.”
Hemorrhoids and defecatory disorders can occur over time because of straining, Dr. Chang said. “The pelvic wall can also get very lax, and that is hard to fix. Or, one can develop a rectal prolapse. Another thing that happens when people have longstanding constipation for many years is they start losing the urge to have a bowel movement.”
For more information, see the related clinical decision support tool in Gastroenterology.
The guideline’s development was funded by the AGA and ACG, without industry support. Authors with conflicts of interest regarding a specific intervention or drug were not allowed to weigh in on those interventions.
The guideline, published simultaneously in the American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastroenterology, was developed jointly by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology. It marks the AGA’s first update on chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC), also called functional constipation, in a decade.
In an interview, guideline lead author Lin Chang, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that CIC – defined as constipation lasting at least 3 months in the absence of malignancy or obstruction, a medication side effect, or inflammatory bowel disease – is common, affecting between 8% and 12% of all U.S. adults. Most will be treated by primary care physicians, not specialists, Dr. Chang said. And most will see their physicians having already tried different over-the-counter treatments.
“The criteria for CIC or functional constipation hasn’t really changed” since the last AGA guideline on it was published in 2013, Dr. Chang said, adding that the diagnostic standard currently used is the Rome IV criteria for functional constipation. “There are just more medications right now than there were 10 years ago.”
The new guideline, into which evidence from 28 studies was integrated, offers recommendations regarding different types of fiber; the osmotic laxatives polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, and lactulose; and the stimulant laxatives bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, and senna. It also assesses the secretagogues lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide, and the serotonin type 4 agonist prucalopride.
One commonly used agent in clinical practice, the stool softener docusate sodium, does not appear in the guideline, as there was too little data available on it to make an assessment, Dr. Chang said. Fruit-based laxatives were excluded because they were the subject of a recent evidence review. Lifestyle modifications such as exercise, surgical interventions, and probiotics were not assessed.
The guideline’s strongest recommendations are for polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride, with conditional recommendations for fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone.
As costs of the recommended therapies vary from less than $10 a month to over $500, the authors also included price information, noting that “patient values, costs, and health equity considerations” must be factored into treatment choices. “For polyethylene glycol there’s a strong recommendation, although the certainty of evidence was moderate,” Dr. Chang said. “And with fiber, even though we made only a conditional recommendation based on the evidence, our remarks and our algorithm make clear that it should be considered as a first-line treatment.”
In general, “if someone has more mild symptoms, you should try fiber or increase their fiber intake in their diet,” Dr. Chang commented. “If that doesn’t work, try over-the-counter remedies like polyethylene glycol. Then if symptoms are more severe, or if they fail the first-line treatments, then you go to prescription agents.”
In clinical practice, “there always considerations besides scientific evidence of safety and efficacy,” Dr. Chang stressed. “You have to personalize treatment for the patient.” A patient may present having already failed with fiber, or who does not want to use magnesium or can’t afford a costlier agent.
The guidelines contain implementation advice that might guide choice of therapy or dosing. With the prescription osmotic laxative lactulose, for example, “you may not wish to use it as a first-line treatment because bloating and flatulence are very common,” Dr. Chang said. “Our implementation advice makes that clear.” For senna, a stimulant laxative derived from the leaves of the senna plant and for which quality evidence is limited, the guideline authors stressed that patients should be started on low doses to avoid cramping.
Dr. Chang said that, while the new guideline covers medication options for otherwise-healthy adults, clinicians should be mindful that patients presenting with CIC might still have a defecatory disorder. “A person could also have pelvic floor dysfunction as a primary cause or contributing factor. If someone fails fiber or polyethylene glycol, consider a digital rectal examination as part of the physical exam. If this is abnormal, consider referring them for anorectal manometry.”
Untreated constipation carries risks, Dr. Chang noted, but “sometimes people with bothersome symptoms don’t treat them because they’re worried they’ll become dependent on treatment. It’s a dependency in the sense that you have to treat any chronic condition, such as high blood pressure or diabetes, but the treatments aren’t addictive, except for some stimulant laxatives to which people can develop tolerance.”
Hemorrhoids and defecatory disorders can occur over time because of straining, Dr. Chang said. “The pelvic wall can also get very lax, and that is hard to fix. Or, one can develop a rectal prolapse. Another thing that happens when people have longstanding constipation for many years is they start losing the urge to have a bowel movement.”
For more information, see the related clinical decision support tool in Gastroenterology.
The guideline’s development was funded by the AGA and ACG, without industry support. Authors with conflicts of interest regarding a specific intervention or drug were not allowed to weigh in on those interventions.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
FMT in a pill: FDA approves second product to prevent C. diff recurrence
The recent approval of the first oral fecal-derived microbiota therapy to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection in patients was welcome news for physicians who’ve struggled under the weight of having too few treatment options for the prevention of C. diff recurrence.
The product, developed by Massachusetts-based Seres Therepeutics and marketed as Vowst, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 26. It is approved for use in adults who have already been treated with antibiotics for a recurrent infection with C. diff bacteria.
and is designed to be delivered in four capsules taken daily for 3 days.
Gastroenterologist Phillip I. Tarr, MD, division chief of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis, and chair of the American Gastroenterological Association Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education, said that prevention of recurrent C. diff infection “remains challenging,” and that Vowst “provides the first FDA-approved, orally administered microbiome therapeutic with which to achieve this goal. This advance also makes us optimistic we might soon be able to prevent other disorders by managing gut microbial communities.”
Vowst is the second therapy derived from human stool to be approved for the indication in less than 6 months. In December, the FDA approved Rebyota (Ferring), a rectally delivered treatment that also uses microbes from donor feces. Both products were given priority review, orphan drug, and breakthrough therapy designations by the agency.
C. diff infection can be aggravated by an alteration of normal gut flora associated with antibiotics treatment, leading to cycles of repeated infections. Infection can produce diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and severe morbidity. In the United States, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 deaths per year are linked to C. diff. Risk factors for recurrent infection include being 65 or older, hospitalization, being in a nursing home, a weakened immune system, and previous infection with C. diff.
Therapies transplanting fecal microbiota from donors have been used since the 1950s as treatments for recurrent C. diff infection, and in the past decade, as stool banks recruiting screened donors have made fecal microbiota transplants, or FMT, standard of care. However, only in recent years have fecal-derived therapies become subject to standardized safety and efficacy testing.
Both the current FDA-approved products, Rebyota and Vowst, were shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce recurrence of C. diff infection, compared with placebo. In a phase 3 clinical trial of Rebyota (n = 262) in antibiotic-treated patients, one rectally administered dose reduced recurrence of C. diff infection by 70.6% at 8 weeks, compared with 57.5% for placebo. A phase 3 study of Vowst (n = 281) showed recurrence in treated subjects to be 12.4% at 8 weeks, compared with nearly 40% of those receiving placebo (relative risk, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.58; P less than .001).
Despite screening protocols that have become increasingly homogenized and rigorous, FMT is associated with the risk of introducing pathogens. Vowst is manufactured with purified bacterial spores derived from donor feces, not whole stool. Nonetheless, FDA noted in its statement that Vowst could still potentially introduce infectious agents or allergens.
Antibiotics are still first-line treatment
In an interview, Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, medical director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that having two FDA-approved therapies with different means of administration “is great for the field and great for patients. These are both meant to be used after a course of antibiotics, so antibiotics are still the mainstay of treatment for C. diff and recurrent C. diff, but we now have more options to prevent recurrence.”
The convenience of an oral therapy that can be taken at home is “very attractive,” Dr. Allegretti added, noting that there will also be patients “who either don’t want to or can’t take capsules, for whom a rectal administration [in a health care setting] may be preferred.”
Dr. Allegretti, who has used FMT to treat recurrent C. difficile for more than a decade, said that she expected traditional FMT using screened donor stool to remain available even as the new products are adopted by clinicians. FMT centers like OpenBiome “will continue to provide access for patients who either don’t have the ability to get the FDA-approved products because of insurance coverage, or for financial reasons, or maybe neither of the new products is appropriate for them,” she said. “I do think there will always be a need for the traditional option. The more options that we have available the better.”
TD Cowen analyst Joseph Thome told Reuters that the drug could be priced close to $20,000 per course, expecting peak sales of $750 million in the U.S. in 2033.
Dr. Allegretti disclosed consulting work for Seres Therapeutics, Ferring, and other manufacturers. She is a member of OpenBiome’s clinical advisory board.
The recent approval of the first oral fecal-derived microbiota therapy to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection in patients was welcome news for physicians who’ve struggled under the weight of having too few treatment options for the prevention of C. diff recurrence.
The product, developed by Massachusetts-based Seres Therepeutics and marketed as Vowst, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 26. It is approved for use in adults who have already been treated with antibiotics for a recurrent infection with C. diff bacteria.
and is designed to be delivered in four capsules taken daily for 3 days.
Gastroenterologist Phillip I. Tarr, MD, division chief of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis, and chair of the American Gastroenterological Association Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education, said that prevention of recurrent C. diff infection “remains challenging,” and that Vowst “provides the first FDA-approved, orally administered microbiome therapeutic with which to achieve this goal. This advance also makes us optimistic we might soon be able to prevent other disorders by managing gut microbial communities.”
Vowst is the second therapy derived from human stool to be approved for the indication in less than 6 months. In December, the FDA approved Rebyota (Ferring), a rectally delivered treatment that also uses microbes from donor feces. Both products were given priority review, orphan drug, and breakthrough therapy designations by the agency.
C. diff infection can be aggravated by an alteration of normal gut flora associated with antibiotics treatment, leading to cycles of repeated infections. Infection can produce diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and severe morbidity. In the United States, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 deaths per year are linked to C. diff. Risk factors for recurrent infection include being 65 or older, hospitalization, being in a nursing home, a weakened immune system, and previous infection with C. diff.
Therapies transplanting fecal microbiota from donors have been used since the 1950s as treatments for recurrent C. diff infection, and in the past decade, as stool banks recruiting screened donors have made fecal microbiota transplants, or FMT, standard of care. However, only in recent years have fecal-derived therapies become subject to standardized safety and efficacy testing.
Both the current FDA-approved products, Rebyota and Vowst, were shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce recurrence of C. diff infection, compared with placebo. In a phase 3 clinical trial of Rebyota (n = 262) in antibiotic-treated patients, one rectally administered dose reduced recurrence of C. diff infection by 70.6% at 8 weeks, compared with 57.5% for placebo. A phase 3 study of Vowst (n = 281) showed recurrence in treated subjects to be 12.4% at 8 weeks, compared with nearly 40% of those receiving placebo (relative risk, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.58; P less than .001).
Despite screening protocols that have become increasingly homogenized and rigorous, FMT is associated with the risk of introducing pathogens. Vowst is manufactured with purified bacterial spores derived from donor feces, not whole stool. Nonetheless, FDA noted in its statement that Vowst could still potentially introduce infectious agents or allergens.
Antibiotics are still first-line treatment
In an interview, Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, medical director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that having two FDA-approved therapies with different means of administration “is great for the field and great for patients. These are both meant to be used after a course of antibiotics, so antibiotics are still the mainstay of treatment for C. diff and recurrent C. diff, but we now have more options to prevent recurrence.”
The convenience of an oral therapy that can be taken at home is “very attractive,” Dr. Allegretti added, noting that there will also be patients “who either don’t want to or can’t take capsules, for whom a rectal administration [in a health care setting] may be preferred.”
Dr. Allegretti, who has used FMT to treat recurrent C. difficile for more than a decade, said that she expected traditional FMT using screened donor stool to remain available even as the new products are adopted by clinicians. FMT centers like OpenBiome “will continue to provide access for patients who either don’t have the ability to get the FDA-approved products because of insurance coverage, or for financial reasons, or maybe neither of the new products is appropriate for them,” she said. “I do think there will always be a need for the traditional option. The more options that we have available the better.”
TD Cowen analyst Joseph Thome told Reuters that the drug could be priced close to $20,000 per course, expecting peak sales of $750 million in the U.S. in 2033.
Dr. Allegretti disclosed consulting work for Seres Therapeutics, Ferring, and other manufacturers. She is a member of OpenBiome’s clinical advisory board.
The recent approval of the first oral fecal-derived microbiota therapy to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection in patients was welcome news for physicians who’ve struggled under the weight of having too few treatment options for the prevention of C. diff recurrence.
The product, developed by Massachusetts-based Seres Therepeutics and marketed as Vowst, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 26. It is approved for use in adults who have already been treated with antibiotics for a recurrent infection with C. diff bacteria.
and is designed to be delivered in four capsules taken daily for 3 days.
Gastroenterologist Phillip I. Tarr, MD, division chief of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis, and chair of the American Gastroenterological Association Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education, said that prevention of recurrent C. diff infection “remains challenging,” and that Vowst “provides the first FDA-approved, orally administered microbiome therapeutic with which to achieve this goal. This advance also makes us optimistic we might soon be able to prevent other disorders by managing gut microbial communities.”
Vowst is the second therapy derived from human stool to be approved for the indication in less than 6 months. In December, the FDA approved Rebyota (Ferring), a rectally delivered treatment that also uses microbes from donor feces. Both products were given priority review, orphan drug, and breakthrough therapy designations by the agency.
C. diff infection can be aggravated by an alteration of normal gut flora associated with antibiotics treatment, leading to cycles of repeated infections. Infection can produce diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and severe morbidity. In the United States, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 deaths per year are linked to C. diff. Risk factors for recurrent infection include being 65 or older, hospitalization, being in a nursing home, a weakened immune system, and previous infection with C. diff.
Therapies transplanting fecal microbiota from donors have been used since the 1950s as treatments for recurrent C. diff infection, and in the past decade, as stool banks recruiting screened donors have made fecal microbiota transplants, or FMT, standard of care. However, only in recent years have fecal-derived therapies become subject to standardized safety and efficacy testing.
Both the current FDA-approved products, Rebyota and Vowst, were shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce recurrence of C. diff infection, compared with placebo. In a phase 3 clinical trial of Rebyota (n = 262) in antibiotic-treated patients, one rectally administered dose reduced recurrence of C. diff infection by 70.6% at 8 weeks, compared with 57.5% for placebo. A phase 3 study of Vowst (n = 281) showed recurrence in treated subjects to be 12.4% at 8 weeks, compared with nearly 40% of those receiving placebo (relative risk, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.58; P less than .001).
Despite screening protocols that have become increasingly homogenized and rigorous, FMT is associated with the risk of introducing pathogens. Vowst is manufactured with purified bacterial spores derived from donor feces, not whole stool. Nonetheless, FDA noted in its statement that Vowst could still potentially introduce infectious agents or allergens.
Antibiotics are still first-line treatment
In an interview, Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, medical director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that having two FDA-approved therapies with different means of administration “is great for the field and great for patients. These are both meant to be used after a course of antibiotics, so antibiotics are still the mainstay of treatment for C. diff and recurrent C. diff, but we now have more options to prevent recurrence.”
The convenience of an oral therapy that can be taken at home is “very attractive,” Dr. Allegretti added, noting that there will also be patients “who either don’t want to or can’t take capsules, for whom a rectal administration [in a health care setting] may be preferred.”
Dr. Allegretti, who has used FMT to treat recurrent C. difficile for more than a decade, said that she expected traditional FMT using screened donor stool to remain available even as the new products are adopted by clinicians. FMT centers like OpenBiome “will continue to provide access for patients who either don’t have the ability to get the FDA-approved products because of insurance coverage, or for financial reasons, or maybe neither of the new products is appropriate for them,” she said. “I do think there will always be a need for the traditional option. The more options that we have available the better.”
TD Cowen analyst Joseph Thome told Reuters that the drug could be priced close to $20,000 per course, expecting peak sales of $750 million in the U.S. in 2033.
Dr. Allegretti disclosed consulting work for Seres Therapeutics, Ferring, and other manufacturers. She is a member of OpenBiome’s clinical advisory board.
Urban green and blue spaces linked to less psychological distress
The findings of the study, which was released ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, build on a growing understanding of the relationship between types and qualities of urban environments and dementia risk.
Adithya Vegaraju, a student at Washington State University, Spokane, led the study, which looked at data from the Washington State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to assess prevalence of serious psychological distress among 42,980 Washington state residents aged 65 and over.
The data, collected between 2011 and 2019, used a self-reported questionnaire to determine serious psychological distress, which is defined as a level of mental distress considered debilitating enough to warrant treatment.
Mr. Vegaraju and his coauthor Solmaz Amiri, DDes, also of Washington State University, used ZIP codes, along with U.S. census data, to approximate the urban adults’ proximity to green and blue spaces.
After controlling for potential confounders of age, sex, ethnicity, education, and marital status, the investigators found that people living within half a mile of green or blue spaces had a 17% lower risk of experiencing serious psychological distress, compared with people living farther from these spaces, the investigators said in a news release.
Implications for cognitive decline and dementia?
Psychological distress in adults has been linked in population-based longitudinal studies to later cognitive decline and dementia. One study in older adults found the risk of dementia to be more than 50% higher among adults aged 50-70 with persistent depression. Blue and green spaces have also been investigated in relation to neurodegenerative disease among older adults; a 2022 study looking at data from some 62 million Medicare beneficiaries found those living in areas with more vegetation saw lower risk of hospitalizations for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.
“Since we lack effective prevention methods or treatments for mild cognitive impairment and dementia, we need to get creative in how we look at these issues,” Dr. Amiri commented in a press statement about her and Mr. Vegaraju’s findings. “Our hope is that this study showing better mental health among people living close to parks and water will trigger other studies about how these benefits work and whether this proximity can help prevent or delay mild cognitive impairment and dementia.”
The investigators acknowledged that their findings were limited by reliance on a self-reported measure of psychological distress.
A bidirectional connection with depression and dementia
In a comment, Anjum Hajat, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle who has also studied the relationship between green space and dementia risk in older adults, noted some further apparent limitations of the new study, for which only an abstract was available at publication.
“It has been shown that people with depression are at higher risk for dementia, but the opposite is also true,” Dr. Hajat commented. “Those with dementia are more likely to develop depression. This bidirectionality makes this study abstract difficult to interpret since the study is based on cross-sectional data: Individuals are not followed over time to see which develops first, dementia or depression.”
Additionally, Dr. Hajat noted, the data used to determine proximity to green and blue spaces did not allow for the calculation of precise distances between subjects’ homes and these spaces.
Mr. Vegaraju and Dr. Amiri’s study had no outside support, and the investigators declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Hajat declared no conflicts of interest.
The findings of the study, which was released ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, build on a growing understanding of the relationship between types and qualities of urban environments and dementia risk.
Adithya Vegaraju, a student at Washington State University, Spokane, led the study, which looked at data from the Washington State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to assess prevalence of serious psychological distress among 42,980 Washington state residents aged 65 and over.
The data, collected between 2011 and 2019, used a self-reported questionnaire to determine serious psychological distress, which is defined as a level of mental distress considered debilitating enough to warrant treatment.
Mr. Vegaraju and his coauthor Solmaz Amiri, DDes, also of Washington State University, used ZIP codes, along with U.S. census data, to approximate the urban adults’ proximity to green and blue spaces.
After controlling for potential confounders of age, sex, ethnicity, education, and marital status, the investigators found that people living within half a mile of green or blue spaces had a 17% lower risk of experiencing serious psychological distress, compared with people living farther from these spaces, the investigators said in a news release.
Implications for cognitive decline and dementia?
Psychological distress in adults has been linked in population-based longitudinal studies to later cognitive decline and dementia. One study in older adults found the risk of dementia to be more than 50% higher among adults aged 50-70 with persistent depression. Blue and green spaces have also been investigated in relation to neurodegenerative disease among older adults; a 2022 study looking at data from some 62 million Medicare beneficiaries found those living in areas with more vegetation saw lower risk of hospitalizations for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.
“Since we lack effective prevention methods or treatments for mild cognitive impairment and dementia, we need to get creative in how we look at these issues,” Dr. Amiri commented in a press statement about her and Mr. Vegaraju’s findings. “Our hope is that this study showing better mental health among people living close to parks and water will trigger other studies about how these benefits work and whether this proximity can help prevent or delay mild cognitive impairment and dementia.”
The investigators acknowledged that their findings were limited by reliance on a self-reported measure of psychological distress.
A bidirectional connection with depression and dementia
In a comment, Anjum Hajat, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle who has also studied the relationship between green space and dementia risk in older adults, noted some further apparent limitations of the new study, for which only an abstract was available at publication.
“It has been shown that people with depression are at higher risk for dementia, but the opposite is also true,” Dr. Hajat commented. “Those with dementia are more likely to develop depression. This bidirectionality makes this study abstract difficult to interpret since the study is based on cross-sectional data: Individuals are not followed over time to see which develops first, dementia or depression.”
Additionally, Dr. Hajat noted, the data used to determine proximity to green and blue spaces did not allow for the calculation of precise distances between subjects’ homes and these spaces.
Mr. Vegaraju and Dr. Amiri’s study had no outside support, and the investigators declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Hajat declared no conflicts of interest.
The findings of the study, which was released ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, build on a growing understanding of the relationship between types and qualities of urban environments and dementia risk.
Adithya Vegaraju, a student at Washington State University, Spokane, led the study, which looked at data from the Washington State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to assess prevalence of serious psychological distress among 42,980 Washington state residents aged 65 and over.
The data, collected between 2011 and 2019, used a self-reported questionnaire to determine serious psychological distress, which is defined as a level of mental distress considered debilitating enough to warrant treatment.
Mr. Vegaraju and his coauthor Solmaz Amiri, DDes, also of Washington State University, used ZIP codes, along with U.S. census data, to approximate the urban adults’ proximity to green and blue spaces.
After controlling for potential confounders of age, sex, ethnicity, education, and marital status, the investigators found that people living within half a mile of green or blue spaces had a 17% lower risk of experiencing serious psychological distress, compared with people living farther from these spaces, the investigators said in a news release.
Implications for cognitive decline and dementia?
Psychological distress in adults has been linked in population-based longitudinal studies to later cognitive decline and dementia. One study in older adults found the risk of dementia to be more than 50% higher among adults aged 50-70 with persistent depression. Blue and green spaces have also been investigated in relation to neurodegenerative disease among older adults; a 2022 study looking at data from some 62 million Medicare beneficiaries found those living in areas with more vegetation saw lower risk of hospitalizations for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.
“Since we lack effective prevention methods or treatments for mild cognitive impairment and dementia, we need to get creative in how we look at these issues,” Dr. Amiri commented in a press statement about her and Mr. Vegaraju’s findings. “Our hope is that this study showing better mental health among people living close to parks and water will trigger other studies about how these benefits work and whether this proximity can help prevent or delay mild cognitive impairment and dementia.”
The investigators acknowledged that their findings were limited by reliance on a self-reported measure of psychological distress.
A bidirectional connection with depression and dementia
In a comment, Anjum Hajat, PhD, an epidemiologist at University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle who has also studied the relationship between green space and dementia risk in older adults, noted some further apparent limitations of the new study, for which only an abstract was available at publication.
“It has been shown that people with depression are at higher risk for dementia, but the opposite is also true,” Dr. Hajat commented. “Those with dementia are more likely to develop depression. This bidirectionality makes this study abstract difficult to interpret since the study is based on cross-sectional data: Individuals are not followed over time to see which develops first, dementia or depression.”
Additionally, Dr. Hajat noted, the data used to determine proximity to green and blue spaces did not allow for the calculation of precise distances between subjects’ homes and these spaces.
Mr. Vegaraju and Dr. Amiri’s study had no outside support, and the investigators declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Hajat declared no conflicts of interest.
FROM AAN 2023
Seven ‘simple’ cardiovascular health measures linked to reduced dementia risk in women
according to results of a study that was released early, ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Epidemiologist Pamela M. Rist, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues, used data from 13,720 women whose mean age was 54 when they enrolled in the Harvard-based Women’s Health Study between 1992 and 1995. Subjects in that study were followed up in 2004.
Putting ‘Life’s Simple 7’ to the test
Dr. Rist and colleagues used the Harvard data to discern how well closely women conformed, during the initial study period and at 10-year follow up, to what the American Heart Association describes as “Life’s Simple 7,” a list of behavioral and biometric measures that indicate and predict cardiovascular health. The measures include four modifiable behaviors – not smoking, healthy weight, a healthy diet, and being physically active – along with three biometric measures of blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar (AHA has since added a sleep component).
Researchers assigned women one point for each desirable habit or measure on the list, with subjects’ average Simple 7 score at baseline 4.3, and 4.2 at 10 years’ follow-up.
The investigators then looked at Medicare data for the study subjects from 2011 to 2018 – approximately 20 years after their enrollment in the Women’s Health Study – seeking dementia diagnoses. Some 13% of the study cohort (n = 1,771) had gone on to develop dementia.
Each point on the Simple 7 score at baseline corresponded with a 6% reduction in later dementia risk, Dr. Rist and her colleagues found after adjusting for variables including age and education (odds ratio per one unit change in score, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98). This effect was similar for Simple 7 scores measured at 10 years of follow-up (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).
“It can be empowering for people to know that by taking steps such as exercising for a half an hour a day or keeping their blood pressure under control, they can reduce their risk of dementia,” Dr. Rist said in a statement on the findings.
‘A simple take-home message’
Reached for comment, Andrew E. Budson, MD, chief of cognitive-behavioral neurology at the VA Boston Healthcare System, praised Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study as one that “builds on existing knowledge to provide a simple take-home message that empowers women to take control of their dementia risk.”
Each of the seven known risk factors – being active, eating better, maintaining a healthy weight, not smoking, maintaining a healthy blood pressure, controlling cholesterol, and having low blood sugar – “was associated with a 6% reduced risk of dementia,” Dr. Budson continued. “So, women who work to address all seven risk factors can reduce their risk of developing dementia by 42%: a huge amount. Moreover, although this study only looked at women, I am confident that if men follow this same advice they will also be able to reduce their risk of dementia, although we don’t know if the size of the effect will be the same.”
Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Budson has reported receiving past compensation as a speaker for Eli Lilly.
according to results of a study that was released early, ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Epidemiologist Pamela M. Rist, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues, used data from 13,720 women whose mean age was 54 when they enrolled in the Harvard-based Women’s Health Study between 1992 and 1995. Subjects in that study were followed up in 2004.
Putting ‘Life’s Simple 7’ to the test
Dr. Rist and colleagues used the Harvard data to discern how well closely women conformed, during the initial study period and at 10-year follow up, to what the American Heart Association describes as “Life’s Simple 7,” a list of behavioral and biometric measures that indicate and predict cardiovascular health. The measures include four modifiable behaviors – not smoking, healthy weight, a healthy diet, and being physically active – along with three biometric measures of blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar (AHA has since added a sleep component).
Researchers assigned women one point for each desirable habit or measure on the list, with subjects’ average Simple 7 score at baseline 4.3, and 4.2 at 10 years’ follow-up.
The investigators then looked at Medicare data for the study subjects from 2011 to 2018 – approximately 20 years after their enrollment in the Women’s Health Study – seeking dementia diagnoses. Some 13% of the study cohort (n = 1,771) had gone on to develop dementia.
Each point on the Simple 7 score at baseline corresponded with a 6% reduction in later dementia risk, Dr. Rist and her colleagues found after adjusting for variables including age and education (odds ratio per one unit change in score, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98). This effect was similar for Simple 7 scores measured at 10 years of follow-up (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).
“It can be empowering for people to know that by taking steps such as exercising for a half an hour a day or keeping their blood pressure under control, they can reduce their risk of dementia,” Dr. Rist said in a statement on the findings.
‘A simple take-home message’
Reached for comment, Andrew E. Budson, MD, chief of cognitive-behavioral neurology at the VA Boston Healthcare System, praised Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study as one that “builds on existing knowledge to provide a simple take-home message that empowers women to take control of their dementia risk.”
Each of the seven known risk factors – being active, eating better, maintaining a healthy weight, not smoking, maintaining a healthy blood pressure, controlling cholesterol, and having low blood sugar – “was associated with a 6% reduced risk of dementia,” Dr. Budson continued. “So, women who work to address all seven risk factors can reduce their risk of developing dementia by 42%: a huge amount. Moreover, although this study only looked at women, I am confident that if men follow this same advice they will also be able to reduce their risk of dementia, although we don’t know if the size of the effect will be the same.”
Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Budson has reported receiving past compensation as a speaker for Eli Lilly.
according to results of a study that was released early, ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Epidemiologist Pamela M. Rist, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues, used data from 13,720 women whose mean age was 54 when they enrolled in the Harvard-based Women’s Health Study between 1992 and 1995. Subjects in that study were followed up in 2004.
Putting ‘Life’s Simple 7’ to the test
Dr. Rist and colleagues used the Harvard data to discern how well closely women conformed, during the initial study period and at 10-year follow up, to what the American Heart Association describes as “Life’s Simple 7,” a list of behavioral and biometric measures that indicate and predict cardiovascular health. The measures include four modifiable behaviors – not smoking, healthy weight, a healthy diet, and being physically active – along with three biometric measures of blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar (AHA has since added a sleep component).
Researchers assigned women one point for each desirable habit or measure on the list, with subjects’ average Simple 7 score at baseline 4.3, and 4.2 at 10 years’ follow-up.
The investigators then looked at Medicare data for the study subjects from 2011 to 2018 – approximately 20 years after their enrollment in the Women’s Health Study – seeking dementia diagnoses. Some 13% of the study cohort (n = 1,771) had gone on to develop dementia.
Each point on the Simple 7 score at baseline corresponded with a 6% reduction in later dementia risk, Dr. Rist and her colleagues found after adjusting for variables including age and education (odds ratio per one unit change in score, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98). This effect was similar for Simple 7 scores measured at 10 years of follow-up (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).
“It can be empowering for people to know that by taking steps such as exercising for a half an hour a day or keeping their blood pressure under control, they can reduce their risk of dementia,” Dr. Rist said in a statement on the findings.
‘A simple take-home message’
Reached for comment, Andrew E. Budson, MD, chief of cognitive-behavioral neurology at the VA Boston Healthcare System, praised Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study as one that “builds on existing knowledge to provide a simple take-home message that empowers women to take control of their dementia risk.”
Each of the seven known risk factors – being active, eating better, maintaining a healthy weight, not smoking, maintaining a healthy blood pressure, controlling cholesterol, and having low blood sugar – “was associated with a 6% reduced risk of dementia,” Dr. Budson continued. “So, women who work to address all seven risk factors can reduce their risk of developing dementia by 42%: a huge amount. Moreover, although this study only looked at women, I am confident that if men follow this same advice they will also be able to reduce their risk of dementia, although we don’t know if the size of the effect will be the same.”
Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Budson has reported receiving past compensation as a speaker for Eli Lilly.
FROM AAN 2023
Headache before the revolution: A clinician looks back
Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.
But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.
In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.
After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.
But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
The early years
Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.
On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”
DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.
“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.
“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.
Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
The triptan era
Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)
Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.
Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
Medication overuse headache
The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.
Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.
Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”
Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
The next revolution: CGRP and gepants
Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.
In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”
The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.
Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.
In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
Headache treatment today
Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.
Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.
“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”
Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.
“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”
Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.
*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.
Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.
But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.
In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.
After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.
But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
The early years
Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.
On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”
DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.
“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.
“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.
Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
The triptan era
Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)
Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.
Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
Medication overuse headache
The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.
Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.
Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”
Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
The next revolution: CGRP and gepants
Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.
In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”
The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.
Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.
In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
Headache treatment today
Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.
Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.
“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”
Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.
“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”
Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.
*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.
Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.
But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.
In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.
After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.
But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
The early years
Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.
On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”
DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.
“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.
“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.
Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
The triptan era
Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)
Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.
Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
Medication overuse headache
The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.
Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.
Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”
Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
The next revolution: CGRP and gepants
Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.
In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”
The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.
Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.
In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
Headache treatment today
Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.
Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.
“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”
Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.
“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”
Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.
*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.
Cognitive testing for older drivers: Is there a benefit?
, according to results from a large population-based study using data from Japan.
But the same study, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, also reported a concurrent increase in pedestrian and cycling injuries, possibly because more older former drivers were getting around by alternative means. That finding echoed a 2012 study from Denmark, which also looked at the effects of an age-based cognitive screening policy for older drivers, and saw more fatal road injuries among older people who were not driving.
While some governments, including those of Denmark, Taiwan, and Japan, have implemented age-based cognitive screening for older drivers, there has been little evidence to date that such policies improve road safety. Guidelines issued in 2010 by the American Academy of Neurology discourage age-based screening, advising instead that people diagnosed with cognitive disorders be carefully evaluated for driving fitness and recommending one widely used scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating, as useful in identifying potentially unsafe drivers.
Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?
The new study, led by Haruhiko Inada, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, used national crash data from Japan, where since 2017 all drivers 75 and older not only must take cognitive tests measuring temporal orientation and memory at license renewal, but are also referred for medical evaluation if they fail them. People receiving a subsequent dementia diagnosis can have their licenses suspended or revoked.
Dr. Inada and his colleagues looked at national data from nearly 603,000 police-reported vehicle collisions and nearly 197,000 pedestrian or cyclist road injuries between March 2012 and December 2019, all involving people aged 70 and older. To assess the screening policy’s impact, the researchers calculated estimated monthly collision or injury incidence rates per 100,000 person-years. This way, they could “control for secular trends that were unaffected by the policy, such as the decreasing incidence of motor vehicle collisions year by year,” the researchers explained.
After the screening was implemented, cumulative estimated collisions among drivers 75 or older decreased by 3,670 (95% confidence interval, 5,125-2,104), while reported pedestrian or cyclist injuries increased by an estimated 959 (95% CI, 24-1,834). Dr. Inada and colleagues found that crashes declined among men but not women, noting also that more older men than women are licensed to drive in Japan. Pedestrian and cyclist injuries were highest among men aged 80-84, and women aged 80 and older.
“Cognitively screening older drivers at license renewal and promoting voluntary surrender of licenses may prevent motor vehicle collisions,” Dr. Inada and his colleagues concluded. “However, they are associated with an increase in road injuries for older pedestrians and cyclists. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, such as alternative, safe transportation, and accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists.”
No definitive answers
Two investigators who have studied cognitive screening related to road safety were contacted for commentary on the study findings.
Anu Siren, PhD, professor of gerontology at Tampere (Finland) University, who in 2012 reported higher injuries after implementation of older-driver cognitive screening in Denmark, commented that the new study, while benefiting from a much larger data set than earlier studies, still “fails to show that decrease in collisions is because ‘unfit’ drivers were removed from the road. But it does confirm previous findings about how strict screening policies make people shift from cars to unprotected modes of transportation,” which are riskier.
In studies measuring driving safety, the usual definition of risk is incidents per exposure, Dr. Siren noted. In Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study, “the incident measure, or numerator, is the number of collisions. The exposure measure or denominator is population. Because the study uses population and not driver licenses (or distance traveled) as an exposure measure, the observed decrease in collisions does not say much about how the collision risk develops after the implementation of screening.”
Older driver screening “is likely to cause some older persons to cease from driving and probably continue to travel as unprotected road users,” Dr. Siren continued. “Similar to what we found [in 2012], the injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists went up after the introduction of screening, which suggests that screening indirectly causes increasing number of injuries among older unprotected road users.”
Matthew Rizzo, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurological sciences at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and codirector of the Nebraska Neuroscience Alliance in Omaha, Neb., and the lead author of the 2010 AAN guidelines on cognitive impairment and driving risk, cautioned against ageism in designing policies meant to protect motorists.
“We find some erratic/weak effects of age here and there, but the big effects we consistently find are from cognitive and visual decline – which is somewhat correlated with age, but with huge variance,” Dr. Rizzo said. “It is hard to say what an optimal age threshold for risk would be, and if 75 is it.”
U.S. crash data from the last decade points to drivers 80 and older as significantly more accident-prone than those in their 70s, or even late 70s, Dr. Rizzo noted. Moreover, “willingness to get on the road, number of miles driven, type of road (urban, rural, highway, commercial, residential), type of vehicle driven, traffic, and environment (day, night, weather), et cetera, are all factors to consider in driving risk and restriction,” he said.
Dr. Rizzo added that the 2010 AAN guidelines might need to be revisited in light of newer vehicle safety systems and automation.
Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study was funded by Japanese government grants, and Dr. Inada and his coauthors reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Siren and Dr. Rizzo reported no financial conflicts of interest.
, according to results from a large population-based study using data from Japan.
But the same study, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, also reported a concurrent increase in pedestrian and cycling injuries, possibly because more older former drivers were getting around by alternative means. That finding echoed a 2012 study from Denmark, which also looked at the effects of an age-based cognitive screening policy for older drivers, and saw more fatal road injuries among older people who were not driving.
While some governments, including those of Denmark, Taiwan, and Japan, have implemented age-based cognitive screening for older drivers, there has been little evidence to date that such policies improve road safety. Guidelines issued in 2010 by the American Academy of Neurology discourage age-based screening, advising instead that people diagnosed with cognitive disorders be carefully evaluated for driving fitness and recommending one widely used scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating, as useful in identifying potentially unsafe drivers.
Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?
The new study, led by Haruhiko Inada, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, used national crash data from Japan, where since 2017 all drivers 75 and older not only must take cognitive tests measuring temporal orientation and memory at license renewal, but are also referred for medical evaluation if they fail them. People receiving a subsequent dementia diagnosis can have their licenses suspended or revoked.
Dr. Inada and his colleagues looked at national data from nearly 603,000 police-reported vehicle collisions and nearly 197,000 pedestrian or cyclist road injuries between March 2012 and December 2019, all involving people aged 70 and older. To assess the screening policy’s impact, the researchers calculated estimated monthly collision or injury incidence rates per 100,000 person-years. This way, they could “control for secular trends that were unaffected by the policy, such as the decreasing incidence of motor vehicle collisions year by year,” the researchers explained.
After the screening was implemented, cumulative estimated collisions among drivers 75 or older decreased by 3,670 (95% confidence interval, 5,125-2,104), while reported pedestrian or cyclist injuries increased by an estimated 959 (95% CI, 24-1,834). Dr. Inada and colleagues found that crashes declined among men but not women, noting also that more older men than women are licensed to drive in Japan. Pedestrian and cyclist injuries were highest among men aged 80-84, and women aged 80 and older.
“Cognitively screening older drivers at license renewal and promoting voluntary surrender of licenses may prevent motor vehicle collisions,” Dr. Inada and his colleagues concluded. “However, they are associated with an increase in road injuries for older pedestrians and cyclists. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, such as alternative, safe transportation, and accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists.”
No definitive answers
Two investigators who have studied cognitive screening related to road safety were contacted for commentary on the study findings.
Anu Siren, PhD, professor of gerontology at Tampere (Finland) University, who in 2012 reported higher injuries after implementation of older-driver cognitive screening in Denmark, commented that the new study, while benefiting from a much larger data set than earlier studies, still “fails to show that decrease in collisions is because ‘unfit’ drivers were removed from the road. But it does confirm previous findings about how strict screening policies make people shift from cars to unprotected modes of transportation,” which are riskier.
In studies measuring driving safety, the usual definition of risk is incidents per exposure, Dr. Siren noted. In Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study, “the incident measure, or numerator, is the number of collisions. The exposure measure or denominator is population. Because the study uses population and not driver licenses (or distance traveled) as an exposure measure, the observed decrease in collisions does not say much about how the collision risk develops after the implementation of screening.”
Older driver screening “is likely to cause some older persons to cease from driving and probably continue to travel as unprotected road users,” Dr. Siren continued. “Similar to what we found [in 2012], the injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists went up after the introduction of screening, which suggests that screening indirectly causes increasing number of injuries among older unprotected road users.”
Matthew Rizzo, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurological sciences at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and codirector of the Nebraska Neuroscience Alliance in Omaha, Neb., and the lead author of the 2010 AAN guidelines on cognitive impairment and driving risk, cautioned against ageism in designing policies meant to protect motorists.
“We find some erratic/weak effects of age here and there, but the big effects we consistently find are from cognitive and visual decline – which is somewhat correlated with age, but with huge variance,” Dr. Rizzo said. “It is hard to say what an optimal age threshold for risk would be, and if 75 is it.”
U.S. crash data from the last decade points to drivers 80 and older as significantly more accident-prone than those in their 70s, or even late 70s, Dr. Rizzo noted. Moreover, “willingness to get on the road, number of miles driven, type of road (urban, rural, highway, commercial, residential), type of vehicle driven, traffic, and environment (day, night, weather), et cetera, are all factors to consider in driving risk and restriction,” he said.
Dr. Rizzo added that the 2010 AAN guidelines might need to be revisited in light of newer vehicle safety systems and automation.
Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study was funded by Japanese government grants, and Dr. Inada and his coauthors reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Siren and Dr. Rizzo reported no financial conflicts of interest.
, according to results from a large population-based study using data from Japan.
But the same study, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, also reported a concurrent increase in pedestrian and cycling injuries, possibly because more older former drivers were getting around by alternative means. That finding echoed a 2012 study from Denmark, which also looked at the effects of an age-based cognitive screening policy for older drivers, and saw more fatal road injuries among older people who were not driving.
While some governments, including those of Denmark, Taiwan, and Japan, have implemented age-based cognitive screening for older drivers, there has been little evidence to date that such policies improve road safety. Guidelines issued in 2010 by the American Academy of Neurology discourage age-based screening, advising instead that people diagnosed with cognitive disorders be carefully evaluated for driving fitness and recommending one widely used scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating, as useful in identifying potentially unsafe drivers.
Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?
The new study, led by Haruhiko Inada, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, used national crash data from Japan, where since 2017 all drivers 75 and older not only must take cognitive tests measuring temporal orientation and memory at license renewal, but are also referred for medical evaluation if they fail them. People receiving a subsequent dementia diagnosis can have their licenses suspended or revoked.
Dr. Inada and his colleagues looked at national data from nearly 603,000 police-reported vehicle collisions and nearly 197,000 pedestrian or cyclist road injuries between March 2012 and December 2019, all involving people aged 70 and older. To assess the screening policy’s impact, the researchers calculated estimated monthly collision or injury incidence rates per 100,000 person-years. This way, they could “control for secular trends that were unaffected by the policy, such as the decreasing incidence of motor vehicle collisions year by year,” the researchers explained.
After the screening was implemented, cumulative estimated collisions among drivers 75 or older decreased by 3,670 (95% confidence interval, 5,125-2,104), while reported pedestrian or cyclist injuries increased by an estimated 959 (95% CI, 24-1,834). Dr. Inada and colleagues found that crashes declined among men but not women, noting also that more older men than women are licensed to drive in Japan. Pedestrian and cyclist injuries were highest among men aged 80-84, and women aged 80 and older.
“Cognitively screening older drivers at license renewal and promoting voluntary surrender of licenses may prevent motor vehicle collisions,” Dr. Inada and his colleagues concluded. “However, they are associated with an increase in road injuries for older pedestrians and cyclists. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, such as alternative, safe transportation, and accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists.”
No definitive answers
Two investigators who have studied cognitive screening related to road safety were contacted for commentary on the study findings.
Anu Siren, PhD, professor of gerontology at Tampere (Finland) University, who in 2012 reported higher injuries after implementation of older-driver cognitive screening in Denmark, commented that the new study, while benefiting from a much larger data set than earlier studies, still “fails to show that decrease in collisions is because ‘unfit’ drivers were removed from the road. But it does confirm previous findings about how strict screening policies make people shift from cars to unprotected modes of transportation,” which are riskier.
In studies measuring driving safety, the usual definition of risk is incidents per exposure, Dr. Siren noted. In Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study, “the incident measure, or numerator, is the number of collisions. The exposure measure or denominator is population. Because the study uses population and not driver licenses (or distance traveled) as an exposure measure, the observed decrease in collisions does not say much about how the collision risk develops after the implementation of screening.”
Older driver screening “is likely to cause some older persons to cease from driving and probably continue to travel as unprotected road users,” Dr. Siren continued. “Similar to what we found [in 2012], the injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists went up after the introduction of screening, which suggests that screening indirectly causes increasing number of injuries among older unprotected road users.”
Matthew Rizzo, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurological sciences at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and codirector of the Nebraska Neuroscience Alliance in Omaha, Neb., and the lead author of the 2010 AAN guidelines on cognitive impairment and driving risk, cautioned against ageism in designing policies meant to protect motorists.
“We find some erratic/weak effects of age here and there, but the big effects we consistently find are from cognitive and visual decline – which is somewhat correlated with age, but with huge variance,” Dr. Rizzo said. “It is hard to say what an optimal age threshold for risk would be, and if 75 is it.”
U.S. crash data from the last decade points to drivers 80 and older as significantly more accident-prone than those in their 70s, or even late 70s, Dr. Rizzo noted. Moreover, “willingness to get on the road, number of miles driven, type of road (urban, rural, highway, commercial, residential), type of vehicle driven, traffic, and environment (day, night, weather), et cetera, are all factors to consider in driving risk and restriction,” he said.
Dr. Rizzo added that the 2010 AAN guidelines might need to be revisited in light of newer vehicle safety systems and automation.
Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study was funded by Japanese government grants, and Dr. Inada and his coauthors reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Siren and Dr. Rizzo reported no financial conflicts of interest.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Dietary zinc seen reducing migraine risk
, according to results from a cross-sectional study of more than 11,000 American adults.
For their research, published online in Headache, Huanxian Liu, MD, and colleagues at Chinese PLA General Hospital in Beijing, analyzed publicly available data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to determine whether people self-reporting migraine or severe headache saw lower zinc intake, compared with people without migraine. The data used in the analysis was collected between 1999 and 2004, and contained information on foods and drinks consumed by participants in a 24-hour period, along with additional health information.
An inverse relationship
The investigators divided their study’s 11,088 participants (mean age, 46.5 years; 50% female) into quintiles based on dietary zinc consumption as inferred from foods eaten. They also considered zinc supplementation, for which data was available for 4,324 participants, of whom 2,607 reported use of supplements containing zinc.
Some 20% of the cohort (n = 2,236) reported migraine or severe headache within the previous 3 months. Pregnant women were excluded from analysis, and the investigators adjusted for a range of covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, education level, body mass, smoking, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and nutritional factors.
Dr. Liu and colleagues reported an inverse association between dietary zinc consumption and migraine, with the highest-consuming quintile of the cohort (15.8 mg or more zinc per day) seeing lowest risk of migraine (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.94; P = .029), compared with the low-consuming quintile (5.9 mg or less daily). Among people getting high levels of zinc (19.3-32.5 mg daily) through supplements, risk of migraine was lower still, to between an OR of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.46–0.83, P = 0.019) and an OR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.49–0.91; P = .045).
While the investigators acknowledged limitations of the study, including its cross-sectional design and use of a broad question to discern prevalence of migraine, the findings suggest that “zinc is an important nutrient that influences migraine,” they wrote, citing evidence for its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
The importance of nutritional factors
Commenting on the research findings, Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, a headache specialist in Dallas, said that Dr. Liu and colleagues’ findings added to a growing information base about nutritional factors and migraine. For example, “low magnesium levels are common in people with migraine, and magnesium supplementation is a recommended preventive treatment for migraine.”
Dr. Friedman cited a recent study showing that vitamin B12 and magnesium supplementation in women (, combined with high-intensity interval training, “silenced” the inflammation signaling pathway, helped migraine pain and decreased levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide. A 2022 randomized trial found that alpha lipoic acid supplementation reduced migraine severity, frequency and disability in women with episodic migraine.
Vitamin D levels are also lower in people with migraine, compared with controls, Dr. Friedman noted, and a randomized trial of 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily saw reduced monthly headache days, attack duration, severe headaches, and analgesic use, compared with placebo. Other nutrients implicated in migraine include coenzyme Q10, calcium, folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B1.
“What should a patient with migraine do with all of this information? First, eat a healthy and balanced diet,” Dr. Friedman said. “Sources of dietary zinc include red meat, nuts, legumes, poultry, shellfish (especially oysters), whole grains, some cereals, and even dark chocolate. The recommended daily dosage of zinc is 9.5 mg in men and 7 mg in women. Most people get enough zinc in their diet; vegetarians, vegans, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and adults over age 65 may need to take supplemental zinc.”
Dr. Liu and colleagues’ work was supported by China’s National Natural Science Foundation. The investigators reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman has received financial support from Alder, Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Merck, Teva, and other pharmaceutical manufacturers.
, according to results from a cross-sectional study of more than 11,000 American adults.
For their research, published online in Headache, Huanxian Liu, MD, and colleagues at Chinese PLA General Hospital in Beijing, analyzed publicly available data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to determine whether people self-reporting migraine or severe headache saw lower zinc intake, compared with people without migraine. The data used in the analysis was collected between 1999 and 2004, and contained information on foods and drinks consumed by participants in a 24-hour period, along with additional health information.
An inverse relationship
The investigators divided their study’s 11,088 participants (mean age, 46.5 years; 50% female) into quintiles based on dietary zinc consumption as inferred from foods eaten. They also considered zinc supplementation, for which data was available for 4,324 participants, of whom 2,607 reported use of supplements containing zinc.
Some 20% of the cohort (n = 2,236) reported migraine or severe headache within the previous 3 months. Pregnant women were excluded from analysis, and the investigators adjusted for a range of covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, education level, body mass, smoking, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and nutritional factors.
Dr. Liu and colleagues reported an inverse association between dietary zinc consumption and migraine, with the highest-consuming quintile of the cohort (15.8 mg or more zinc per day) seeing lowest risk of migraine (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.94; P = .029), compared with the low-consuming quintile (5.9 mg or less daily). Among people getting high levels of zinc (19.3-32.5 mg daily) through supplements, risk of migraine was lower still, to between an OR of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.46–0.83, P = 0.019) and an OR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.49–0.91; P = .045).
While the investigators acknowledged limitations of the study, including its cross-sectional design and use of a broad question to discern prevalence of migraine, the findings suggest that “zinc is an important nutrient that influences migraine,” they wrote, citing evidence for its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
The importance of nutritional factors
Commenting on the research findings, Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, a headache specialist in Dallas, said that Dr. Liu and colleagues’ findings added to a growing information base about nutritional factors and migraine. For example, “low magnesium levels are common in people with migraine, and magnesium supplementation is a recommended preventive treatment for migraine.”
Dr. Friedman cited a recent study showing that vitamin B12 and magnesium supplementation in women (, combined with high-intensity interval training, “silenced” the inflammation signaling pathway, helped migraine pain and decreased levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide. A 2022 randomized trial found that alpha lipoic acid supplementation reduced migraine severity, frequency and disability in women with episodic migraine.
Vitamin D levels are also lower in people with migraine, compared with controls, Dr. Friedman noted, and a randomized trial of 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily saw reduced monthly headache days, attack duration, severe headaches, and analgesic use, compared with placebo. Other nutrients implicated in migraine include coenzyme Q10, calcium, folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B1.
“What should a patient with migraine do with all of this information? First, eat a healthy and balanced diet,” Dr. Friedman said. “Sources of dietary zinc include red meat, nuts, legumes, poultry, shellfish (especially oysters), whole grains, some cereals, and even dark chocolate. The recommended daily dosage of zinc is 9.5 mg in men and 7 mg in women. Most people get enough zinc in their diet; vegetarians, vegans, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and adults over age 65 may need to take supplemental zinc.”
Dr. Liu and colleagues’ work was supported by China’s National Natural Science Foundation. The investigators reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman has received financial support from Alder, Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Merck, Teva, and other pharmaceutical manufacturers.
, according to results from a cross-sectional study of more than 11,000 American adults.
For their research, published online in Headache, Huanxian Liu, MD, and colleagues at Chinese PLA General Hospital in Beijing, analyzed publicly available data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to determine whether people self-reporting migraine or severe headache saw lower zinc intake, compared with people without migraine. The data used in the analysis was collected between 1999 and 2004, and contained information on foods and drinks consumed by participants in a 24-hour period, along with additional health information.
An inverse relationship
The investigators divided their study’s 11,088 participants (mean age, 46.5 years; 50% female) into quintiles based on dietary zinc consumption as inferred from foods eaten. They also considered zinc supplementation, for which data was available for 4,324 participants, of whom 2,607 reported use of supplements containing zinc.
Some 20% of the cohort (n = 2,236) reported migraine or severe headache within the previous 3 months. Pregnant women were excluded from analysis, and the investigators adjusted for a range of covariates, including age, sex, ethnicity, education level, body mass, smoking, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and nutritional factors.
Dr. Liu and colleagues reported an inverse association between dietary zinc consumption and migraine, with the highest-consuming quintile of the cohort (15.8 mg or more zinc per day) seeing lowest risk of migraine (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.94; P = .029), compared with the low-consuming quintile (5.9 mg or less daily). Among people getting high levels of zinc (19.3-32.5 mg daily) through supplements, risk of migraine was lower still, to between an OR of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.46–0.83, P = 0.019) and an OR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.49–0.91; P = .045).
While the investigators acknowledged limitations of the study, including its cross-sectional design and use of a broad question to discern prevalence of migraine, the findings suggest that “zinc is an important nutrient that influences migraine,” they wrote, citing evidence for its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
The importance of nutritional factors
Commenting on the research findings, Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, a headache specialist in Dallas, said that Dr. Liu and colleagues’ findings added to a growing information base about nutritional factors and migraine. For example, “low magnesium levels are common in people with migraine, and magnesium supplementation is a recommended preventive treatment for migraine.”
Dr. Friedman cited a recent study showing that vitamin B12 and magnesium supplementation in women (, combined with high-intensity interval training, “silenced” the inflammation signaling pathway, helped migraine pain and decreased levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide. A 2022 randomized trial found that alpha lipoic acid supplementation reduced migraine severity, frequency and disability in women with episodic migraine.
Vitamin D levels are also lower in people with migraine, compared with controls, Dr. Friedman noted, and a randomized trial of 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily saw reduced monthly headache days, attack duration, severe headaches, and analgesic use, compared with placebo. Other nutrients implicated in migraine include coenzyme Q10, calcium, folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B1.
“What should a patient with migraine do with all of this information? First, eat a healthy and balanced diet,” Dr. Friedman said. “Sources of dietary zinc include red meat, nuts, legumes, poultry, shellfish (especially oysters), whole grains, some cereals, and even dark chocolate. The recommended daily dosage of zinc is 9.5 mg in men and 7 mg in women. Most people get enough zinc in their diet; vegetarians, vegans, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and adults over age 65 may need to take supplemental zinc.”
Dr. Liu and colleagues’ work was supported by China’s National Natural Science Foundation. The investigators reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman has received financial support from Alder, Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Merck, Teva, and other pharmaceutical manufacturers.
FROM HEADACHE
NORD Rare Disease Centers of Excellence: A new network seeks to break down barriers in rare disease care
In November 2021, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) announced that it had designated 31 institutions across the United States as “NORD Rare Disease Centers of Excellence.” More than just a stamp of approval, the new NORD network aims to change the way rare diseases are diagnosed and treated, creating more efficient pathways for collaboration among physicians, while helping patients get better care closer to home.
To understand better how the nascent network can benefit patients and clinicians, Neurology Reviews/MDedge Neurology spoke with Ed Neilan, MD, PhD, NORD’s chief scientific and medical officer. Dr. Neilan, a pediatrician and geneticist, is a former president of the medical staff at Boston Children’s Hospital and also served as head of global medical affairs for rare neurology at Sanofi Genzyme.
How did NORD choose its 31 centers?
We were looking for places that had both broad capabilities and deep expertise, where it was reasonable to expect that a patient with almost any condition could go and, without too many missteps or delays, get the right diagnosis or the right treatment. We also sought sites that were educating the next generation of rare disease specialists across departments. The sites had to be involved in research, because that moves the field forward, and sometimes it’s the only way to get a really impactful treatment for the 95% of rare diseases that don’t have an FDA-approved treatment. NORD sent a letter inviting different centers to apply, along with an application that had 120 questions. Most of the questions sought information about what kinds of expertise or services were available on-site, so that patients don’t have to go elsewhere to get, let’s say, a brain MRI scan or to see an immunologist. We wanted each site to be a place where you could go for almost any problem, at any age, and expect that while you’re being seen, and receiving treatment, it can also contribute to the education of the next generation of rare disease specialists and to research.
Several of the members of the network comprise more than one institution: They’re a children’s hospital combined with another facility.
Children’s hospitals, which are highly specialized and able to care for rare things in children, couldn’t apply by themselves. They had to apply in partnership with a center that could provide adult care as patients got older; otherwise, their care model would be incomplete. We’ve had some small victories already just by asking these questions and outlining this sort of approach. At one institution in the Great Plains, the director told us that he had been trying for years to get permission to hire someone who could make appointments across three different hospitals – a children’s hospital and two adult hospitals. He’d wanted to ensure that patients with rare and genetic diseases were seen in the appropriate places, and thanks to the NORD designation, he finally can. Now, regardless of age, the same office staff can handle the arrangements, and the patient will be scheduled in the right place.
You make clear that these are different from disease-specific centers of excellence – you specifically chose the 31 centers for their breadth of expertise. There’s no way to represent all 7,000 rare diseases equally, and disease-specific centers of excellence, which already exist for hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and some other conditions, have a very important role. We’re not aiming to compete with any other existing resources. What we are seeking to do is to fill the unmet need of, “What if there are no such designations for the disease that you’re concerned about?” Our goal was to find places that could help with unanswered questions, whether diagnostic questions or treatment questions. To identify places where a patient could reasonably expect to go and have a deeper dive – maybe an interdisciplinary deep dive.
The delay to diagnosis can be years in rare diseases. How can the network help speed up diagnoses?
With all these experts on different diseases, we hope to develop some better diagnostic algorithms within the network. Another thing we can do is to share resources. With 31 sites, everybody’s seeing patients with unknown diagnoses. Everyone is seeing patients for whom they would maybe like to get a whole genome done, or a whole exome done, but they are often encountering stiff resistance from insurance companies.
Meanwhile some sites, but not all 31, have multimillion-dollar grants to do sequencing and other kinds of advanced diagnostic tests to solve unknown cases. And there are people at those sites who say, “We need more samples. Can you get us samples from the other sites?”
One of the main things we aim to do is share information, including information about available diagnostic resources. We want all 31 sites to know which sites have funding and programs that enable them to study samples for other sites. We also want to know what criteria they’re putting on it. Someone might say: “I’ve got a grant to sequence genomes for people with unexplained seizures. Send me all your unexplained seizures.” Somebody else might have a grant for unexplained GI diseases. So, we want to put on our intranet a resource for the 31 sites, kind of a cookbook for – when if you can’t get it paid for by insurance, but you really think you need a particular special test – who might be able to do it for you within the network.
This would seem to benefit research across sites as well.
Yes, but we also want to share clinical advice and expertise for direct patient benefit. So, it doesn’t always have to fulfill the goals of a specific research project. For example, we might be able to create an undiagnosed patient quality improvement database across all 31 sites that could compliantly let Drs. X and Y know that they’re each seeing a patient with the same rare thing.
But let’s say you want to move the field forward by discovering a new disease. Rare genetic diseases are now being discovered at the rate of about 250 a year, so about 5 per week across the world. With two or three unrelated patients who have the same disease and a whole exome sequence, you can potentially discover a disease. Maybe you’ve found one unique patient with a genetic variant of possible significance, but you can’t be 100% sure, and you may not be able to convince your colleagues, or journal editors, until you find other cases. You need those two or three ultrarare patients. Within this network, a lot of sites want to share information about their ultrarare patients and be able to put together additional instances of the same thing, to prove that it is a real disease, to learn more about it and how to diagnose, manage, and treat it.
Part of the idea with a nationwide network is that patients aren’t going to have to move around among these centers of excellence, is that correct? They’re going to be seen at the closest ones, and it’s the expertise that is mobile.
Yes, that’s right. While we can’t eliminate the need for travel, what we are trying to do is increase the sharing of expertise, to improve results for patients while limiting the need for traveling very long distances. As a geneticist I’ve been on both the requesting and the receiving end of consultations with doctors at other sites, sometimes very far away, especially for ultrarare conditions for which any one physician’s experience is limited. We all try to honor these sorts of requests, but insurance doesn’t reimburse it and so hospitals don’t give doctors much credit for it.
We want to ultimately find ways to incentivize this type of collaboration. Hopefully we can get agreements with insurance companies to allow intersite consultations within our network, recognizing that they don’t want to pay for the patient to be seen out of state, but you also want the patient to get the best possible medical advice. This might require legislative changes in the long run. But what we can do more readily is create a culture within this network of mutual consultation and sharing of clinical experience. Outside of such a network, the idea of “cold calling” somebody, whom you may never have met, and asking them for help and free advice is a little bit of a bar, right? We want to lower that bar.
Can patients get telemedicine consults with physicians across the network?
NORD supports having telemedicine options for everybody regardless of diagnosis, rare or not, and we support legislation that would continue access and reimbursement for telemedicine post pandemic. I hope we can get that, or at least preserve telemedicine for rare diseases, for which there are often not enough, or sometimes not any, expert providers in the same state. Ultimately, we want patients to be able to get the expert assessments and advice they need. For rare diseases, that sometimes means battling back and forth with an insurance provider, seeking permission to see an expert clinician a thousand miles away. By sharing medical expertise, and through telemedicine when that’s allowed, we hope to reduce the need for that. But the telemedicine environment is still evolving and somewhat uncertain.
How will the network’s physician collaborations take place?
One of the important things NORD is providing to the network is an information technology setup and intranet across the 31 sites. That intranet is where center staff will go to access the network’s internal resources, including live and recorded case conferences. In those case conferences you can present a case you haven’t been able to solve. Experts you may have only heard of by reputation will now be streamed to your computer as part of the nationwide network. It benefits the patient because you get additional expert opinions, but it also benefits the physicians because we have this collegial space for discussion and learning. We’ll be linked by frequent meetings – some in person, most virtual – a common culture, and a common intranet.
On the intranet, we will also have a growing set of useful databases, links, and documents that are available to all members. These will be progressively updated with help from experts at the centers, so that clinicians can more directly learn from each other, instead of separately reinventing the wheel. The way things usually work, when you see a patient with an ultrarare condition that you’re not that familiar with, is that you tell them what little you can, then schedule them to come back in a few weeks. In the meantime, usually in your off time, you spend hours searching PubMed and other sources and you try to piece things together, to figure out what’s known that might help your patient. But imagine that this has already been figured out by someone else in the network. You can see on the network a list of articles the other expert read and found helpful in addressing this problem. And you then reach out directly to that other expert.
In recent months you’ve had one-on-one meetings with all 31 directors at the sites, and after that you convened 11 working groups. What are you trying to achieve?
Once the sites were chosen, we aimed to talk quickly and honestly about what everyone needed, what everyone saw as the biggest problems to tackle in rare diseases. Two things were very rewarding about those phone calls: one, all the centers were very enthusiastic, and two, they pretty much all agreed on what the key unmet needs are for rare disease patients and the practitioners trying to help them. So, we empaneled working groups of expert volunteers enthusiastic to work on each of those problems. These groups collectively comprise more than 200 volunteers – faculty, staff, and trainees – from the different sites nationwide. Each group is working on a key unmet need in rare diseases, and each group will be given its own space on our file-sharing platform, where they can share information and co-develop new ideas and documents. When something they produce is good enough to start to be a practice resource, such as a draft treatment guideline that the working group now wants to try in the real world, but it’s not yet ready to be published, they can share it and have it tested by all 31 sites through the dedicated intranet we are building for the network.
Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist specializing in medicine and health.
In November 2021, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) announced that it had designated 31 institutions across the United States as “NORD Rare Disease Centers of Excellence.” More than just a stamp of approval, the new NORD network aims to change the way rare diseases are diagnosed and treated, creating more efficient pathways for collaboration among physicians, while helping patients get better care closer to home.
To understand better how the nascent network can benefit patients and clinicians, Neurology Reviews/MDedge Neurology spoke with Ed Neilan, MD, PhD, NORD’s chief scientific and medical officer. Dr. Neilan, a pediatrician and geneticist, is a former president of the medical staff at Boston Children’s Hospital and also served as head of global medical affairs for rare neurology at Sanofi Genzyme.
How did NORD choose its 31 centers?
We were looking for places that had both broad capabilities and deep expertise, where it was reasonable to expect that a patient with almost any condition could go and, without too many missteps or delays, get the right diagnosis or the right treatment. We also sought sites that were educating the next generation of rare disease specialists across departments. The sites had to be involved in research, because that moves the field forward, and sometimes it’s the only way to get a really impactful treatment for the 95% of rare diseases that don’t have an FDA-approved treatment. NORD sent a letter inviting different centers to apply, along with an application that had 120 questions. Most of the questions sought information about what kinds of expertise or services were available on-site, so that patients don’t have to go elsewhere to get, let’s say, a brain MRI scan or to see an immunologist. We wanted each site to be a place where you could go for almost any problem, at any age, and expect that while you’re being seen, and receiving treatment, it can also contribute to the education of the next generation of rare disease specialists and to research.
Several of the members of the network comprise more than one institution: They’re a children’s hospital combined with another facility.
Children’s hospitals, which are highly specialized and able to care for rare things in children, couldn’t apply by themselves. They had to apply in partnership with a center that could provide adult care as patients got older; otherwise, their care model would be incomplete. We’ve had some small victories already just by asking these questions and outlining this sort of approach. At one institution in the Great Plains, the director told us that he had been trying for years to get permission to hire someone who could make appointments across three different hospitals – a children’s hospital and two adult hospitals. He’d wanted to ensure that patients with rare and genetic diseases were seen in the appropriate places, and thanks to the NORD designation, he finally can. Now, regardless of age, the same office staff can handle the arrangements, and the patient will be scheduled in the right place.
You make clear that these are different from disease-specific centers of excellence – you specifically chose the 31 centers for their breadth of expertise. There’s no way to represent all 7,000 rare diseases equally, and disease-specific centers of excellence, which already exist for hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and some other conditions, have a very important role. We’re not aiming to compete with any other existing resources. What we are seeking to do is to fill the unmet need of, “What if there are no such designations for the disease that you’re concerned about?” Our goal was to find places that could help with unanswered questions, whether diagnostic questions or treatment questions. To identify places where a patient could reasonably expect to go and have a deeper dive – maybe an interdisciplinary deep dive.
The delay to diagnosis can be years in rare diseases. How can the network help speed up diagnoses?
With all these experts on different diseases, we hope to develop some better diagnostic algorithms within the network. Another thing we can do is to share resources. With 31 sites, everybody’s seeing patients with unknown diagnoses. Everyone is seeing patients for whom they would maybe like to get a whole genome done, or a whole exome done, but they are often encountering stiff resistance from insurance companies.
Meanwhile some sites, but not all 31, have multimillion-dollar grants to do sequencing and other kinds of advanced diagnostic tests to solve unknown cases. And there are people at those sites who say, “We need more samples. Can you get us samples from the other sites?”
One of the main things we aim to do is share information, including information about available diagnostic resources. We want all 31 sites to know which sites have funding and programs that enable them to study samples for other sites. We also want to know what criteria they’re putting on it. Someone might say: “I’ve got a grant to sequence genomes for people with unexplained seizures. Send me all your unexplained seizures.” Somebody else might have a grant for unexplained GI diseases. So, we want to put on our intranet a resource for the 31 sites, kind of a cookbook for – when if you can’t get it paid for by insurance, but you really think you need a particular special test – who might be able to do it for you within the network.
This would seem to benefit research across sites as well.
Yes, but we also want to share clinical advice and expertise for direct patient benefit. So, it doesn’t always have to fulfill the goals of a specific research project. For example, we might be able to create an undiagnosed patient quality improvement database across all 31 sites that could compliantly let Drs. X and Y know that they’re each seeing a patient with the same rare thing.
But let’s say you want to move the field forward by discovering a new disease. Rare genetic diseases are now being discovered at the rate of about 250 a year, so about 5 per week across the world. With two or three unrelated patients who have the same disease and a whole exome sequence, you can potentially discover a disease. Maybe you’ve found one unique patient with a genetic variant of possible significance, but you can’t be 100% sure, and you may not be able to convince your colleagues, or journal editors, until you find other cases. You need those two or three ultrarare patients. Within this network, a lot of sites want to share information about their ultrarare patients and be able to put together additional instances of the same thing, to prove that it is a real disease, to learn more about it and how to diagnose, manage, and treat it.
Part of the idea with a nationwide network is that patients aren’t going to have to move around among these centers of excellence, is that correct? They’re going to be seen at the closest ones, and it’s the expertise that is mobile.
Yes, that’s right. While we can’t eliminate the need for travel, what we are trying to do is increase the sharing of expertise, to improve results for patients while limiting the need for traveling very long distances. As a geneticist I’ve been on both the requesting and the receiving end of consultations with doctors at other sites, sometimes very far away, especially for ultrarare conditions for which any one physician’s experience is limited. We all try to honor these sorts of requests, but insurance doesn’t reimburse it and so hospitals don’t give doctors much credit for it.
We want to ultimately find ways to incentivize this type of collaboration. Hopefully we can get agreements with insurance companies to allow intersite consultations within our network, recognizing that they don’t want to pay for the patient to be seen out of state, but you also want the patient to get the best possible medical advice. This might require legislative changes in the long run. But what we can do more readily is create a culture within this network of mutual consultation and sharing of clinical experience. Outside of such a network, the idea of “cold calling” somebody, whom you may never have met, and asking them for help and free advice is a little bit of a bar, right? We want to lower that bar.
Can patients get telemedicine consults with physicians across the network?
NORD supports having telemedicine options for everybody regardless of diagnosis, rare or not, and we support legislation that would continue access and reimbursement for telemedicine post pandemic. I hope we can get that, or at least preserve telemedicine for rare diseases, for which there are often not enough, or sometimes not any, expert providers in the same state. Ultimately, we want patients to be able to get the expert assessments and advice they need. For rare diseases, that sometimes means battling back and forth with an insurance provider, seeking permission to see an expert clinician a thousand miles away. By sharing medical expertise, and through telemedicine when that’s allowed, we hope to reduce the need for that. But the telemedicine environment is still evolving and somewhat uncertain.
How will the network’s physician collaborations take place?
One of the important things NORD is providing to the network is an information technology setup and intranet across the 31 sites. That intranet is where center staff will go to access the network’s internal resources, including live and recorded case conferences. In those case conferences you can present a case you haven’t been able to solve. Experts you may have only heard of by reputation will now be streamed to your computer as part of the nationwide network. It benefits the patient because you get additional expert opinions, but it also benefits the physicians because we have this collegial space for discussion and learning. We’ll be linked by frequent meetings – some in person, most virtual – a common culture, and a common intranet.
On the intranet, we will also have a growing set of useful databases, links, and documents that are available to all members. These will be progressively updated with help from experts at the centers, so that clinicians can more directly learn from each other, instead of separately reinventing the wheel. The way things usually work, when you see a patient with an ultrarare condition that you’re not that familiar with, is that you tell them what little you can, then schedule them to come back in a few weeks. In the meantime, usually in your off time, you spend hours searching PubMed and other sources and you try to piece things together, to figure out what’s known that might help your patient. But imagine that this has already been figured out by someone else in the network. You can see on the network a list of articles the other expert read and found helpful in addressing this problem. And you then reach out directly to that other expert.
In recent months you’ve had one-on-one meetings with all 31 directors at the sites, and after that you convened 11 working groups. What are you trying to achieve?
Once the sites were chosen, we aimed to talk quickly and honestly about what everyone needed, what everyone saw as the biggest problems to tackle in rare diseases. Two things were very rewarding about those phone calls: one, all the centers were very enthusiastic, and two, they pretty much all agreed on what the key unmet needs are for rare disease patients and the practitioners trying to help them. So, we empaneled working groups of expert volunteers enthusiastic to work on each of those problems. These groups collectively comprise more than 200 volunteers – faculty, staff, and trainees – from the different sites nationwide. Each group is working on a key unmet need in rare diseases, and each group will be given its own space on our file-sharing platform, where they can share information and co-develop new ideas and documents. When something they produce is good enough to start to be a practice resource, such as a draft treatment guideline that the working group now wants to try in the real world, but it’s not yet ready to be published, they can share it and have it tested by all 31 sites through the dedicated intranet we are building for the network.
Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist specializing in medicine and health.
In November 2021, the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) announced that it had designated 31 institutions across the United States as “NORD Rare Disease Centers of Excellence.” More than just a stamp of approval, the new NORD network aims to change the way rare diseases are diagnosed and treated, creating more efficient pathways for collaboration among physicians, while helping patients get better care closer to home.
To understand better how the nascent network can benefit patients and clinicians, Neurology Reviews/MDedge Neurology spoke with Ed Neilan, MD, PhD, NORD’s chief scientific and medical officer. Dr. Neilan, a pediatrician and geneticist, is a former president of the medical staff at Boston Children’s Hospital and also served as head of global medical affairs for rare neurology at Sanofi Genzyme.
How did NORD choose its 31 centers?
We were looking for places that had both broad capabilities and deep expertise, where it was reasonable to expect that a patient with almost any condition could go and, without too many missteps or delays, get the right diagnosis or the right treatment. We also sought sites that were educating the next generation of rare disease specialists across departments. The sites had to be involved in research, because that moves the field forward, and sometimes it’s the only way to get a really impactful treatment for the 95% of rare diseases that don’t have an FDA-approved treatment. NORD sent a letter inviting different centers to apply, along with an application that had 120 questions. Most of the questions sought information about what kinds of expertise or services were available on-site, so that patients don’t have to go elsewhere to get, let’s say, a brain MRI scan or to see an immunologist. We wanted each site to be a place where you could go for almost any problem, at any age, and expect that while you’re being seen, and receiving treatment, it can also contribute to the education of the next generation of rare disease specialists and to research.
Several of the members of the network comprise more than one institution: They’re a children’s hospital combined with another facility.
Children’s hospitals, which are highly specialized and able to care for rare things in children, couldn’t apply by themselves. They had to apply in partnership with a center that could provide adult care as patients got older; otherwise, their care model would be incomplete. We’ve had some small victories already just by asking these questions and outlining this sort of approach. At one institution in the Great Plains, the director told us that he had been trying for years to get permission to hire someone who could make appointments across three different hospitals – a children’s hospital and two adult hospitals. He’d wanted to ensure that patients with rare and genetic diseases were seen in the appropriate places, and thanks to the NORD designation, he finally can. Now, regardless of age, the same office staff can handle the arrangements, and the patient will be scheduled in the right place.
You make clear that these are different from disease-specific centers of excellence – you specifically chose the 31 centers for their breadth of expertise. There’s no way to represent all 7,000 rare diseases equally, and disease-specific centers of excellence, which already exist for hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and some other conditions, have a very important role. We’re not aiming to compete with any other existing resources. What we are seeking to do is to fill the unmet need of, “What if there are no such designations for the disease that you’re concerned about?” Our goal was to find places that could help with unanswered questions, whether diagnostic questions or treatment questions. To identify places where a patient could reasonably expect to go and have a deeper dive – maybe an interdisciplinary deep dive.
The delay to diagnosis can be years in rare diseases. How can the network help speed up diagnoses?
With all these experts on different diseases, we hope to develop some better diagnostic algorithms within the network. Another thing we can do is to share resources. With 31 sites, everybody’s seeing patients with unknown diagnoses. Everyone is seeing patients for whom they would maybe like to get a whole genome done, or a whole exome done, but they are often encountering stiff resistance from insurance companies.
Meanwhile some sites, but not all 31, have multimillion-dollar grants to do sequencing and other kinds of advanced diagnostic tests to solve unknown cases. And there are people at those sites who say, “We need more samples. Can you get us samples from the other sites?”
One of the main things we aim to do is share information, including information about available diagnostic resources. We want all 31 sites to know which sites have funding and programs that enable them to study samples for other sites. We also want to know what criteria they’re putting on it. Someone might say: “I’ve got a grant to sequence genomes for people with unexplained seizures. Send me all your unexplained seizures.” Somebody else might have a grant for unexplained GI diseases. So, we want to put on our intranet a resource for the 31 sites, kind of a cookbook for – when if you can’t get it paid for by insurance, but you really think you need a particular special test – who might be able to do it for you within the network.
This would seem to benefit research across sites as well.
Yes, but we also want to share clinical advice and expertise for direct patient benefit. So, it doesn’t always have to fulfill the goals of a specific research project. For example, we might be able to create an undiagnosed patient quality improvement database across all 31 sites that could compliantly let Drs. X and Y know that they’re each seeing a patient with the same rare thing.
But let’s say you want to move the field forward by discovering a new disease. Rare genetic diseases are now being discovered at the rate of about 250 a year, so about 5 per week across the world. With two or three unrelated patients who have the same disease and a whole exome sequence, you can potentially discover a disease. Maybe you’ve found one unique patient with a genetic variant of possible significance, but you can’t be 100% sure, and you may not be able to convince your colleagues, or journal editors, until you find other cases. You need those two or three ultrarare patients. Within this network, a lot of sites want to share information about their ultrarare patients and be able to put together additional instances of the same thing, to prove that it is a real disease, to learn more about it and how to diagnose, manage, and treat it.
Part of the idea with a nationwide network is that patients aren’t going to have to move around among these centers of excellence, is that correct? They’re going to be seen at the closest ones, and it’s the expertise that is mobile.
Yes, that’s right. While we can’t eliminate the need for travel, what we are trying to do is increase the sharing of expertise, to improve results for patients while limiting the need for traveling very long distances. As a geneticist I’ve been on both the requesting and the receiving end of consultations with doctors at other sites, sometimes very far away, especially for ultrarare conditions for which any one physician’s experience is limited. We all try to honor these sorts of requests, but insurance doesn’t reimburse it and so hospitals don’t give doctors much credit for it.
We want to ultimately find ways to incentivize this type of collaboration. Hopefully we can get agreements with insurance companies to allow intersite consultations within our network, recognizing that they don’t want to pay for the patient to be seen out of state, but you also want the patient to get the best possible medical advice. This might require legislative changes in the long run. But what we can do more readily is create a culture within this network of mutual consultation and sharing of clinical experience. Outside of such a network, the idea of “cold calling” somebody, whom you may never have met, and asking them for help and free advice is a little bit of a bar, right? We want to lower that bar.
Can patients get telemedicine consults with physicians across the network?
NORD supports having telemedicine options for everybody regardless of diagnosis, rare or not, and we support legislation that would continue access and reimbursement for telemedicine post pandemic. I hope we can get that, or at least preserve telemedicine for rare diseases, for which there are often not enough, or sometimes not any, expert providers in the same state. Ultimately, we want patients to be able to get the expert assessments and advice they need. For rare diseases, that sometimes means battling back and forth with an insurance provider, seeking permission to see an expert clinician a thousand miles away. By sharing medical expertise, and through telemedicine when that’s allowed, we hope to reduce the need for that. But the telemedicine environment is still evolving and somewhat uncertain.
How will the network’s physician collaborations take place?
One of the important things NORD is providing to the network is an information technology setup and intranet across the 31 sites. That intranet is where center staff will go to access the network’s internal resources, including live and recorded case conferences. In those case conferences you can present a case you haven’t been able to solve. Experts you may have only heard of by reputation will now be streamed to your computer as part of the nationwide network. It benefits the patient because you get additional expert opinions, but it also benefits the physicians because we have this collegial space for discussion and learning. We’ll be linked by frequent meetings – some in person, most virtual – a common culture, and a common intranet.
On the intranet, we will also have a growing set of useful databases, links, and documents that are available to all members. These will be progressively updated with help from experts at the centers, so that clinicians can more directly learn from each other, instead of separately reinventing the wheel. The way things usually work, when you see a patient with an ultrarare condition that you’re not that familiar with, is that you tell them what little you can, then schedule them to come back in a few weeks. In the meantime, usually in your off time, you spend hours searching PubMed and other sources and you try to piece things together, to figure out what’s known that might help your patient. But imagine that this has already been figured out by someone else in the network. You can see on the network a list of articles the other expert read and found helpful in addressing this problem. And you then reach out directly to that other expert.
In recent months you’ve had one-on-one meetings with all 31 directors at the sites, and after that you convened 11 working groups. What are you trying to achieve?
Once the sites were chosen, we aimed to talk quickly and honestly about what everyone needed, what everyone saw as the biggest problems to tackle in rare diseases. Two things were very rewarding about those phone calls: one, all the centers were very enthusiastic, and two, they pretty much all agreed on what the key unmet needs are for rare disease patients and the practitioners trying to help them. So, we empaneled working groups of expert volunteers enthusiastic to work on each of those problems. These groups collectively comprise more than 200 volunteers – faculty, staff, and trainees – from the different sites nationwide. Each group is working on a key unmet need in rare diseases, and each group will be given its own space on our file-sharing platform, where they can share information and co-develop new ideas and documents. When something they produce is good enough to start to be a practice resource, such as a draft treatment guideline that the working group now wants to try in the real world, but it’s not yet ready to be published, they can share it and have it tested by all 31 sites through the dedicated intranet we are building for the network.
Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist specializing in medicine and health.
The paradox of Pompe disease
Until 2006, when a breakthrough therapy first made treatment possible, Pompe disease was a little-known metabolic myopathy fatal to infants. Those with later-onset disease experienced progressive, often severe disability into adulthood.
In this rare autosomal recessive disorder, which occurs in approximately one in 40,000 births worldwide, a deficiency or absence of the enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase causes glycogen to build up in the lysosomes of cells. While many tissues are affected, skeletal and cardiac muscle see the earliest involvement, with muscle hypotonia, cardiomyopathy, and breathing difficulties (mainly due to diaphragm weakness) comprising the hallmark symptoms of the infantile form. Muscle weakness and progressive respiratory failure are prominent in later-onset disease.
The spectrum of severity and age of onset in Pompe disease is linked to combinations of mutations on the GAA gene, some of which destroy the body’s ability to produce acid alpha-glucosidase whereas others merely hamper it. Less enzyme produced in the body generally corresponds with more severe disease activity.
The most severe end of the disease spectrum, or “classic infantile Pompe disease,” presents at birth and is recognized in early infancy. Until treatment with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) became available, patients usually died of cardiorespiratory failure within their first year of life. With therapy, patients have survived into their 20s and beyond. Late-onset disease is a far broader category in which patients can present at any time from their first year, including into middle age.
The emergence in 2006 of alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme, Sanofi Genzyme), an ERT used long-term to improve survival and slow progression in children and adults, resulted in a boom of research interest, a push to timelier diagnosis, and – with patients living longer – a more thorough understanding of the natural history of Pompe disease. In addition to the usual clinical picture of progressive muscle weakness, difficulty breathing, and cardiomyopathy, investigators are seeing nervous system involvement in patients with Pompe disease.
To learn more, Neurology Reviews talked to two global experts in Pompe disease: Priya Kishnani, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., and Antonio Toscano, MD, of the University of Messina, in Messina, Italy.
Diagnosis: Still room to improve
“Most neurologists will encounter a patient with Pompe disease,” said Dr. Kishnani, who has been working with Pompe for her entire career as a pediatrician and medical geneticist, treating patients of all ages and disease phenotypes.
“In newborns, diagnosis is more straightforward, because you’ve got an enlarged heart,” she said. And thanks to efforts of researchers like Dr. Kishnani and Pompe advocacy groups, Pompe disease is now a part of the RUSP (Recommended Uniform Screening Panel) for newborns; currently 28 U.S. states are screening for Pompe disease.
“The challenge really is for the later-onset cases, which are 80% of all cases,” Dr. Kishnani said.
Previously, muscle biopsies were the first step toward diagnosis. Dried blot spot assays to detect enzyme deficiency have since become the standard, along with other biochemical tests. Confirmation of the diagnosis is through gene sequencing panels to detect GAA mutations.
“Now that there is a treatment for Pompe disease and the availability of blood-based testing, many previously undiagnosed patients with limb girdle weakness are evaluated and the diagnostic odyssey ends,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is still a diagnostic delay, and many cases remain undiagnosed.”
Routine blood tests for creatine kinase and for liver enzymes can help point to Pompe disease. But elevated liver enzymes are often misinterpreted. “It’s about the ratios,” Dr. Kishnani said. “ALT is usually much more elevated if it is coming from a liver cause, and AST is usually higher than ALT if it is coming from muscle. But patients often end up getting a liver biopsy due to so-called elevated liver enzymes. As the workup continues, it is often later recognized that the source of the elevated enzymes is muscle involvement, and a referral to the geneticist or neurologist is made. Only then is appropriate testing to confirm a diagnosis initiated.”
Dr. Toscano, a neurologist who specializes in Pompe disease and other myopathies and who has published on tools for diagnosing late-onset Pompe disease,1 said that clinicians should be vigilant when evaluating any patient with limb girdle weakness and elevated creatine kinase (CK) – “especially if the CK is under 2,000,” he said, “because it is very rare that patients with Pompe disease have a more elevated CK than that.”
“Elevated CK, myalgia, and exercise intolerance” should prompt clinicians to suspect Pompe disease in a patient of any age, Dr. Toscano said. “When you come across this, you should be very persistent and get to the end of the story.”
Dr. Toscano noted that the blood spot assay, while an important early step, is not fully diagnostic, “because you can have false positives.” The molecular GAA assay is used to confirm Pompe disease. But detecting pathogenic variants on the GAA gene – of which there are more than 500 – can be more complicated than it sounds. Whereas two mutations are required for Pompe disease, sometimes only one can be detected. Dr. Toscano said he also treated some patients for Pompe with only one known mutation but with unequivocal clinical and biochemical aspects of Pompe disease.
While delays in diagnosis for late-onset Pompe disease remain significant -- between 5 and 6 years on average for older patients, and up to 20 years for those with pediatric onset – both Dr. Kishnani and Dr. Toscano said they perceive them to be improving. With McArdle disease, another inherited glycogen storage disorder that is more common than Pompe disease but for which there is no treatment, “the delay is nearly 12 years,” Dr. Toscano said.
ERT: The sooner the better
Enzyme replacement therapy is indicated for all patients with Pompe disease. Currently two are commercially available: alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme, Sanofi Genzyme), indicated for all forms of Pompe disease, and avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), approved in 2021 for later-onset Pompe, though its indications have yet to be fully defined.
The semimonthly infusions represent, to date, the only disease-modifying therapies commercially available. Enzyme replacement therapy can reverse cardiac damage seen in infants and allow them to meet developmental milestones previously unthinkable. In adults, it can slow progression, though many treated patients will still develop chronic disability and require a wheelchair, respiratory support, or both. “The phenotype of the patients we are seeing today is not as involved as it was prior to enzyme therapy,” said Dr. Kishnani, who was part of the research team that developed ERT and launched the first clinical trials. “This is across the disease spectrum.”
But optimal management means more than just getting a patient on therapy fast, Dr. Kishnani said.
“Very often the thinking is if the patient is on ERT, we’ve done right by the patient. Aspects we don’t look at enough include: Are we monitoring these patients well? Are patients being followed by a multidisciplinary team that includes cardiology, physical therapy, and pulmonary medicine? Are we doing appropriate musculoskeletal assessments? They might have sleep hypoventilation. The BiPap settings may not be correct. Or they have not been assessed for antibodies,” she said.
Many infants with severe phenotypes, notably those who produce no enzyme naturally, will develop immune reactions to the exogenous enzyme therapy. High antibody titers also have been seen and are associated with poor therapeutic response. While this is very clear in the infantile setting, late-onset patients also develop antibodies in response to ERT. In one study in 64 patients,2 Dr. Toscano and his colleagues saw that antibodies may affect clinical response during the first 3 years of treatment, while a small study3 by Dr. Kishnani’s group saw clinical decline associated with high antibody titers in patients with late-onset disease.
While the relationship of specific titers to therapeutic response remains unclear, it is important to consider antibodies, along with other factors, in the monitoring of patients with Pompe disease. “We need to always ask, if a patient is falling behind, what could be the reason?” Dr. Kishnani said. “These are the things we as clinicians can do to improve or enhance the impact of ERT.”
Dr. Toscano noted that a common misconception about late-onset Pompe disease is that cardiac manifestations are minimal or absent, whereas as many as about 20% of patients will have heart problems and need to be carefully monitored.
Neurological manifestations
With patients surviving longer on ERT, researchers have been able to develop a deeper understanding of the natural history of Pompe disease. Increasingly, they are seeing it as a multisystem disease that includes central nervous system involvement.
“Is Pompe an overt neurodegenerative disease? I would say no,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is a neurological component that we’ve got to understand and follow more.”
Glycogen accumulation, she noted, has been found in anterior horn cells, motor neurons, and other parts of the brain. “We have been doing MRIs on children with infantile Pompe, and we have seen some white matter hyperintensities. The clinical significance of this finding is still emerging. Sometimes it is present, but the child is cognitively intact. We have had college graduates who have white matter hyperintensities. So putting it in context will be important. But we know that glycogen is ubiquitous, and autopsy studies have shown that it is present in the brain.”
In recent years, Dr. Toscano’s group has investigated neurovascular complications of Pompe in late-onset patients. “This was something that really surprised us because for several years we have investigated mainly heart, muscle, or respiratory manifestations of the disease, but the central nervous system was really neglected,” he said.
“Occasionally we did some brain MRIs and we found in even young patients some ischemic areas. We thought this was related to slowed circulation – that blood vessels in these patients are weak because they are impaired by glycogen accumulation.” Dr. Toscano and his colleagues followed that observation with a study of late-onset patients,4 in which they found that more than half had cerebrovascular abnormalities. “Even in, say, patients 30 to 35 years old we saw this – it’s unusual to have a vascular disorder at that age.”
Dr. Toscano and his colleagues also reported cerebral aneurysms5 in patients with Pompe disease and have recommended that clinicians conduct MRI or cerebral angiograms on patients as part of routine follow-up. Blood pressure in Pompe patients should be carefully watched and managed with antihypertensive medication as needed, he said.
Part of the problem is that the proteins in ERT are not able to cross the blood-brain barrier, Dr. Toscano noted, adding that researchers are investigating other treatments that can.
Pompe disease as a research model
The successful development of ERT for Pompe disease marked a boom in research interest into not just Pompe – for which several experimental therapies are currently in the pipeline – but for other myopathies and glycogen storage disorders.
“I think that Pompe has served as a template both as a muscle disease and a lysosomal storage disease, and so some of our learnings from Pompe have been applied across different diseases,” Dr. Kishnani said.
Studies in spinal muscular atrophy, for example, “in some ways mirrored what was done for Pompe – treatment trials were initiated in babies at the most severe end of the disease population with infantile disease, and used similar clinical trial endpoints,” Dr. Kishnani said. “Even for the later-onset end of the spectrum, the endpoints we used in Pompe for muscle strength and function have been relevant to many other neuromuscular disorders.”
Pompe disease research also ushered in a new appreciation of immune responses in protein replacement therapies, Dr. Kishnani noted.
“In the field today, you hear the term cross-reactive immunological material, or CRIM, all the time,” she said. “But when we first started talking about it in the space of Pompe disease, there was a lot of scientific debate about what the significance of CRIM-negative status was in relationship to the risk for development of high and sustained antibody titer and a poor clinical response. To understand this involved a lot of going back to the data and digging into the small subset of nonresponders. One of the powers of rare disease research is that every patient matters, and it’s important to understand what’s going on at the patient level rather than just the group data level.”
A robust pipeline
The decade and a half since the advent of ERT has seen what Dr. Toscano described as “an explosion of interest” in Pompe disease.
“We’re seeing an extraordinary number of papers on everything from clinical, biomarkers, genetics, and rehabilitation – this disease is now considered from every point of view, and this is very important for patients,” Dr. Toscano said. Alongside this has come industry interest in this rare disease, with several companies investigating a range of treatment approaches.
The existence of a treatment, “while not perfect,” he said, “has interested the patient associations and doctors to try and improve service to patients. Patients with Pompe disease are well attended, probably more so than patients with degenerative disorders in which there is no therapy.”
Last year the second ERT, avalglucosidase alfa (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat late-onset Pompe disease. The drug, currently being investigated in infants as well, was designed to improve the delivery of the therapeutic enzyme to muscles and enhance glycogen clearance, and results from ongoing trials suggest some functional and clinical benefit over standard ERT.
Other drugs in development for Pompe disease include substrate reduction therapies, which aim to reduce the storage of glycogen in cells, and therapies that improve residual function of mutant GAA enzyme in the body. These and other therapies in development have the potential to modify nervous system manifestations of Pompe disease.6
Because a single gene is implicated in Pompe disease, it has long been considered a good candidate for gene therapies that prompt the body to make stable enzyme. Seven companies are now investigating gene therapies in Pompe disease.7 Some of these deliver to skeletal muscles and others aim for the liver, where proteins are synthesized and secreted and adverse immune responses might be more easily mitigated. Other gene therapies use an ex vivo approach, removing and replacing cells in bone marrow.
Dr. Kishnani’s research group at Duke University is leading a small clinical trial in late-onset patients of a GAA gene transfer to the liver using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors.8
“We have started AAV gene therapy trials in in adults with Pompe disease and will later evaluate children because ERT is available as a standard of care, and so from a safety perspective this makes the most sense,” Dr. Kishnani said. “We do have challenges in the field of gene therapy, but I think if we are able to overcome the immune responses, and … to treat at a lower dose, there’s a very good pathway forward.”
Dr. Toscano and Dr. Kishnani have received reimbursement from Sanofi and other manufacturers for participation on advisory boards and as speakers.
Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist and editor specializing in medicine and health.
References
1. Musumeci O, Toscano A. Diagnostic tools in late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):286. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.06.60.
2. Filosto M et al. Assessing the role of anti rh-GAA in modulating response to ERT in a late-onset Pompe disease cohort from the Italian GSDII Study Group. Adv Ther. 2019 May;36(5):1177-1189. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-00926-5.
3. Patel TT et al. The impact of antibodies in late-onset Pompe disease: A case series and literature review. Mol Genet Metab. 2012 Jul;106(3):301-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2012.04.027.
4. Montagnese F et al. Intracranial arterial abnormalities in patients with late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). J Inherit Metab Dis. 2016 May;39(3):391-398. doi: 10.1007/s10545-015-9913-x.
5. Musumeci O et al. Central nervous system involvement in late-onset Pompe disease: Clues from neuroimaging and neuropsychological analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2019 Mar;26(3):442-e35. doi: 10.1111/ene.13835.
6. Edelmann MJ, Maegawa GHB. CNS-targeting therapies for lysosomal storage diseases: Current advances and challenges. Front Mol Biosci. 2020 Nov 12;7:559804. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.559804
7. Ronzitti G et al. Progress and challenges of gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):287. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.04.67.
8. Kishnani PS, Koeberl DD. Liver depot gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):288. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.05.02.
Until 2006, when a breakthrough therapy first made treatment possible, Pompe disease was a little-known metabolic myopathy fatal to infants. Those with later-onset disease experienced progressive, often severe disability into adulthood.
In this rare autosomal recessive disorder, which occurs in approximately one in 40,000 births worldwide, a deficiency or absence of the enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase causes glycogen to build up in the lysosomes of cells. While many tissues are affected, skeletal and cardiac muscle see the earliest involvement, with muscle hypotonia, cardiomyopathy, and breathing difficulties (mainly due to diaphragm weakness) comprising the hallmark symptoms of the infantile form. Muscle weakness and progressive respiratory failure are prominent in later-onset disease.
The spectrum of severity and age of onset in Pompe disease is linked to combinations of mutations on the GAA gene, some of which destroy the body’s ability to produce acid alpha-glucosidase whereas others merely hamper it. Less enzyme produced in the body generally corresponds with more severe disease activity.
The most severe end of the disease spectrum, or “classic infantile Pompe disease,” presents at birth and is recognized in early infancy. Until treatment with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) became available, patients usually died of cardiorespiratory failure within their first year of life. With therapy, patients have survived into their 20s and beyond. Late-onset disease is a far broader category in which patients can present at any time from their first year, including into middle age.
The emergence in 2006 of alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme, Sanofi Genzyme), an ERT used long-term to improve survival and slow progression in children and adults, resulted in a boom of research interest, a push to timelier diagnosis, and – with patients living longer – a more thorough understanding of the natural history of Pompe disease. In addition to the usual clinical picture of progressive muscle weakness, difficulty breathing, and cardiomyopathy, investigators are seeing nervous system involvement in patients with Pompe disease.
To learn more, Neurology Reviews talked to two global experts in Pompe disease: Priya Kishnani, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., and Antonio Toscano, MD, of the University of Messina, in Messina, Italy.
Diagnosis: Still room to improve
“Most neurologists will encounter a patient with Pompe disease,” said Dr. Kishnani, who has been working with Pompe for her entire career as a pediatrician and medical geneticist, treating patients of all ages and disease phenotypes.
“In newborns, diagnosis is more straightforward, because you’ve got an enlarged heart,” she said. And thanks to efforts of researchers like Dr. Kishnani and Pompe advocacy groups, Pompe disease is now a part of the RUSP (Recommended Uniform Screening Panel) for newborns; currently 28 U.S. states are screening for Pompe disease.
“The challenge really is for the later-onset cases, which are 80% of all cases,” Dr. Kishnani said.
Previously, muscle biopsies were the first step toward diagnosis. Dried blot spot assays to detect enzyme deficiency have since become the standard, along with other biochemical tests. Confirmation of the diagnosis is through gene sequencing panels to detect GAA mutations.
“Now that there is a treatment for Pompe disease and the availability of blood-based testing, many previously undiagnosed patients with limb girdle weakness are evaluated and the diagnostic odyssey ends,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is still a diagnostic delay, and many cases remain undiagnosed.”
Routine blood tests for creatine kinase and for liver enzymes can help point to Pompe disease. But elevated liver enzymes are often misinterpreted. “It’s about the ratios,” Dr. Kishnani said. “ALT is usually much more elevated if it is coming from a liver cause, and AST is usually higher than ALT if it is coming from muscle. But patients often end up getting a liver biopsy due to so-called elevated liver enzymes. As the workup continues, it is often later recognized that the source of the elevated enzymes is muscle involvement, and a referral to the geneticist or neurologist is made. Only then is appropriate testing to confirm a diagnosis initiated.”
Dr. Toscano, a neurologist who specializes in Pompe disease and other myopathies and who has published on tools for diagnosing late-onset Pompe disease,1 said that clinicians should be vigilant when evaluating any patient with limb girdle weakness and elevated creatine kinase (CK) – “especially if the CK is under 2,000,” he said, “because it is very rare that patients with Pompe disease have a more elevated CK than that.”
“Elevated CK, myalgia, and exercise intolerance” should prompt clinicians to suspect Pompe disease in a patient of any age, Dr. Toscano said. “When you come across this, you should be very persistent and get to the end of the story.”
Dr. Toscano noted that the blood spot assay, while an important early step, is not fully diagnostic, “because you can have false positives.” The molecular GAA assay is used to confirm Pompe disease. But detecting pathogenic variants on the GAA gene – of which there are more than 500 – can be more complicated than it sounds. Whereas two mutations are required for Pompe disease, sometimes only one can be detected. Dr. Toscano said he also treated some patients for Pompe with only one known mutation but with unequivocal clinical and biochemical aspects of Pompe disease.
While delays in diagnosis for late-onset Pompe disease remain significant -- between 5 and 6 years on average for older patients, and up to 20 years for those with pediatric onset – both Dr. Kishnani and Dr. Toscano said they perceive them to be improving. With McArdle disease, another inherited glycogen storage disorder that is more common than Pompe disease but for which there is no treatment, “the delay is nearly 12 years,” Dr. Toscano said.
ERT: The sooner the better
Enzyme replacement therapy is indicated for all patients with Pompe disease. Currently two are commercially available: alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme, Sanofi Genzyme), indicated for all forms of Pompe disease, and avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), approved in 2021 for later-onset Pompe, though its indications have yet to be fully defined.
The semimonthly infusions represent, to date, the only disease-modifying therapies commercially available. Enzyme replacement therapy can reverse cardiac damage seen in infants and allow them to meet developmental milestones previously unthinkable. In adults, it can slow progression, though many treated patients will still develop chronic disability and require a wheelchair, respiratory support, or both. “The phenotype of the patients we are seeing today is not as involved as it was prior to enzyme therapy,” said Dr. Kishnani, who was part of the research team that developed ERT and launched the first clinical trials. “This is across the disease spectrum.”
But optimal management means more than just getting a patient on therapy fast, Dr. Kishnani said.
“Very often the thinking is if the patient is on ERT, we’ve done right by the patient. Aspects we don’t look at enough include: Are we monitoring these patients well? Are patients being followed by a multidisciplinary team that includes cardiology, physical therapy, and pulmonary medicine? Are we doing appropriate musculoskeletal assessments? They might have sleep hypoventilation. The BiPap settings may not be correct. Or they have not been assessed for antibodies,” she said.
Many infants with severe phenotypes, notably those who produce no enzyme naturally, will develop immune reactions to the exogenous enzyme therapy. High antibody titers also have been seen and are associated with poor therapeutic response. While this is very clear in the infantile setting, late-onset patients also develop antibodies in response to ERT. In one study in 64 patients,2 Dr. Toscano and his colleagues saw that antibodies may affect clinical response during the first 3 years of treatment, while a small study3 by Dr. Kishnani’s group saw clinical decline associated with high antibody titers in patients with late-onset disease.
While the relationship of specific titers to therapeutic response remains unclear, it is important to consider antibodies, along with other factors, in the monitoring of patients with Pompe disease. “We need to always ask, if a patient is falling behind, what could be the reason?” Dr. Kishnani said. “These are the things we as clinicians can do to improve or enhance the impact of ERT.”
Dr. Toscano noted that a common misconception about late-onset Pompe disease is that cardiac manifestations are minimal or absent, whereas as many as about 20% of patients will have heart problems and need to be carefully monitored.
Neurological manifestations
With patients surviving longer on ERT, researchers have been able to develop a deeper understanding of the natural history of Pompe disease. Increasingly, they are seeing it as a multisystem disease that includes central nervous system involvement.
“Is Pompe an overt neurodegenerative disease? I would say no,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is a neurological component that we’ve got to understand and follow more.”
Glycogen accumulation, she noted, has been found in anterior horn cells, motor neurons, and other parts of the brain. “We have been doing MRIs on children with infantile Pompe, and we have seen some white matter hyperintensities. The clinical significance of this finding is still emerging. Sometimes it is present, but the child is cognitively intact. We have had college graduates who have white matter hyperintensities. So putting it in context will be important. But we know that glycogen is ubiquitous, and autopsy studies have shown that it is present in the brain.”
In recent years, Dr. Toscano’s group has investigated neurovascular complications of Pompe in late-onset patients. “This was something that really surprised us because for several years we have investigated mainly heart, muscle, or respiratory manifestations of the disease, but the central nervous system was really neglected,” he said.
“Occasionally we did some brain MRIs and we found in even young patients some ischemic areas. We thought this was related to slowed circulation – that blood vessels in these patients are weak because they are impaired by glycogen accumulation.” Dr. Toscano and his colleagues followed that observation with a study of late-onset patients,4 in which they found that more than half had cerebrovascular abnormalities. “Even in, say, patients 30 to 35 years old we saw this – it’s unusual to have a vascular disorder at that age.”
Dr. Toscano and his colleagues also reported cerebral aneurysms5 in patients with Pompe disease and have recommended that clinicians conduct MRI or cerebral angiograms on patients as part of routine follow-up. Blood pressure in Pompe patients should be carefully watched and managed with antihypertensive medication as needed, he said.
Part of the problem is that the proteins in ERT are not able to cross the blood-brain barrier, Dr. Toscano noted, adding that researchers are investigating other treatments that can.
Pompe disease as a research model
The successful development of ERT for Pompe disease marked a boom in research interest into not just Pompe – for which several experimental therapies are currently in the pipeline – but for other myopathies and glycogen storage disorders.
“I think that Pompe has served as a template both as a muscle disease and a lysosomal storage disease, and so some of our learnings from Pompe have been applied across different diseases,” Dr. Kishnani said.
Studies in spinal muscular atrophy, for example, “in some ways mirrored what was done for Pompe – treatment trials were initiated in babies at the most severe end of the disease population with infantile disease, and used similar clinical trial endpoints,” Dr. Kishnani said. “Even for the later-onset end of the spectrum, the endpoints we used in Pompe for muscle strength and function have been relevant to many other neuromuscular disorders.”
Pompe disease research also ushered in a new appreciation of immune responses in protein replacement therapies, Dr. Kishnani noted.
“In the field today, you hear the term cross-reactive immunological material, or CRIM, all the time,” she said. “But when we first started talking about it in the space of Pompe disease, there was a lot of scientific debate about what the significance of CRIM-negative status was in relationship to the risk for development of high and sustained antibody titer and a poor clinical response. To understand this involved a lot of going back to the data and digging into the small subset of nonresponders. One of the powers of rare disease research is that every patient matters, and it’s important to understand what’s going on at the patient level rather than just the group data level.”
A robust pipeline
The decade and a half since the advent of ERT has seen what Dr. Toscano described as “an explosion of interest” in Pompe disease.
“We’re seeing an extraordinary number of papers on everything from clinical, biomarkers, genetics, and rehabilitation – this disease is now considered from every point of view, and this is very important for patients,” Dr. Toscano said. Alongside this has come industry interest in this rare disease, with several companies investigating a range of treatment approaches.
The existence of a treatment, “while not perfect,” he said, “has interested the patient associations and doctors to try and improve service to patients. Patients with Pompe disease are well attended, probably more so than patients with degenerative disorders in which there is no therapy.”
Last year the second ERT, avalglucosidase alfa (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat late-onset Pompe disease. The drug, currently being investigated in infants as well, was designed to improve the delivery of the therapeutic enzyme to muscles and enhance glycogen clearance, and results from ongoing trials suggest some functional and clinical benefit over standard ERT.
Other drugs in development for Pompe disease include substrate reduction therapies, which aim to reduce the storage of glycogen in cells, and therapies that improve residual function of mutant GAA enzyme in the body. These and other therapies in development have the potential to modify nervous system manifestations of Pompe disease.6
Because a single gene is implicated in Pompe disease, it has long been considered a good candidate for gene therapies that prompt the body to make stable enzyme. Seven companies are now investigating gene therapies in Pompe disease.7 Some of these deliver to skeletal muscles and others aim for the liver, where proteins are synthesized and secreted and adverse immune responses might be more easily mitigated. Other gene therapies use an ex vivo approach, removing and replacing cells in bone marrow.
Dr. Kishnani’s research group at Duke University is leading a small clinical trial in late-onset patients of a GAA gene transfer to the liver using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors.8
“We have started AAV gene therapy trials in in adults with Pompe disease and will later evaluate children because ERT is available as a standard of care, and so from a safety perspective this makes the most sense,” Dr. Kishnani said. “We do have challenges in the field of gene therapy, but I think if we are able to overcome the immune responses, and … to treat at a lower dose, there’s a very good pathway forward.”
Dr. Toscano and Dr. Kishnani have received reimbursement from Sanofi and other manufacturers for participation on advisory boards and as speakers.
Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist and editor specializing in medicine and health.
References
1. Musumeci O, Toscano A. Diagnostic tools in late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):286. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.06.60.
2. Filosto M et al. Assessing the role of anti rh-GAA in modulating response to ERT in a late-onset Pompe disease cohort from the Italian GSDII Study Group. Adv Ther. 2019 May;36(5):1177-1189. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-00926-5.
3. Patel TT et al. The impact of antibodies in late-onset Pompe disease: A case series and literature review. Mol Genet Metab. 2012 Jul;106(3):301-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2012.04.027.
4. Montagnese F et al. Intracranial arterial abnormalities in patients with late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). J Inherit Metab Dis. 2016 May;39(3):391-398. doi: 10.1007/s10545-015-9913-x.
5. Musumeci O et al. Central nervous system involvement in late-onset Pompe disease: Clues from neuroimaging and neuropsychological analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2019 Mar;26(3):442-e35. doi: 10.1111/ene.13835.
6. Edelmann MJ, Maegawa GHB. CNS-targeting therapies for lysosomal storage diseases: Current advances and challenges. Front Mol Biosci. 2020 Nov 12;7:559804. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.559804
7. Ronzitti G et al. Progress and challenges of gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):287. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.04.67.
8. Kishnani PS, Koeberl DD. Liver depot gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):288. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.05.02.
Until 2006, when a breakthrough therapy first made treatment possible, Pompe disease was a little-known metabolic myopathy fatal to infants. Those with later-onset disease experienced progressive, often severe disability into adulthood.
In this rare autosomal recessive disorder, which occurs in approximately one in 40,000 births worldwide, a deficiency or absence of the enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase causes glycogen to build up in the lysosomes of cells. While many tissues are affected, skeletal and cardiac muscle see the earliest involvement, with muscle hypotonia, cardiomyopathy, and breathing difficulties (mainly due to diaphragm weakness) comprising the hallmark symptoms of the infantile form. Muscle weakness and progressive respiratory failure are prominent in later-onset disease.
The spectrum of severity and age of onset in Pompe disease is linked to combinations of mutations on the GAA gene, some of which destroy the body’s ability to produce acid alpha-glucosidase whereas others merely hamper it. Less enzyme produced in the body generally corresponds with more severe disease activity.
The most severe end of the disease spectrum, or “classic infantile Pompe disease,” presents at birth and is recognized in early infancy. Until treatment with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) became available, patients usually died of cardiorespiratory failure within their first year of life. With therapy, patients have survived into their 20s and beyond. Late-onset disease is a far broader category in which patients can present at any time from their first year, including into middle age.
The emergence in 2006 of alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme, Sanofi Genzyme), an ERT used long-term to improve survival and slow progression in children and adults, resulted in a boom of research interest, a push to timelier diagnosis, and – with patients living longer – a more thorough understanding of the natural history of Pompe disease. In addition to the usual clinical picture of progressive muscle weakness, difficulty breathing, and cardiomyopathy, investigators are seeing nervous system involvement in patients with Pompe disease.
To learn more, Neurology Reviews talked to two global experts in Pompe disease: Priya Kishnani, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., and Antonio Toscano, MD, of the University of Messina, in Messina, Italy.
Diagnosis: Still room to improve
“Most neurologists will encounter a patient with Pompe disease,” said Dr. Kishnani, who has been working with Pompe for her entire career as a pediatrician and medical geneticist, treating patients of all ages and disease phenotypes.
“In newborns, diagnosis is more straightforward, because you’ve got an enlarged heart,” she said. And thanks to efforts of researchers like Dr. Kishnani and Pompe advocacy groups, Pompe disease is now a part of the RUSP (Recommended Uniform Screening Panel) for newborns; currently 28 U.S. states are screening for Pompe disease.
“The challenge really is for the later-onset cases, which are 80% of all cases,” Dr. Kishnani said.
Previously, muscle biopsies were the first step toward diagnosis. Dried blot spot assays to detect enzyme deficiency have since become the standard, along with other biochemical tests. Confirmation of the diagnosis is through gene sequencing panels to detect GAA mutations.
“Now that there is a treatment for Pompe disease and the availability of blood-based testing, many previously undiagnosed patients with limb girdle weakness are evaluated and the diagnostic odyssey ends,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is still a diagnostic delay, and many cases remain undiagnosed.”
Routine blood tests for creatine kinase and for liver enzymes can help point to Pompe disease. But elevated liver enzymes are often misinterpreted. “It’s about the ratios,” Dr. Kishnani said. “ALT is usually much more elevated if it is coming from a liver cause, and AST is usually higher than ALT if it is coming from muscle. But patients often end up getting a liver biopsy due to so-called elevated liver enzymes. As the workup continues, it is often later recognized that the source of the elevated enzymes is muscle involvement, and a referral to the geneticist or neurologist is made. Only then is appropriate testing to confirm a diagnosis initiated.”
Dr. Toscano, a neurologist who specializes in Pompe disease and other myopathies and who has published on tools for diagnosing late-onset Pompe disease,1 said that clinicians should be vigilant when evaluating any patient with limb girdle weakness and elevated creatine kinase (CK) – “especially if the CK is under 2,000,” he said, “because it is very rare that patients with Pompe disease have a more elevated CK than that.”
“Elevated CK, myalgia, and exercise intolerance” should prompt clinicians to suspect Pompe disease in a patient of any age, Dr. Toscano said. “When you come across this, you should be very persistent and get to the end of the story.”
Dr. Toscano noted that the blood spot assay, while an important early step, is not fully diagnostic, “because you can have false positives.” The molecular GAA assay is used to confirm Pompe disease. But detecting pathogenic variants on the GAA gene – of which there are more than 500 – can be more complicated than it sounds. Whereas two mutations are required for Pompe disease, sometimes only one can be detected. Dr. Toscano said he also treated some patients for Pompe with only one known mutation but with unequivocal clinical and biochemical aspects of Pompe disease.
While delays in diagnosis for late-onset Pompe disease remain significant -- between 5 and 6 years on average for older patients, and up to 20 years for those with pediatric onset – both Dr. Kishnani and Dr. Toscano said they perceive them to be improving. With McArdle disease, another inherited glycogen storage disorder that is more common than Pompe disease but for which there is no treatment, “the delay is nearly 12 years,” Dr. Toscano said.
ERT: The sooner the better
Enzyme replacement therapy is indicated for all patients with Pompe disease. Currently two are commercially available: alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme, Sanofi Genzyme), indicated for all forms of Pompe disease, and avalglucosidase alfa-ngpt (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), approved in 2021 for later-onset Pompe, though its indications have yet to be fully defined.
The semimonthly infusions represent, to date, the only disease-modifying therapies commercially available. Enzyme replacement therapy can reverse cardiac damage seen in infants and allow them to meet developmental milestones previously unthinkable. In adults, it can slow progression, though many treated patients will still develop chronic disability and require a wheelchair, respiratory support, or both. “The phenotype of the patients we are seeing today is not as involved as it was prior to enzyme therapy,” said Dr. Kishnani, who was part of the research team that developed ERT and launched the first clinical trials. “This is across the disease spectrum.”
But optimal management means more than just getting a patient on therapy fast, Dr. Kishnani said.
“Very often the thinking is if the patient is on ERT, we’ve done right by the patient. Aspects we don’t look at enough include: Are we monitoring these patients well? Are patients being followed by a multidisciplinary team that includes cardiology, physical therapy, and pulmonary medicine? Are we doing appropriate musculoskeletal assessments? They might have sleep hypoventilation. The BiPap settings may not be correct. Or they have not been assessed for antibodies,” she said.
Many infants with severe phenotypes, notably those who produce no enzyme naturally, will develop immune reactions to the exogenous enzyme therapy. High antibody titers also have been seen and are associated with poor therapeutic response. While this is very clear in the infantile setting, late-onset patients also develop antibodies in response to ERT. In one study in 64 patients,2 Dr. Toscano and his colleagues saw that antibodies may affect clinical response during the first 3 years of treatment, while a small study3 by Dr. Kishnani’s group saw clinical decline associated with high antibody titers in patients with late-onset disease.
While the relationship of specific titers to therapeutic response remains unclear, it is important to consider antibodies, along with other factors, in the monitoring of patients with Pompe disease. “We need to always ask, if a patient is falling behind, what could be the reason?” Dr. Kishnani said. “These are the things we as clinicians can do to improve or enhance the impact of ERT.”
Dr. Toscano noted that a common misconception about late-onset Pompe disease is that cardiac manifestations are minimal or absent, whereas as many as about 20% of patients will have heart problems and need to be carefully monitored.
Neurological manifestations
With patients surviving longer on ERT, researchers have been able to develop a deeper understanding of the natural history of Pompe disease. Increasingly, they are seeing it as a multisystem disease that includes central nervous system involvement.
“Is Pompe an overt neurodegenerative disease? I would say no,” Dr. Kishnani said. “But there is a neurological component that we’ve got to understand and follow more.”
Glycogen accumulation, she noted, has been found in anterior horn cells, motor neurons, and other parts of the brain. “We have been doing MRIs on children with infantile Pompe, and we have seen some white matter hyperintensities. The clinical significance of this finding is still emerging. Sometimes it is present, but the child is cognitively intact. We have had college graduates who have white matter hyperintensities. So putting it in context will be important. But we know that glycogen is ubiquitous, and autopsy studies have shown that it is present in the brain.”
In recent years, Dr. Toscano’s group has investigated neurovascular complications of Pompe in late-onset patients. “This was something that really surprised us because for several years we have investigated mainly heart, muscle, or respiratory manifestations of the disease, but the central nervous system was really neglected,” he said.
“Occasionally we did some brain MRIs and we found in even young patients some ischemic areas. We thought this was related to slowed circulation – that blood vessels in these patients are weak because they are impaired by glycogen accumulation.” Dr. Toscano and his colleagues followed that observation with a study of late-onset patients,4 in which they found that more than half had cerebrovascular abnormalities. “Even in, say, patients 30 to 35 years old we saw this – it’s unusual to have a vascular disorder at that age.”
Dr. Toscano and his colleagues also reported cerebral aneurysms5 in patients with Pompe disease and have recommended that clinicians conduct MRI or cerebral angiograms on patients as part of routine follow-up. Blood pressure in Pompe patients should be carefully watched and managed with antihypertensive medication as needed, he said.
Part of the problem is that the proteins in ERT are not able to cross the blood-brain barrier, Dr. Toscano noted, adding that researchers are investigating other treatments that can.
Pompe disease as a research model
The successful development of ERT for Pompe disease marked a boom in research interest into not just Pompe – for which several experimental therapies are currently in the pipeline – but for other myopathies and glycogen storage disorders.
“I think that Pompe has served as a template both as a muscle disease and a lysosomal storage disease, and so some of our learnings from Pompe have been applied across different diseases,” Dr. Kishnani said.
Studies in spinal muscular atrophy, for example, “in some ways mirrored what was done for Pompe – treatment trials were initiated in babies at the most severe end of the disease population with infantile disease, and used similar clinical trial endpoints,” Dr. Kishnani said. “Even for the later-onset end of the spectrum, the endpoints we used in Pompe for muscle strength and function have been relevant to many other neuromuscular disorders.”
Pompe disease research also ushered in a new appreciation of immune responses in protein replacement therapies, Dr. Kishnani noted.
“In the field today, you hear the term cross-reactive immunological material, or CRIM, all the time,” she said. “But when we first started talking about it in the space of Pompe disease, there was a lot of scientific debate about what the significance of CRIM-negative status was in relationship to the risk for development of high and sustained antibody titer and a poor clinical response. To understand this involved a lot of going back to the data and digging into the small subset of nonresponders. One of the powers of rare disease research is that every patient matters, and it’s important to understand what’s going on at the patient level rather than just the group data level.”
A robust pipeline
The decade and a half since the advent of ERT has seen what Dr. Toscano described as “an explosion of interest” in Pompe disease.
“We’re seeing an extraordinary number of papers on everything from clinical, biomarkers, genetics, and rehabilitation – this disease is now considered from every point of view, and this is very important for patients,” Dr. Toscano said. Alongside this has come industry interest in this rare disease, with several companies investigating a range of treatment approaches.
The existence of a treatment, “while not perfect,” he said, “has interested the patient associations and doctors to try and improve service to patients. Patients with Pompe disease are well attended, probably more so than patients with degenerative disorders in which there is no therapy.”
Last year the second ERT, avalglucosidase alfa (Nexviazyme, Sanofi Genzyme) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat late-onset Pompe disease. The drug, currently being investigated in infants as well, was designed to improve the delivery of the therapeutic enzyme to muscles and enhance glycogen clearance, and results from ongoing trials suggest some functional and clinical benefit over standard ERT.
Other drugs in development for Pompe disease include substrate reduction therapies, which aim to reduce the storage of glycogen in cells, and therapies that improve residual function of mutant GAA enzyme in the body. These and other therapies in development have the potential to modify nervous system manifestations of Pompe disease.6
Because a single gene is implicated in Pompe disease, it has long been considered a good candidate for gene therapies that prompt the body to make stable enzyme. Seven companies are now investigating gene therapies in Pompe disease.7 Some of these deliver to skeletal muscles and others aim for the liver, where proteins are synthesized and secreted and adverse immune responses might be more easily mitigated. Other gene therapies use an ex vivo approach, removing and replacing cells in bone marrow.
Dr. Kishnani’s research group at Duke University is leading a small clinical trial in late-onset patients of a GAA gene transfer to the liver using adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors.8
“We have started AAV gene therapy trials in in adults with Pompe disease and will later evaluate children because ERT is available as a standard of care, and so from a safety perspective this makes the most sense,” Dr. Kishnani said. “We do have challenges in the field of gene therapy, but I think if we are able to overcome the immune responses, and … to treat at a lower dose, there’s a very good pathway forward.”
Dr. Toscano and Dr. Kishnani have received reimbursement from Sanofi and other manufacturers for participation on advisory boards and as speakers.
Jennie Smith is a freelance journalist and editor specializing in medicine and health.
References
1. Musumeci O, Toscano A. Diagnostic tools in late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):286. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.06.60.
2. Filosto M et al. Assessing the role of anti rh-GAA in modulating response to ERT in a late-onset Pompe disease cohort from the Italian GSDII Study Group. Adv Ther. 2019 May;36(5):1177-1189. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-00926-5.
3. Patel TT et al. The impact of antibodies in late-onset Pompe disease: A case series and literature review. Mol Genet Metab. 2012 Jul;106(3):301-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2012.04.027.
4. Montagnese F et al. Intracranial arterial abnormalities in patients with late onset Pompe disease (LOPD). J Inherit Metab Dis. 2016 May;39(3):391-398. doi: 10.1007/s10545-015-9913-x.
5. Musumeci O et al. Central nervous system involvement in late-onset Pompe disease: Clues from neuroimaging and neuropsychological analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2019 Mar;26(3):442-e35. doi: 10.1111/ene.13835.
6. Edelmann MJ, Maegawa GHB. CNS-targeting therapies for lysosomal storage diseases: Current advances and challenges. Front Mol Biosci. 2020 Nov 12;7:559804. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.559804
7. Ronzitti G et al. Progress and challenges of gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):287. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.04.67.
8. Kishnani PS, Koeberl DD. Liver depot gene therapy for Pompe disease. Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(13):288. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.05.02.
Smell loss may be a biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease risk
, according to new research findings.
Olfactory dysfunction is common in late life and well documented among people with Alzheimer’s disease. However, it was unknown whether faster olfactory decline predicts either onset of Alzheimer’s disease or structural brain changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
In a study published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia, Jayant M. Pinto, MD, and his colleagues at the University of Chicago Medical Center reported that among older adults with normal cognition at baseline, people who experienced rapid loss of sense of smell were more likely to be subsequently diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, compared with those who did not.
Participants were recruited from Rush University’s Memory and Aging Project, a longitudinal cohort of older adults who undergo yearly cognitive and sensory exams, including a scratch test of 12 common smells to identify. The Rush study “was ahead of the curve in looking at smell,” Dr. Pinto said in an interview. “It gave us a very valuable resource with which to attack these questions.”
Dr. Pinto has long investigated links between smell and accelerated aging; in 2014 his group published the finding that olfactory dysfunction could predict death within 5 years in older adults, and in 2018 they reported that olfactory dysfunction could predict dementia.
Smell and cognition over time
For the current study, Dr. Pinto said, “we were able to look at the question not just using a single point in time, but a more granular trajectory of smell loss. Measuring change year by year showed that the faster people’s sense of smell declined, the more likely they were to be diagnosed with MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”
Dr. Pinto and his colleagues evaluated results from 515 adults (mean age 76.6, 78% female, 94% White) with no cognitive impairment and at least 3 years of normal results on smell tests at baseline. The subjects were followed for a mean 8 years. One hundred subjects (19%) were diagnosed with MCI or dementia by the end of the study period. A subset of the cohort (n = 121) underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between their final smell tests and the study’s end. Of these, most still had normal cognition; 17 individuals had MCI.
Patients’ individual trajectories of smell loss were mapped as slopes. After adjusting for expected differences in age and sex, the investigators found steeper decline associated with greater risk of incident MCI or dementia (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.90; P < .01). The risk was comparable to that of carrying an apo E ε4 allele, the key risk variant for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, but was independent of apo E status. The association was strongest among subjects younger than 76 years.
Olfactory decline and brain volume
Dr. Pinto and his colleagues, including lead author Rachel R. Pacyna, a 4th-year medical student at the University of Chicago, also sought to identify brain volume changes corresponding with olfactory decline and Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers hypothesized that certain brain regions not seen affected in Alzheimer’s disease would remain unchanged regardless of olfactory status, but that regions associated with smell and Alzheimer’s disease would see smaller volumes linked with olfactory decline.
Faster olfactory decline did predict lower gray matter volume in olfactory regions, even after controlling for apo E status and other known risk factors. Conversely, cognitively unimpaired patients undergoing MRI saw more gray matter volume in primary olfactory and temporal brain regions, compared with those with cognitive symptoms.
Taken together, the findings suggest that “change in sense of smell is better than looking at sense of smell at one time point,” Dr. Pinto commented. “There are other reasons people have impaired sense of smell: car accidents, COVID, other viruses and infections. But if you identify on a time course those who are starting to lose it faster, these are the people on whom we need to focus.”
Not yet diagnostic
More work needs to be done to establish thresholds for smell loss that could be useful in clinical or investigative settings as a marker of dementia risk, Dr. Pinto acknowledged. “Everyone gets their hearing tested; everyone gets their vision tested. It’s not as easy to get your sense of smell tested. But this study is telling people that if we were to start measuring it routinely, we could actually use it.”
Smell testing “could become a component of a diagnostic battery that includes things like genotyping and cerebrospinal fluid markers, but adds a little more information. It could be useful in clinical prevention trials to identify people at the highest risk, as smell loss presents quite a few years before MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”
The investigators acknowledged that their findings need to be replicated in more diverse cohorts that better represent the Alzheimer’s population in the United States. Another limitation of their study, they said, was that the method used to calculate the rate of olfactory decline “was based on slope of measured time points assuming linearity, which may oversimplify the complexity of olfactory changes in normal aging and during the preclinical Alzheimer’s disease period.” The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pinto disclosed receiving consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron, Optinose, and Genentech not related to this work.
, according to new research findings.
Olfactory dysfunction is common in late life and well documented among people with Alzheimer’s disease. However, it was unknown whether faster olfactory decline predicts either onset of Alzheimer’s disease or structural brain changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
In a study published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia, Jayant M. Pinto, MD, and his colleagues at the University of Chicago Medical Center reported that among older adults with normal cognition at baseline, people who experienced rapid loss of sense of smell were more likely to be subsequently diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, compared with those who did not.
Participants were recruited from Rush University’s Memory and Aging Project, a longitudinal cohort of older adults who undergo yearly cognitive and sensory exams, including a scratch test of 12 common smells to identify. The Rush study “was ahead of the curve in looking at smell,” Dr. Pinto said in an interview. “It gave us a very valuable resource with which to attack these questions.”
Dr. Pinto has long investigated links between smell and accelerated aging; in 2014 his group published the finding that olfactory dysfunction could predict death within 5 years in older adults, and in 2018 they reported that olfactory dysfunction could predict dementia.
Smell and cognition over time
For the current study, Dr. Pinto said, “we were able to look at the question not just using a single point in time, but a more granular trajectory of smell loss. Measuring change year by year showed that the faster people’s sense of smell declined, the more likely they were to be diagnosed with MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”
Dr. Pinto and his colleagues evaluated results from 515 adults (mean age 76.6, 78% female, 94% White) with no cognitive impairment and at least 3 years of normal results on smell tests at baseline. The subjects were followed for a mean 8 years. One hundred subjects (19%) were diagnosed with MCI or dementia by the end of the study period. A subset of the cohort (n = 121) underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between their final smell tests and the study’s end. Of these, most still had normal cognition; 17 individuals had MCI.
Patients’ individual trajectories of smell loss were mapped as slopes. After adjusting for expected differences in age and sex, the investigators found steeper decline associated with greater risk of incident MCI or dementia (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.90; P < .01). The risk was comparable to that of carrying an apo E ε4 allele, the key risk variant for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, but was independent of apo E status. The association was strongest among subjects younger than 76 years.
Olfactory decline and brain volume
Dr. Pinto and his colleagues, including lead author Rachel R. Pacyna, a 4th-year medical student at the University of Chicago, also sought to identify brain volume changes corresponding with olfactory decline and Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers hypothesized that certain brain regions not seen affected in Alzheimer’s disease would remain unchanged regardless of olfactory status, but that regions associated with smell and Alzheimer’s disease would see smaller volumes linked with olfactory decline.
Faster olfactory decline did predict lower gray matter volume in olfactory regions, even after controlling for apo E status and other known risk factors. Conversely, cognitively unimpaired patients undergoing MRI saw more gray matter volume in primary olfactory and temporal brain regions, compared with those with cognitive symptoms.
Taken together, the findings suggest that “change in sense of smell is better than looking at sense of smell at one time point,” Dr. Pinto commented. “There are other reasons people have impaired sense of smell: car accidents, COVID, other viruses and infections. But if you identify on a time course those who are starting to lose it faster, these are the people on whom we need to focus.”
Not yet diagnostic
More work needs to be done to establish thresholds for smell loss that could be useful in clinical or investigative settings as a marker of dementia risk, Dr. Pinto acknowledged. “Everyone gets their hearing tested; everyone gets their vision tested. It’s not as easy to get your sense of smell tested. But this study is telling people that if we were to start measuring it routinely, we could actually use it.”
Smell testing “could become a component of a diagnostic battery that includes things like genotyping and cerebrospinal fluid markers, but adds a little more information. It could be useful in clinical prevention trials to identify people at the highest risk, as smell loss presents quite a few years before MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”
The investigators acknowledged that their findings need to be replicated in more diverse cohorts that better represent the Alzheimer’s population in the United States. Another limitation of their study, they said, was that the method used to calculate the rate of olfactory decline “was based on slope of measured time points assuming linearity, which may oversimplify the complexity of olfactory changes in normal aging and during the preclinical Alzheimer’s disease period.” The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pinto disclosed receiving consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron, Optinose, and Genentech not related to this work.
, according to new research findings.
Olfactory dysfunction is common in late life and well documented among people with Alzheimer’s disease. However, it was unknown whether faster olfactory decline predicts either onset of Alzheimer’s disease or structural brain changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
In a study published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia, Jayant M. Pinto, MD, and his colleagues at the University of Chicago Medical Center reported that among older adults with normal cognition at baseline, people who experienced rapid loss of sense of smell were more likely to be subsequently diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, compared with those who did not.
Participants were recruited from Rush University’s Memory and Aging Project, a longitudinal cohort of older adults who undergo yearly cognitive and sensory exams, including a scratch test of 12 common smells to identify. The Rush study “was ahead of the curve in looking at smell,” Dr. Pinto said in an interview. “It gave us a very valuable resource with which to attack these questions.”
Dr. Pinto has long investigated links between smell and accelerated aging; in 2014 his group published the finding that olfactory dysfunction could predict death within 5 years in older adults, and in 2018 they reported that olfactory dysfunction could predict dementia.
Smell and cognition over time
For the current study, Dr. Pinto said, “we were able to look at the question not just using a single point in time, but a more granular trajectory of smell loss. Measuring change year by year showed that the faster people’s sense of smell declined, the more likely they were to be diagnosed with MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”
Dr. Pinto and his colleagues evaluated results from 515 adults (mean age 76.6, 78% female, 94% White) with no cognitive impairment and at least 3 years of normal results on smell tests at baseline. The subjects were followed for a mean 8 years. One hundred subjects (19%) were diagnosed with MCI or dementia by the end of the study period. A subset of the cohort (n = 121) underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between their final smell tests and the study’s end. Of these, most still had normal cognition; 17 individuals had MCI.
Patients’ individual trajectories of smell loss were mapped as slopes. After adjusting for expected differences in age and sex, the investigators found steeper decline associated with greater risk of incident MCI or dementia (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.90; P < .01). The risk was comparable to that of carrying an apo E ε4 allele, the key risk variant for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, but was independent of apo E status. The association was strongest among subjects younger than 76 years.
Olfactory decline and brain volume
Dr. Pinto and his colleagues, including lead author Rachel R. Pacyna, a 4th-year medical student at the University of Chicago, also sought to identify brain volume changes corresponding with olfactory decline and Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers hypothesized that certain brain regions not seen affected in Alzheimer’s disease would remain unchanged regardless of olfactory status, but that regions associated with smell and Alzheimer’s disease would see smaller volumes linked with olfactory decline.
Faster olfactory decline did predict lower gray matter volume in olfactory regions, even after controlling for apo E status and other known risk factors. Conversely, cognitively unimpaired patients undergoing MRI saw more gray matter volume in primary olfactory and temporal brain regions, compared with those with cognitive symptoms.
Taken together, the findings suggest that “change in sense of smell is better than looking at sense of smell at one time point,” Dr. Pinto commented. “There are other reasons people have impaired sense of smell: car accidents, COVID, other viruses and infections. But if you identify on a time course those who are starting to lose it faster, these are the people on whom we need to focus.”
Not yet diagnostic
More work needs to be done to establish thresholds for smell loss that could be useful in clinical or investigative settings as a marker of dementia risk, Dr. Pinto acknowledged. “Everyone gets their hearing tested; everyone gets their vision tested. It’s not as easy to get your sense of smell tested. But this study is telling people that if we were to start measuring it routinely, we could actually use it.”
Smell testing “could become a component of a diagnostic battery that includes things like genotyping and cerebrospinal fluid markers, but adds a little more information. It could be useful in clinical prevention trials to identify people at the highest risk, as smell loss presents quite a few years before MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”
The investigators acknowledged that their findings need to be replicated in more diverse cohorts that better represent the Alzheimer’s population in the United States. Another limitation of their study, they said, was that the method used to calculate the rate of olfactory decline “was based on slope of measured time points assuming linearity, which may oversimplify the complexity of olfactory changes in normal aging and during the preclinical Alzheimer’s disease period.” The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pinto disclosed receiving consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron, Optinose, and Genentech not related to this work.
FROM ALZHEIMER’S & DEMENTIA