Jennie Smith

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.

Though primary efficacy results have yet to be published, new safety findings from two large, randomized trials of aducanumab offer details on which patients are more likely to experience complications associated with the controversial Alzheimer’s drug.

Courtesy of Memory and Aging Program at Butler Hospital

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, or ARIA, have been seen linked to a variety of experimental amyloid-lowering treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. The abnormalities include brain bleeding (ARIA-H) and brain edema (ARIA-E), detected on magnetic resonance imaging.
 

Safety findings

In a study published Nov. 22 in JAMA Neurology, Stephen Salloway, MD, director of neurology and the memory and aging program at Butler Hospital and the Martin M. Zucker Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior and Professor of Neurology at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, R.I., and his colleagues, reported that 41% of 1,029 patients in the high-dose (10 mg/kg) treatment groups of aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) developed ARIA.

Thirty-five percent of the high-dose patients (n = 362) developed ARIA-E, and 94 had symptoms, with headache the most commonly reported, followed by confusion. ARIA-E occurred only sporadically in the placebo groups, while ARIA-H was more common. Microbleeds were seen in 19% of the high-dose patients compared with 6.6% in the placebo group, while superficial siderosis occurred in about 15%, versus 2.2% on placebo. Most of the ARIA-E events occurred during the first eight doses of the infusion treatment. People with one or more copies of the APOE4 genetic variant saw higher risk of ARIA-E associated with treatment compared with noncarriers (hazard ratio [HR] 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.90-3.20). Evidence of brain micro-hemorrhages at baseline was associated with higher risk of ARIA-E (HR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.31-2.27) compared with patients without MRI evidence of brain bleeds in the year before treatment began.

Older age independently increased risk of ARIA-H, with a risk that was seen increasing 6% with each additional year of age.

The identically designed EMERGE and ENGAGE trials of aducanumab enrolled nearly 3,300 patients worldwide (mean age 70.4, 52% female). Participants were screened to include only those with amyloid-positive mild cognitive impairment (81% of the cohort) or mild Alzheimer’s dementia. Both trials were halted early after a futility analysis concluded that treatment was unlikely to result in benefit.

A post hoc analysis later determined that patients in one trial, EMERGE, showed slight clinical benefit on follow-up in the high-dose group only. The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug in July 2021 on the basis of that finding, overriding the consensus of its independent advisory committee, which was not persuaded. Since then the drug has become synonymous with controversy, not aided by its high list price of more than $50,000 per year, with many insurers and large health care systems refusing to deliver it. The recent reported death of a woman participating in an open-label extension trial of aducanumab, who was admitted to the hospital with brain swelling, has added to safety concerns.
 

Brain bleeds and age affect risk

In an interview with MDedge Neurology, neurologist Madhav Thambisetty, MD, PhD, a senior investigator with the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore, and a member of the FDA advisory committee that recommended against approval for aducanumab, said that while physicians are aware that APOE4 carriers face higher risks of treatment-related complications, the new safety findings offer additional guidance on patient selection.

“The older you are the greater your risk of ARIA, and the more micro-hemorrhages you have at baseline the greater your risk. Those are important findings that were not previously well publicized before,” Dr. Thambisetty said.

In the EMERGE and ENGAGE trials, Dr. Thambisetty pointed out, patients with four or more micro-hemorrhages at baseline were excluded. The new findings reveal that even a small number of bleeds at baseline can contribute to ARIA risk.

“Patients in real-world clinical practice are going to be very different from the tightly controlled, well-screened participants who were enrolled in these trials. Microbleeds are very common in Alzheimer’s patients, occurring in 18-32%. Now that these findings are available, it’s important for a practicing physician to obtain a baseline MRI scan and really pay attention to microbleeds, because that will affect treatment decisions.”
 

Additional concerns

Dr. Thambisetty cautioned that the new results made no mention of another important safety outcome: loss of brain volume associated with treatment.

Changes in brain volume have been seen associated with other amyloid-lowering treatments, though the reasons for this are poorly understood. Participants in EMERGE and ENGAGE “received numerous MRI scans,” Dr. Thambisetty said. “This was one of the strengths of the trials. Thanks to an open-label extension we now have more than 2 years of MRI data from meticulously monitored patients, and there has been no mention of brain volume changes despite this being a prespecified outcome. This, for me, is one of the glaring omissions of this paper, and the fact that it’s not even mentioned is really worrisome.”

The sponsor of the aducanumab trials, Biogen, has yet to publish efficacy findings in a peer-reviewed journal, instead presenting them piecemeal at conferences.

“The current paper was a secondary analysis,” Dr. Thambisetty said. “The authors say the primary analysis will be published elsewhere. I think it’s important to reflect upon the fact that these clinical trials enrolled more than 3,000 participants at more than 300 trial centers in 20 countries. We now have an approved drug that’s commercially available. And yet we don’t have a single peer-reviewed publication discussing the efficacy data. None of this is in the interest of our patients, or in advancing the science.”

The EMERGE and ENGAGE trials were funded by Biogen. Eight of the current paper’s 14 authors are Biogen employees. Dr. Salloway, the lead author, disclosed financial support from Biogen and other manufacturers, as did two of his coauthors. Dr. Thambisetty disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Though primary efficacy results have yet to be published, new safety findings from two large, randomized trials of aducanumab offer details on which patients are more likely to experience complications associated with the controversial Alzheimer’s drug.

Courtesy of Memory and Aging Program at Butler Hospital

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, or ARIA, have been seen linked to a variety of experimental amyloid-lowering treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. The abnormalities include brain bleeding (ARIA-H) and brain edema (ARIA-E), detected on magnetic resonance imaging.
 

Safety findings

In a study published Nov. 22 in JAMA Neurology, Stephen Salloway, MD, director of neurology and the memory and aging program at Butler Hospital and the Martin M. Zucker Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior and Professor of Neurology at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, R.I., and his colleagues, reported that 41% of 1,029 patients in the high-dose (10 mg/kg) treatment groups of aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) developed ARIA.

Thirty-five percent of the high-dose patients (n = 362) developed ARIA-E, and 94 had symptoms, with headache the most commonly reported, followed by confusion. ARIA-E occurred only sporadically in the placebo groups, while ARIA-H was more common. Microbleeds were seen in 19% of the high-dose patients compared with 6.6% in the placebo group, while superficial siderosis occurred in about 15%, versus 2.2% on placebo. Most of the ARIA-E events occurred during the first eight doses of the infusion treatment. People with one or more copies of the APOE4 genetic variant saw higher risk of ARIA-E associated with treatment compared with noncarriers (hazard ratio [HR] 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.90-3.20). Evidence of brain micro-hemorrhages at baseline was associated with higher risk of ARIA-E (HR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.31-2.27) compared with patients without MRI evidence of brain bleeds in the year before treatment began.

Older age independently increased risk of ARIA-H, with a risk that was seen increasing 6% with each additional year of age.

The identically designed EMERGE and ENGAGE trials of aducanumab enrolled nearly 3,300 patients worldwide (mean age 70.4, 52% female). Participants were screened to include only those with amyloid-positive mild cognitive impairment (81% of the cohort) or mild Alzheimer’s dementia. Both trials were halted early after a futility analysis concluded that treatment was unlikely to result in benefit.

A post hoc analysis later determined that patients in one trial, EMERGE, showed slight clinical benefit on follow-up in the high-dose group only. The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug in July 2021 on the basis of that finding, overriding the consensus of its independent advisory committee, which was not persuaded. Since then the drug has become synonymous with controversy, not aided by its high list price of more than $50,000 per year, with many insurers and large health care systems refusing to deliver it. The recent reported death of a woman participating in an open-label extension trial of aducanumab, who was admitted to the hospital with brain swelling, has added to safety concerns.
 

Brain bleeds and age affect risk

In an interview with MDedge Neurology, neurologist Madhav Thambisetty, MD, PhD, a senior investigator with the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore, and a member of the FDA advisory committee that recommended against approval for aducanumab, said that while physicians are aware that APOE4 carriers face higher risks of treatment-related complications, the new safety findings offer additional guidance on patient selection.

“The older you are the greater your risk of ARIA, and the more micro-hemorrhages you have at baseline the greater your risk. Those are important findings that were not previously well publicized before,” Dr. Thambisetty said.

In the EMERGE and ENGAGE trials, Dr. Thambisetty pointed out, patients with four or more micro-hemorrhages at baseline were excluded. The new findings reveal that even a small number of bleeds at baseline can contribute to ARIA risk.

“Patients in real-world clinical practice are going to be very different from the tightly controlled, well-screened participants who were enrolled in these trials. Microbleeds are very common in Alzheimer’s patients, occurring in 18-32%. Now that these findings are available, it’s important for a practicing physician to obtain a baseline MRI scan and really pay attention to microbleeds, because that will affect treatment decisions.”
 

Additional concerns

Dr. Thambisetty cautioned that the new results made no mention of another important safety outcome: loss of brain volume associated with treatment.

Changes in brain volume have been seen associated with other amyloid-lowering treatments, though the reasons for this are poorly understood. Participants in EMERGE and ENGAGE “received numerous MRI scans,” Dr. Thambisetty said. “This was one of the strengths of the trials. Thanks to an open-label extension we now have more than 2 years of MRI data from meticulously monitored patients, and there has been no mention of brain volume changes despite this being a prespecified outcome. This, for me, is one of the glaring omissions of this paper, and the fact that it’s not even mentioned is really worrisome.”

The sponsor of the aducanumab trials, Biogen, has yet to publish efficacy findings in a peer-reviewed journal, instead presenting them piecemeal at conferences.

“The current paper was a secondary analysis,” Dr. Thambisetty said. “The authors say the primary analysis will be published elsewhere. I think it’s important to reflect upon the fact that these clinical trials enrolled more than 3,000 participants at more than 300 trial centers in 20 countries. We now have an approved drug that’s commercially available. And yet we don’t have a single peer-reviewed publication discussing the efficacy data. None of this is in the interest of our patients, or in advancing the science.”

The EMERGE and ENGAGE trials were funded by Biogen. Eight of the current paper’s 14 authors are Biogen employees. Dr. Salloway, the lead author, disclosed financial support from Biogen and other manufacturers, as did two of his coauthors. Dr. Thambisetty disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Though primary efficacy results have yet to be published, new safety findings from two large, randomized trials of aducanumab offer details on which patients are more likely to experience complications associated with the controversial Alzheimer’s drug.

Courtesy of Memory and Aging Program at Butler Hospital

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, or ARIA, have been seen linked to a variety of experimental amyloid-lowering treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. The abnormalities include brain bleeding (ARIA-H) and brain edema (ARIA-E), detected on magnetic resonance imaging.
 

Safety findings

In a study published Nov. 22 in JAMA Neurology, Stephen Salloway, MD, director of neurology and the memory and aging program at Butler Hospital and the Martin M. Zucker Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior and Professor of Neurology at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, R.I., and his colleagues, reported that 41% of 1,029 patients in the high-dose (10 mg/kg) treatment groups of aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) developed ARIA.

Thirty-five percent of the high-dose patients (n = 362) developed ARIA-E, and 94 had symptoms, with headache the most commonly reported, followed by confusion. ARIA-E occurred only sporadically in the placebo groups, while ARIA-H was more common. Microbleeds were seen in 19% of the high-dose patients compared with 6.6% in the placebo group, while superficial siderosis occurred in about 15%, versus 2.2% on placebo. Most of the ARIA-E events occurred during the first eight doses of the infusion treatment. People with one or more copies of the APOE4 genetic variant saw higher risk of ARIA-E associated with treatment compared with noncarriers (hazard ratio [HR] 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.90-3.20). Evidence of brain micro-hemorrhages at baseline was associated with higher risk of ARIA-E (HR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.31-2.27) compared with patients without MRI evidence of brain bleeds in the year before treatment began.

Older age independently increased risk of ARIA-H, with a risk that was seen increasing 6% with each additional year of age.

The identically designed EMERGE and ENGAGE trials of aducanumab enrolled nearly 3,300 patients worldwide (mean age 70.4, 52% female). Participants were screened to include only those with amyloid-positive mild cognitive impairment (81% of the cohort) or mild Alzheimer’s dementia. Both trials were halted early after a futility analysis concluded that treatment was unlikely to result in benefit.

A post hoc analysis later determined that patients in one trial, EMERGE, showed slight clinical benefit on follow-up in the high-dose group only. The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug in July 2021 on the basis of that finding, overriding the consensus of its independent advisory committee, which was not persuaded. Since then the drug has become synonymous with controversy, not aided by its high list price of more than $50,000 per year, with many insurers and large health care systems refusing to deliver it. The recent reported death of a woman participating in an open-label extension trial of aducanumab, who was admitted to the hospital with brain swelling, has added to safety concerns.
 

Brain bleeds and age affect risk

In an interview with MDedge Neurology, neurologist Madhav Thambisetty, MD, PhD, a senior investigator with the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore, and a member of the FDA advisory committee that recommended against approval for aducanumab, said that while physicians are aware that APOE4 carriers face higher risks of treatment-related complications, the new safety findings offer additional guidance on patient selection.

“The older you are the greater your risk of ARIA, and the more micro-hemorrhages you have at baseline the greater your risk. Those are important findings that were not previously well publicized before,” Dr. Thambisetty said.

In the EMERGE and ENGAGE trials, Dr. Thambisetty pointed out, patients with four or more micro-hemorrhages at baseline were excluded. The new findings reveal that even a small number of bleeds at baseline can contribute to ARIA risk.

“Patients in real-world clinical practice are going to be very different from the tightly controlled, well-screened participants who were enrolled in these trials. Microbleeds are very common in Alzheimer’s patients, occurring in 18-32%. Now that these findings are available, it’s important for a practicing physician to obtain a baseline MRI scan and really pay attention to microbleeds, because that will affect treatment decisions.”
 

Additional concerns

Dr. Thambisetty cautioned that the new results made no mention of another important safety outcome: loss of brain volume associated with treatment.

Changes in brain volume have been seen associated with other amyloid-lowering treatments, though the reasons for this are poorly understood. Participants in EMERGE and ENGAGE “received numerous MRI scans,” Dr. Thambisetty said. “This was one of the strengths of the trials. Thanks to an open-label extension we now have more than 2 years of MRI data from meticulously monitored patients, and there has been no mention of brain volume changes despite this being a prespecified outcome. This, for me, is one of the glaring omissions of this paper, and the fact that it’s not even mentioned is really worrisome.”

The sponsor of the aducanumab trials, Biogen, has yet to publish efficacy findings in a peer-reviewed journal, instead presenting them piecemeal at conferences.

“The current paper was a secondary analysis,” Dr. Thambisetty said. “The authors say the primary analysis will be published elsewhere. I think it’s important to reflect upon the fact that these clinical trials enrolled more than 3,000 participants at more than 300 trial centers in 20 countries. We now have an approved drug that’s commercially available. And yet we don’t have a single peer-reviewed publication discussing the efficacy data. None of this is in the interest of our patients, or in advancing the science.”

The EMERGE and ENGAGE trials were funded by Biogen. Eight of the current paper’s 14 authors are Biogen employees. Dr. Salloway, the lead author, disclosed financial support from Biogen and other manufacturers, as did two of his coauthors. Dr. Thambisetty disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who experience migraine with aura – and also the far more common tension-type headache – are at increased risk for giving birth to small-for-gestational-age babies, according to results from an observational study.

Migraine during pregnancy has been associated in previous studies with hypertensive pregnancy complications including preeclampsia; however, little is known about other headache types and their effects on pregnancy and birth outcomes.

For their research, published online July 20 in Cephalalgia, Isabella Neri, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Hospital Policlinico of Modena, Italy, looked at headache status for 515 consecutive pregnant women evaluated during their first trimester and followed through childbirth. 

Altogether 224 women, or 43.5% of the cohort, were diagnosed with migraine without aura (n = 72), migraine with aura (n = 27), or tension-type headache (n = 125). The authors did not report on the severity or frequency of headaches.

Women with migraine with aura and tension-type headache saw higher rates of small-for-gestational-age infants (25.9% and 10.4% of births, respectively) compared with 5.5% for women without headache. Women presenting with tension-type headache saw elevated risk for small-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio [OR] 4.19, P = .004) as did women with migraine with aura (OR 5.37, P = .02).

Admission to neonatal intensive care was significantly higher in all the headache groups. However, the authors found no statistically significant associations between headaches and any other perinatal outcome investigated in the study, including gestational diabetes, placental abruption, gestational hypertension, and preterm delivery.

A previous study conducted by the same research group had reported a relationship between migraine and gestational hypertension. The authors cited the small sample size of the migraine groups in the current study, “the diverse features of the population,” and the popularity of low-dose aspirin administration as potentially affecting that outcome.
 

Interpret findings with caution

Asked by this news organization to comment on the research, two headache neurologists praised Dr. Neri and colleagues’ research for focusing on an understudied topic – but also said that the results would not change their practice unless replicated in larger studies.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, chief emeritus of the division of headache at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, urged caution in interpreting the findings, particularly with regard to tension-type headache. “This study adds to information suggesting that pregnancy complications probably are higher in women who have migraine with aura, and there’s biological plausibility for that,” Dr. Loder said. “Having aura means you may have some vascular abnormalities and things that logically might be associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational age infants.” But the small size of the migraine-with-aura group in this study – 27 women – and the fact that other perinatal outcomes measured in the study did not reach significance, allows for the possibility that the small-for-gestational-age findings were due to chance, Dr. Loder noted.

With tension-type headache, a biological rationale for small-for-gestational-age risk is more elusive, Dr. Loder said. “I would want to see that association replicated in another study before I thought that I needed to warn women with tension-type headache about this potential outcome. There’s lot of uncertainty here about the magnitude of the risk.”

While Dr. Neri and colleagues described the instruments used in their study to diagnose migraine and migraine with aura, they did not explain how tension-type headache was diagnosed. 

Tension-type headache, while common, is still not well characterized, Dr. Loder noted, and may represent a heterogeneous condition or the milder end of a biological continuum that includes migraine with aura. Also, the group in the study had a higher prevalence of smoking, and though the authors made statistical adjustments for smoking status, “smokers are systematically different than people who aren’t in other ways that could be associated with these outcomes,” Dr. Loder said.

While the authors of the study suggested that interventions might be indicated for women with tension-type headache in pregnancy, “showing an association doesn’t necessarily mean that intervening would make a difference” on pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Loder said.

Amaal J. Starling, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview that she, too, appreciated that this study looked at pregnancy outcomes in the setting of headache disorders. “Unfortunately even though headache disorders and especially migraine affect women so much, we still know very little about migraine in pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Starling noted that many women with migraine are discouraged by their health care providers from becoming pregnant, because of the false belief that migraine cannot be managed in pregnancy. In her own practice, she said, she treats many patients with severe headache who become pregnant and who require pharmacological intervention during pregnancy.

This does not mean she regards headache in pregnancy as innocent. “I want patients to be on high alert for changes in headache symptoms in pregnancy. If someone has worsening of headache or migraine or aura in the setting of pregnancy, we consider that a red flag,” potentially indicating complications such as high blood pressure, gestational hypertension, or a blood clot.

Like Dr. Loder, Dr. Starling said she was not surprised by Dr. Neri and colleagues’ finding that migraine with aura might impact pregnancy outcomes. “We know that migraine with aura has a lot of vascular abnormalities that underlie the pathogenesis,” she said.

Dr. Starling found the findings related to tension-type headache less convincing, not least because the diagnostic criteria for tension-type headache was not made clear in the study. “I view this as an exploratory study that says maybe there’s a signal here. A larger epidemiological study would need to be done to confirm or refute this data,” Dr. Starling said. Until the findings can be replicated, “this study would not affect my clinical practice in any way.”

Dr. Neri and colleagues described no outside funding for their research or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Starling has received consulting fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers but reported no disclosures relevant to the study discussed. Dr. Loder reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who experience migraine with aura – and also the far more common tension-type headache – are at increased risk for giving birth to small-for-gestational-age babies, according to results from an observational study.

Migraine during pregnancy has been associated in previous studies with hypertensive pregnancy complications including preeclampsia; however, little is known about other headache types and their effects on pregnancy and birth outcomes.

For their research, published online July 20 in Cephalalgia, Isabella Neri, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Hospital Policlinico of Modena, Italy, looked at headache status for 515 consecutive pregnant women evaluated during their first trimester and followed through childbirth. 

Altogether 224 women, or 43.5% of the cohort, were diagnosed with migraine without aura (n = 72), migraine with aura (n = 27), or tension-type headache (n = 125). The authors did not report on the severity or frequency of headaches.

Women with migraine with aura and tension-type headache saw higher rates of small-for-gestational-age infants (25.9% and 10.4% of births, respectively) compared with 5.5% for women without headache. Women presenting with tension-type headache saw elevated risk for small-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio [OR] 4.19, P = .004) as did women with migraine with aura (OR 5.37, P = .02).

Admission to neonatal intensive care was significantly higher in all the headache groups. However, the authors found no statistically significant associations between headaches and any other perinatal outcome investigated in the study, including gestational diabetes, placental abruption, gestational hypertension, and preterm delivery.

A previous study conducted by the same research group had reported a relationship between migraine and gestational hypertension. The authors cited the small sample size of the migraine groups in the current study, “the diverse features of the population,” and the popularity of low-dose aspirin administration as potentially affecting that outcome.
 

Interpret findings with caution

Asked by this news organization to comment on the research, two headache neurologists praised Dr. Neri and colleagues’ research for focusing on an understudied topic – but also said that the results would not change their practice unless replicated in larger studies.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, chief emeritus of the division of headache at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, urged caution in interpreting the findings, particularly with regard to tension-type headache. “This study adds to information suggesting that pregnancy complications probably are higher in women who have migraine with aura, and there’s biological plausibility for that,” Dr. Loder said. “Having aura means you may have some vascular abnormalities and things that logically might be associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational age infants.” But the small size of the migraine-with-aura group in this study – 27 women – and the fact that other perinatal outcomes measured in the study did not reach significance, allows for the possibility that the small-for-gestational-age findings were due to chance, Dr. Loder noted.

With tension-type headache, a biological rationale for small-for-gestational-age risk is more elusive, Dr. Loder said. “I would want to see that association replicated in another study before I thought that I needed to warn women with tension-type headache about this potential outcome. There’s lot of uncertainty here about the magnitude of the risk.”

While Dr. Neri and colleagues described the instruments used in their study to diagnose migraine and migraine with aura, they did not explain how tension-type headache was diagnosed. 

Tension-type headache, while common, is still not well characterized, Dr. Loder noted, and may represent a heterogeneous condition or the milder end of a biological continuum that includes migraine with aura. Also, the group in the study had a higher prevalence of smoking, and though the authors made statistical adjustments for smoking status, “smokers are systematically different than people who aren’t in other ways that could be associated with these outcomes,” Dr. Loder said.

While the authors of the study suggested that interventions might be indicated for women with tension-type headache in pregnancy, “showing an association doesn’t necessarily mean that intervening would make a difference” on pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Loder said.

Amaal J. Starling, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview that she, too, appreciated that this study looked at pregnancy outcomes in the setting of headache disorders. “Unfortunately even though headache disorders and especially migraine affect women so much, we still know very little about migraine in pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Starling noted that many women with migraine are discouraged by their health care providers from becoming pregnant, because of the false belief that migraine cannot be managed in pregnancy. In her own practice, she said, she treats many patients with severe headache who become pregnant and who require pharmacological intervention during pregnancy.

This does not mean she regards headache in pregnancy as innocent. “I want patients to be on high alert for changes in headache symptoms in pregnancy. If someone has worsening of headache or migraine or aura in the setting of pregnancy, we consider that a red flag,” potentially indicating complications such as high blood pressure, gestational hypertension, or a blood clot.

Like Dr. Loder, Dr. Starling said she was not surprised by Dr. Neri and colleagues’ finding that migraine with aura might impact pregnancy outcomes. “We know that migraine with aura has a lot of vascular abnormalities that underlie the pathogenesis,” she said.

Dr. Starling found the findings related to tension-type headache less convincing, not least because the diagnostic criteria for tension-type headache was not made clear in the study. “I view this as an exploratory study that says maybe there’s a signal here. A larger epidemiological study would need to be done to confirm or refute this data,” Dr. Starling said. Until the findings can be replicated, “this study would not affect my clinical practice in any way.”

Dr. Neri and colleagues described no outside funding for their research or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Starling has received consulting fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers but reported no disclosures relevant to the study discussed. Dr. Loder reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who experience migraine with aura – and also the far more common tension-type headache – are at increased risk for giving birth to small-for-gestational-age babies, according to results from an observational study.

Migraine during pregnancy has been associated in previous studies with hypertensive pregnancy complications including preeclampsia; however, little is known about other headache types and their effects on pregnancy and birth outcomes.

For their research, published online July 20 in Cephalalgia, Isabella Neri, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Hospital Policlinico of Modena, Italy, looked at headache status for 515 consecutive pregnant women evaluated during their first trimester and followed through childbirth. 

Altogether 224 women, or 43.5% of the cohort, were diagnosed with migraine without aura (n = 72), migraine with aura (n = 27), or tension-type headache (n = 125). The authors did not report on the severity or frequency of headaches.

Women with migraine with aura and tension-type headache saw higher rates of small-for-gestational-age infants (25.9% and 10.4% of births, respectively) compared with 5.5% for women without headache. Women presenting with tension-type headache saw elevated risk for small-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio [OR] 4.19, P = .004) as did women with migraine with aura (OR 5.37, P = .02).

Admission to neonatal intensive care was significantly higher in all the headache groups. However, the authors found no statistically significant associations between headaches and any other perinatal outcome investigated in the study, including gestational diabetes, placental abruption, gestational hypertension, and preterm delivery.

A previous study conducted by the same research group had reported a relationship between migraine and gestational hypertension. The authors cited the small sample size of the migraine groups in the current study, “the diverse features of the population,” and the popularity of low-dose aspirin administration as potentially affecting that outcome.
 

Interpret findings with caution

Asked by this news organization to comment on the research, two headache neurologists praised Dr. Neri and colleagues’ research for focusing on an understudied topic – but also said that the results would not change their practice unless replicated in larger studies.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, chief emeritus of the division of headache at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, urged caution in interpreting the findings, particularly with regard to tension-type headache. “This study adds to information suggesting that pregnancy complications probably are higher in women who have migraine with aura, and there’s biological plausibility for that,” Dr. Loder said. “Having aura means you may have some vascular abnormalities and things that logically might be associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational age infants.” But the small size of the migraine-with-aura group in this study – 27 women – and the fact that other perinatal outcomes measured in the study did not reach significance, allows for the possibility that the small-for-gestational-age findings were due to chance, Dr. Loder noted.

With tension-type headache, a biological rationale for small-for-gestational-age risk is more elusive, Dr. Loder said. “I would want to see that association replicated in another study before I thought that I needed to warn women with tension-type headache about this potential outcome. There’s lot of uncertainty here about the magnitude of the risk.”

While Dr. Neri and colleagues described the instruments used in their study to diagnose migraine and migraine with aura, they did not explain how tension-type headache was diagnosed. 

Tension-type headache, while common, is still not well characterized, Dr. Loder noted, and may represent a heterogeneous condition or the milder end of a biological continuum that includes migraine with aura. Also, the group in the study had a higher prevalence of smoking, and though the authors made statistical adjustments for smoking status, “smokers are systematically different than people who aren’t in other ways that could be associated with these outcomes,” Dr. Loder said.

While the authors of the study suggested that interventions might be indicated for women with tension-type headache in pregnancy, “showing an association doesn’t necessarily mean that intervening would make a difference” on pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Loder said.

Amaal J. Starling, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview that she, too, appreciated that this study looked at pregnancy outcomes in the setting of headache disorders. “Unfortunately even though headache disorders and especially migraine affect women so much, we still know very little about migraine in pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Starling noted that many women with migraine are discouraged by their health care providers from becoming pregnant, because of the false belief that migraine cannot be managed in pregnancy. In her own practice, she said, she treats many patients with severe headache who become pregnant and who require pharmacological intervention during pregnancy.

This does not mean she regards headache in pregnancy as innocent. “I want patients to be on high alert for changes in headache symptoms in pregnancy. If someone has worsening of headache or migraine or aura in the setting of pregnancy, we consider that a red flag,” potentially indicating complications such as high blood pressure, gestational hypertension, or a blood clot.

Like Dr. Loder, Dr. Starling said she was not surprised by Dr. Neri and colleagues’ finding that migraine with aura might impact pregnancy outcomes. “We know that migraine with aura has a lot of vascular abnormalities that underlie the pathogenesis,” she said.

Dr. Starling found the findings related to tension-type headache less convincing, not least because the diagnostic criteria for tension-type headache was not made clear in the study. “I view this as an exploratory study that says maybe there’s a signal here. A larger epidemiological study would need to be done to confirm or refute this data,” Dr. Starling said. Until the findings can be replicated, “this study would not affect my clinical practice in any way.”

Dr. Neri and colleagues described no outside funding for their research or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Starling has received consulting fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers but reported no disclosures relevant to the study discussed. Dr. Loder reported no financial conflicts of interest.

An experimental gene therapy produced marked clinical improvement in children with aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency, a rare genetic disorder that affects the synthesis of key neurotransmitters to cause severe developmental and motor disability.

In an article published July 12, 2021, in Nature Communications, a group of researchers based at the University of California, San Francisco, and Ohio State University, Columbus, described results from seven children ages 4-9 with AADC deficiency who underwent a novel form of surgery to deliver a viral vector expressing the human AADC gene to the midbrain.

Previous trials of this gene therapy in children with AADC deficiency targeted a different region of the brain, the putamen, with only slight clinical improvement. Here, investigators chose two midbrain regions – the substantia nigra pars compacta and the ventral tegmental area – in the hope of restoring healthy AADC enzyme activity in those neurons.

The study’s corresponding author, Krystof Bankiewicz, MD, PhD, professor and vice chair of research at Ohio State University, director of the Brain Health and Performance Center at Ohio State University, and professor emeritus and vice chair for research at UCSF, said in an interview that the brain regions chosen for this trial resulted from years of efforts to identify an ideal target in this disease.

“This particular vector undergoes axonal transport,” he said. “If you inject it into specific regions of the brain it will be transported into the terminals [of the nerve fibers]. And by looking at the imaging of these patients, we found that they still have the wiring in the brain that’s so critical. So we decided to aim at a much more difficult target, going directly to the source of the problem, which is the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area. This targets two critical pathways in the brain: one that drives motor responses and another that controls emotions.”
 

‘Surprising’ improvement seen

The children in the study – four girls and three boys – underwent surgery from 2016 to the end of 2018, and were divided into two dose cohorts, with one receiving three times the amount of vector as the other. Both groups, however, saw similar levels of improvement.

All but one child saw complete resolution of a hallmark symptom of the disease – oculogyric crises, or prolonged spasms of muscles controlling eye movement – within 3 months of surgery. Of the children followed at least 18 months, six attained head control within a year, two became able to eat and drink by mouth, and four gained the ability to sit up unaided in that time. At 18 months one child had learned to speak 50 words using an augmentative communication device.

One child died unexpectedly 7 months after the procedure, Dr. Bankiewicz said in an interview. This death appeared to be caused by cardiac complications of his disease, Dr. Bankiewicz said, which are common in AADC deficiency.

While the investigators are now looking at delivering the AADC gene therapy in younger children – who were excluded from this trial because of safety concerns surrounding the complex procedure – investigators were surprised by the level of improvement seen in older children.

“We initially didn’t believe – at least not all of us – that we could actually make an impact in the older patients, and that is not the case,” said Dr. Bankiewicz, who has since used the same gene therapy on a compassionate-use basis in Europe and seen durable clinical improvement in patients as old as 26. “The fact that we saw a response in that patient tells us something about how incredibly plastic the brain is.”

While the new study does not detail improvements in the children’s social and emotional well-being, Dr. Bankiewicz said these, too, were pronounced. “Kids fall into oculogyric crises in stress-inducing situation. They might be in a stroller being taken for a walk, and something in the environment would stress them. Sometimes they had to be kept in a dark room isolated from stress.” Following the gene therapy, “they’re laughing, they’re social, they can interact with their environment. It’s really touching to see them able to develop a bond now with their caregivers.”
 

Implication for other disorders

Dr. Bankiewicz and colleagues have previously used the same gene to boost AADC activity in patients with Parkinson’s disease. The group is also in trials to deliver a neuroprotective gene to the brains of people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, and a gene-silencing therapy in patients with Huntington’s disease. They will also continue recruiting pediatric patients for trials of the AADC gene therapy.

“We have been developing a method for safely treating younger children, so now we will go to 3 years old and maybe even below,” Dr. Bankiewicz said. “Earlier is probably better, but for technical and safety considerations we needed to be conservative first. It is hugely stressful to go into very sick patients with that type of therapy in that part of the brain. We had to get it right the first time, and it looks like we did.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the AADC Research Trust, the Pediatric Neurotransmitter Disease Association, and Ohio State University, with materials and technical support donated by ClearPoint Neuro. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with producers of diagnostic tests or biotechnology firms. Dr. Bankiewicz is a founder and shareholder of Brain Neurotherapy Bio, a company that develops gene therapies for Parkinson’s and other diseases.


 

An experimental gene therapy produced marked clinical improvement in children with aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency, a rare genetic disorder that affects the synthesis of key neurotransmitters to cause severe developmental and motor disability.

In an article published July 12, 2021, in Nature Communications, a group of researchers based at the University of California, San Francisco, and Ohio State University, Columbus, described results from seven children ages 4-9 with AADC deficiency who underwent a novel form of surgery to deliver a viral vector expressing the human AADC gene to the midbrain.

Previous trials of this gene therapy in children with AADC deficiency targeted a different region of the brain, the putamen, with only slight clinical improvement. Here, investigators chose two midbrain regions – the substantia nigra pars compacta and the ventral tegmental area – in the hope of restoring healthy AADC enzyme activity in those neurons.

The study’s corresponding author, Krystof Bankiewicz, MD, PhD, professor and vice chair of research at Ohio State University, director of the Brain Health and Performance Center at Ohio State University, and professor emeritus and vice chair for research at UCSF, said in an interview that the brain regions chosen for this trial resulted from years of efforts to identify an ideal target in this disease.

“This particular vector undergoes axonal transport,” he said. “If you inject it into specific regions of the brain it will be transported into the terminals [of the nerve fibers]. And by looking at the imaging of these patients, we found that they still have the wiring in the brain that’s so critical. So we decided to aim at a much more difficult target, going directly to the source of the problem, which is the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area. This targets two critical pathways in the brain: one that drives motor responses and another that controls emotions.”
 

‘Surprising’ improvement seen

The children in the study – four girls and three boys – underwent surgery from 2016 to the end of 2018, and were divided into two dose cohorts, with one receiving three times the amount of vector as the other. Both groups, however, saw similar levels of improvement.

All but one child saw complete resolution of a hallmark symptom of the disease – oculogyric crises, or prolonged spasms of muscles controlling eye movement – within 3 months of surgery. Of the children followed at least 18 months, six attained head control within a year, two became able to eat and drink by mouth, and four gained the ability to sit up unaided in that time. At 18 months one child had learned to speak 50 words using an augmentative communication device.

One child died unexpectedly 7 months after the procedure, Dr. Bankiewicz said in an interview. This death appeared to be caused by cardiac complications of his disease, Dr. Bankiewicz said, which are common in AADC deficiency.

While the investigators are now looking at delivering the AADC gene therapy in younger children – who were excluded from this trial because of safety concerns surrounding the complex procedure – investigators were surprised by the level of improvement seen in older children.

“We initially didn’t believe – at least not all of us – that we could actually make an impact in the older patients, and that is not the case,” said Dr. Bankiewicz, who has since used the same gene therapy on a compassionate-use basis in Europe and seen durable clinical improvement in patients as old as 26. “The fact that we saw a response in that patient tells us something about how incredibly plastic the brain is.”

While the new study does not detail improvements in the children’s social and emotional well-being, Dr. Bankiewicz said these, too, were pronounced. “Kids fall into oculogyric crises in stress-inducing situation. They might be in a stroller being taken for a walk, and something in the environment would stress them. Sometimes they had to be kept in a dark room isolated from stress.” Following the gene therapy, “they’re laughing, they’re social, they can interact with their environment. It’s really touching to see them able to develop a bond now with their caregivers.”
 

Implication for other disorders

Dr. Bankiewicz and colleagues have previously used the same gene to boost AADC activity in patients with Parkinson’s disease. The group is also in trials to deliver a neuroprotective gene to the brains of people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, and a gene-silencing therapy in patients with Huntington’s disease. They will also continue recruiting pediatric patients for trials of the AADC gene therapy.

“We have been developing a method for safely treating younger children, so now we will go to 3 years old and maybe even below,” Dr. Bankiewicz said. “Earlier is probably better, but for technical and safety considerations we needed to be conservative first. It is hugely stressful to go into very sick patients with that type of therapy in that part of the brain. We had to get it right the first time, and it looks like we did.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the AADC Research Trust, the Pediatric Neurotransmitter Disease Association, and Ohio State University, with materials and technical support donated by ClearPoint Neuro. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with producers of diagnostic tests or biotechnology firms. Dr. Bankiewicz is a founder and shareholder of Brain Neurotherapy Bio, a company that develops gene therapies for Parkinson’s and other diseases.


 

An experimental gene therapy produced marked clinical improvement in children with aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency, a rare genetic disorder that affects the synthesis of key neurotransmitters to cause severe developmental and motor disability.

In an article published July 12, 2021, in Nature Communications, a group of researchers based at the University of California, San Francisco, and Ohio State University, Columbus, described results from seven children ages 4-9 with AADC deficiency who underwent a novel form of surgery to deliver a viral vector expressing the human AADC gene to the midbrain.

Previous trials of this gene therapy in children with AADC deficiency targeted a different region of the brain, the putamen, with only slight clinical improvement. Here, investigators chose two midbrain regions – the substantia nigra pars compacta and the ventral tegmental area – in the hope of restoring healthy AADC enzyme activity in those neurons.

The study’s corresponding author, Krystof Bankiewicz, MD, PhD, professor and vice chair of research at Ohio State University, director of the Brain Health and Performance Center at Ohio State University, and professor emeritus and vice chair for research at UCSF, said in an interview that the brain regions chosen for this trial resulted from years of efforts to identify an ideal target in this disease.

“This particular vector undergoes axonal transport,” he said. “If you inject it into specific regions of the brain it will be transported into the terminals [of the nerve fibers]. And by looking at the imaging of these patients, we found that they still have the wiring in the brain that’s so critical. So we decided to aim at a much more difficult target, going directly to the source of the problem, which is the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area. This targets two critical pathways in the brain: one that drives motor responses and another that controls emotions.”
 

‘Surprising’ improvement seen

The children in the study – four girls and three boys – underwent surgery from 2016 to the end of 2018, and were divided into two dose cohorts, with one receiving three times the amount of vector as the other. Both groups, however, saw similar levels of improvement.

All but one child saw complete resolution of a hallmark symptom of the disease – oculogyric crises, or prolonged spasms of muscles controlling eye movement – within 3 months of surgery. Of the children followed at least 18 months, six attained head control within a year, two became able to eat and drink by mouth, and four gained the ability to sit up unaided in that time. At 18 months one child had learned to speak 50 words using an augmentative communication device.

One child died unexpectedly 7 months after the procedure, Dr. Bankiewicz said in an interview. This death appeared to be caused by cardiac complications of his disease, Dr. Bankiewicz said, which are common in AADC deficiency.

While the investigators are now looking at delivering the AADC gene therapy in younger children – who were excluded from this trial because of safety concerns surrounding the complex procedure – investigators were surprised by the level of improvement seen in older children.

“We initially didn’t believe – at least not all of us – that we could actually make an impact in the older patients, and that is not the case,” said Dr. Bankiewicz, who has since used the same gene therapy on a compassionate-use basis in Europe and seen durable clinical improvement in patients as old as 26. “The fact that we saw a response in that patient tells us something about how incredibly plastic the brain is.”

While the new study does not detail improvements in the children’s social and emotional well-being, Dr. Bankiewicz said these, too, were pronounced. “Kids fall into oculogyric crises in stress-inducing situation. They might be in a stroller being taken for a walk, and something in the environment would stress them. Sometimes they had to be kept in a dark room isolated from stress.” Following the gene therapy, “they’re laughing, they’re social, they can interact with their environment. It’s really touching to see them able to develop a bond now with their caregivers.”
 

Implication for other disorders

Dr. Bankiewicz and colleagues have previously used the same gene to boost AADC activity in patients with Parkinson’s disease. The group is also in trials to deliver a neuroprotective gene to the brains of people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, and a gene-silencing therapy in patients with Huntington’s disease. They will also continue recruiting pediatric patients for trials of the AADC gene therapy.

“We have been developing a method for safely treating younger children, so now we will go to 3 years old and maybe even below,” Dr. Bankiewicz said. “Earlier is probably better, but for technical and safety considerations we needed to be conservative first. It is hugely stressful to go into very sick patients with that type of therapy in that part of the brain. We had to get it right the first time, and it looks like we did.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the AADC Research Trust, the Pediatric Neurotransmitter Disease Association, and Ohio State University, with materials and technical support donated by ClearPoint Neuro. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with producers of diagnostic tests or biotechnology firms. Dr. Bankiewicz is a founder and shareholder of Brain Neurotherapy Bio, a company that develops gene therapies for Parkinson’s and other diseases.


 

Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare peripheral nerve disorder that can occur after certain types of viral and bacterial infections, has not to date been definitively linked to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or with vaccination against the virus, despite surveillance searching for such associations.

Spikes in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence have previously, but rarely, been associated with outbreaks of other viral diseases, including Zika, but not with vaccination, except for a 1976-1977 swine influenza vaccine campaign in the United States that was seen associated with a slight elevation in risk, and was halted when that risk became known. Since then, all sorts of vaccines in the European Union and United States have come with warnings about Guillain-Barré syndrome in their package inserts – a fact that some Guillain-Barré syndrome experts lament as perpetuating the notion that vaccines cause Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Epidemiologic studies in the United Kingdom and Singapore did not detect increases in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. And as mass vaccination against COVID-19 got underway early this year, experts cautioned against the temptation to attribute incident Guillain-Barré syndrome cases following vaccination to SARS-CoV-2 without careful statistical and epidemiological analysis. Until now reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome have been scant: clinical trials of a viral vector vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson saw one in the placebo arm and another in the intervention arm, while another case was reported following administration of a Pfizer mRNA SARS-Cov-2 vaccine.
 

Recent case reports

Two reports published this month in the Annals of Neurology – one from India and one from the United Kingdom – describe multiple cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome following a first dose of the ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19, (Covishield, AstraZeneca) vector vaccine. None of the patients had evidence of current SARS-CoV-2 infection.

From India, Boby V. Maramattom, MD, of Aster Medcity in Kochi, India, and colleagues reported on seven severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring between 10 and 14 days after a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. All but one of the patients were women, all had bilateral facial paresis, all progressed to areflexic quadriplegia, and six required respiratory support. Patients’ ages ranged from 43 to 70. Four developed other cranial neuropathies, including abducens palsy and trigeminal sensory nerve involvement, which are rare in reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome from India, Dr. Maramattom and colleagues noted.

The authors argued that their findings “should prompt all physicians to be vigilant in recognizing Guillain-Barré syndrome in patients who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine. While the risk per patient (5.8 per million) may be relatively low, our observations suggest that this clinically distinct [Guillain-Barré syndrome] variant is more severe than usual and may require mechanical ventilation.”

The U.K. cases, reported by Christopher Martin Allen, MD, and colleagues at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, describe bifacial weakness and normal facial sensation in four men between 11 and 22 days after their first doses of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. This type of facial palsy, the authors wrote, was unusual Guillain-Barré syndrome variant that one rapid review found in 3 of 42 European patients diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Allen and colleagues acknowledged that causality could not be assumed from the temporal relationship of immunization to onset of bifacial weakness in their report, but argued that their findings argued for “robust postvaccination surveillance” and that “the report of a similar syndrome in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests an immunologic response to the spike protein.” If the link is casual, they wrote, “it could be due to a cross-reactive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and components of the peripheral immune system.”
 

‘The jury is still out’

Asked for comment, neurologist Anthony Amato, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he did not see what the two new studies add to what is already known. “Guillain-Barré syndrome has already been reported temporally following COVID-19 along with accompanying editorials that such temporal occurrences do not imply causation and there is a need for surveillance and epidemiological studies.”

Robert Lisak, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and a longtime adviser to the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, commented that “the relationship between vaccines and association with Guillain-Barré syndrome continues to be controversial in part because Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare disorder, has many reported associated illnesses including infections. Many vaccines have been implicated but with the probable exception of the ‘swine flu’ vaccine in the 1970s, most have not stood up to scrutiny.”

With SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines, “the jury is still out,” Dr. Lisak said. “The report from the U.K. is intriguing since they report several cases of an uncommon variant, but the cases from India seem to be more of the usual forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.”

Dr. Lisak noted that, even if an association turns out to be valid, “we are talking about a very low incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines,” one that would not justify avoiding them because of a possible association with Guillain-Barré syndrome.

The GBS-CIDP Foundation, which supports research into Guillain-Barré syndrome and related diseases, has likewise stressed the low risk presented by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, noting on its website that “the risk of death or long-term complications from COVID in adults still far exceeds the risk of any possible risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome by several orders of magnitude.”

None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest related to their research. Dr. Amato is an adviser to the pharmaceutical firms Alexion and Argenx, while Dr. Lisak has received research support or honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Hoffmann–La Roche, and others.

Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare peripheral nerve disorder that can occur after certain types of viral and bacterial infections, has not to date been definitively linked to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or with vaccination against the virus, despite surveillance searching for such associations.

Spikes in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence have previously, but rarely, been associated with outbreaks of other viral diseases, including Zika, but not with vaccination, except for a 1976-1977 swine influenza vaccine campaign in the United States that was seen associated with a slight elevation in risk, and was halted when that risk became known. Since then, all sorts of vaccines in the European Union and United States have come with warnings about Guillain-Barré syndrome in their package inserts – a fact that some Guillain-Barré syndrome experts lament as perpetuating the notion that vaccines cause Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Epidemiologic studies in the United Kingdom and Singapore did not detect increases in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. And as mass vaccination against COVID-19 got underway early this year, experts cautioned against the temptation to attribute incident Guillain-Barré syndrome cases following vaccination to SARS-CoV-2 without careful statistical and epidemiological analysis. Until now reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome have been scant: clinical trials of a viral vector vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson saw one in the placebo arm and another in the intervention arm, while another case was reported following administration of a Pfizer mRNA SARS-Cov-2 vaccine.
 

Recent case reports

Two reports published this month in the Annals of Neurology – one from India and one from the United Kingdom – describe multiple cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome following a first dose of the ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19, (Covishield, AstraZeneca) vector vaccine. None of the patients had evidence of current SARS-CoV-2 infection.

From India, Boby V. Maramattom, MD, of Aster Medcity in Kochi, India, and colleagues reported on seven severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring between 10 and 14 days after a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. All but one of the patients were women, all had bilateral facial paresis, all progressed to areflexic quadriplegia, and six required respiratory support. Patients’ ages ranged from 43 to 70. Four developed other cranial neuropathies, including abducens palsy and trigeminal sensory nerve involvement, which are rare in reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome from India, Dr. Maramattom and colleagues noted.

The authors argued that their findings “should prompt all physicians to be vigilant in recognizing Guillain-Barré syndrome in patients who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine. While the risk per patient (5.8 per million) may be relatively low, our observations suggest that this clinically distinct [Guillain-Barré syndrome] variant is more severe than usual and may require mechanical ventilation.”

The U.K. cases, reported by Christopher Martin Allen, MD, and colleagues at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, describe bifacial weakness and normal facial sensation in four men between 11 and 22 days after their first doses of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. This type of facial palsy, the authors wrote, was unusual Guillain-Barré syndrome variant that one rapid review found in 3 of 42 European patients diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Allen and colleagues acknowledged that causality could not be assumed from the temporal relationship of immunization to onset of bifacial weakness in their report, but argued that their findings argued for “robust postvaccination surveillance” and that “the report of a similar syndrome in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests an immunologic response to the spike protein.” If the link is casual, they wrote, “it could be due to a cross-reactive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and components of the peripheral immune system.”
 

‘The jury is still out’

Asked for comment, neurologist Anthony Amato, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he did not see what the two new studies add to what is already known. “Guillain-Barré syndrome has already been reported temporally following COVID-19 along with accompanying editorials that such temporal occurrences do not imply causation and there is a need for surveillance and epidemiological studies.”

Robert Lisak, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and a longtime adviser to the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, commented that “the relationship between vaccines and association with Guillain-Barré syndrome continues to be controversial in part because Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare disorder, has many reported associated illnesses including infections. Many vaccines have been implicated but with the probable exception of the ‘swine flu’ vaccine in the 1970s, most have not stood up to scrutiny.”

With SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines, “the jury is still out,” Dr. Lisak said. “The report from the U.K. is intriguing since they report several cases of an uncommon variant, but the cases from India seem to be more of the usual forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.”

Dr. Lisak noted that, even if an association turns out to be valid, “we are talking about a very low incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines,” one that would not justify avoiding them because of a possible association with Guillain-Barré syndrome.

The GBS-CIDP Foundation, which supports research into Guillain-Barré syndrome and related diseases, has likewise stressed the low risk presented by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, noting on its website that “the risk of death or long-term complications from COVID in adults still far exceeds the risk of any possible risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome by several orders of magnitude.”

None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest related to their research. Dr. Amato is an adviser to the pharmaceutical firms Alexion and Argenx, while Dr. Lisak has received research support or honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Hoffmann–La Roche, and others.

Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare peripheral nerve disorder that can occur after certain types of viral and bacterial infections, has not to date been definitively linked to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or with vaccination against the virus, despite surveillance searching for such associations.

Spikes in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence have previously, but rarely, been associated with outbreaks of other viral diseases, including Zika, but not with vaccination, except for a 1976-1977 swine influenza vaccine campaign in the United States that was seen associated with a slight elevation in risk, and was halted when that risk became known. Since then, all sorts of vaccines in the European Union and United States have come with warnings about Guillain-Barré syndrome in their package inserts – a fact that some Guillain-Barré syndrome experts lament as perpetuating the notion that vaccines cause Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Epidemiologic studies in the United Kingdom and Singapore did not detect increases in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. And as mass vaccination against COVID-19 got underway early this year, experts cautioned against the temptation to attribute incident Guillain-Barré syndrome cases following vaccination to SARS-CoV-2 without careful statistical and epidemiological analysis. Until now reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome have been scant: clinical trials of a viral vector vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson saw one in the placebo arm and another in the intervention arm, while another case was reported following administration of a Pfizer mRNA SARS-Cov-2 vaccine.
 

Recent case reports

Two reports published this month in the Annals of Neurology – one from India and one from the United Kingdom – describe multiple cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome following a first dose of the ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19, (Covishield, AstraZeneca) vector vaccine. None of the patients had evidence of current SARS-CoV-2 infection.

From India, Boby V. Maramattom, MD, of Aster Medcity in Kochi, India, and colleagues reported on seven severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring between 10 and 14 days after a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. All but one of the patients were women, all had bilateral facial paresis, all progressed to areflexic quadriplegia, and six required respiratory support. Patients’ ages ranged from 43 to 70. Four developed other cranial neuropathies, including abducens palsy and trigeminal sensory nerve involvement, which are rare in reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome from India, Dr. Maramattom and colleagues noted.

The authors argued that their findings “should prompt all physicians to be vigilant in recognizing Guillain-Barré syndrome in patients who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine. While the risk per patient (5.8 per million) may be relatively low, our observations suggest that this clinically distinct [Guillain-Barré syndrome] variant is more severe than usual and may require mechanical ventilation.”

The U.K. cases, reported by Christopher Martin Allen, MD, and colleagues at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, describe bifacial weakness and normal facial sensation in four men between 11 and 22 days after their first doses of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. This type of facial palsy, the authors wrote, was unusual Guillain-Barré syndrome variant that one rapid review found in 3 of 42 European patients diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Allen and colleagues acknowledged that causality could not be assumed from the temporal relationship of immunization to onset of bifacial weakness in their report, but argued that their findings argued for “robust postvaccination surveillance” and that “the report of a similar syndrome in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests an immunologic response to the spike protein.” If the link is casual, they wrote, “it could be due to a cross-reactive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and components of the peripheral immune system.”
 

‘The jury is still out’

Asked for comment, neurologist Anthony Amato, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he did not see what the two new studies add to what is already known. “Guillain-Barré syndrome has already been reported temporally following COVID-19 along with accompanying editorials that such temporal occurrences do not imply causation and there is a need for surveillance and epidemiological studies.”

Robert Lisak, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and a longtime adviser to the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, commented that “the relationship between vaccines and association with Guillain-Barré syndrome continues to be controversial in part because Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare disorder, has many reported associated illnesses including infections. Many vaccines have been implicated but with the probable exception of the ‘swine flu’ vaccine in the 1970s, most have not stood up to scrutiny.”

With SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines, “the jury is still out,” Dr. Lisak said. “The report from the U.K. is intriguing since they report several cases of an uncommon variant, but the cases from India seem to be more of the usual forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.”

Dr. Lisak noted that, even if an association turns out to be valid, “we are talking about a very low incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines,” one that would not justify avoiding them because of a possible association with Guillain-Barré syndrome.

The GBS-CIDP Foundation, which supports research into Guillain-Barré syndrome and related diseases, has likewise stressed the low risk presented by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, noting on its website that “the risk of death or long-term complications from COVID in adults still far exceeds the risk of any possible risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome by several orders of magnitude.”

None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest related to their research. Dr. Amato is an adviser to the pharmaceutical firms Alexion and Argenx, while Dr. Lisak has received research support or honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Hoffmann–La Roche, and others.

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

Motor and cognitive aspects of Parkinson’s disease are associated with discrete neural microcircuits within the brain’s basal ganglia, according to a new study using a mouse model of disease. 

Parkinson’s disease is characterized by a range of cognitive and motor symptoms, which appear at different disease stages. While recent research has pointed to specific neuronal subpopulations, or microcircuits, operating in the basal ganglia, researchers lacked a clear understanding of how they might correspond with specific symptom domains. 

In a study published online March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, lead author Varoth Lilascharoen, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported that two different neuronal subpopulations within the external globus pallidus, an important nucleus within the basal ganglia, are associated, respectively, with movement and with reversal learning (having to adapt to a reward pattern that is the reverse of a previous pattern). This is the first time, the investigators said, that the contributions of specific microcircuits in the basal ganglia have been linked to different behaviors.

Using electrophysiology, viral tracing, and other approaches, Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues demonstrated that two microcircuits or populations of parvalbumin-expressing neurons could be manipulated to exacerbate or alleviate the motor or cognitive deficits in the dopamine-depleted mice. 

One of these microcircuits, made up of substantia nigra pars reticulata-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated in ways that promoted or inhibited the mice’s movement. The other, which comprises parafascicular thalamus-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated to affect reversal learning, the researchers found. Activation or inhibition of either circuit was not seen affecting function in the other. 

The results shed light on the functional organization of the different basal ganglia nuclei at the circuit level, and suggest, the authors argued, that differences in how different neuronal subpopulations adapt to dopamine loss could explain some of the patterns of progression seen in Parkinson’s disease.

The findings “establish the differential contributions from two distinct GPe-PV microcircuits in specific Parkinsonian-like behaviors linked to early and late stages of the disease,” Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “[F]urther elucidation of the detailed connectivity of GPe subpopulations to their downstream targets … is needed to fully define the function of each microcircuit and design better therapeutic strategies for the various behavioral impairments of Parkinson’s disease.” 

Commenting on the research, Stefan Lang, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta said, “While Parkinson’s disease is often referred to as a movement disorder, it is well known that nonmotor symptoms, including cognitive and behavioral impairment, are common and debilitating. Impairment of basal ganglia function is known to contribute to these different symptom domains, though the specific circuits have never been elucidated. [Dr.] Lilascharoen et al. tease apart specific basal ganglia circuits associated with motor and behavioral symptoms, thereby providing evidence that distinct microcircuits might contribute to unique behaviours. As technological advances in neuromodulatory therapies continue to improve the spatial and temporal resolution of stimulation, future treatments may allow for specific targeting of behavioral impairment symptoms in Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Lilascharoen and Dr. Lang did not report outside funding or conflicts of interest.

Motor and cognitive aspects of Parkinson’s disease are associated with discrete neural microcircuits within the brain’s basal ganglia, according to a new study using a mouse model of disease. 

Parkinson’s disease is characterized by a range of cognitive and motor symptoms, which appear at different disease stages. While recent research has pointed to specific neuronal subpopulations, or microcircuits, operating in the basal ganglia, researchers lacked a clear understanding of how they might correspond with specific symptom domains. 

In a study published online March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, lead author Varoth Lilascharoen, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported that two different neuronal subpopulations within the external globus pallidus, an important nucleus within the basal ganglia, are associated, respectively, with movement and with reversal learning (having to adapt to a reward pattern that is the reverse of a previous pattern). This is the first time, the investigators said, that the contributions of specific microcircuits in the basal ganglia have been linked to different behaviors.

Using electrophysiology, viral tracing, and other approaches, Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues demonstrated that two microcircuits or populations of parvalbumin-expressing neurons could be manipulated to exacerbate or alleviate the motor or cognitive deficits in the dopamine-depleted mice. 

One of these microcircuits, made up of substantia nigra pars reticulata-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated in ways that promoted or inhibited the mice’s movement. The other, which comprises parafascicular thalamus-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated to affect reversal learning, the researchers found. Activation or inhibition of either circuit was not seen affecting function in the other. 

The results shed light on the functional organization of the different basal ganglia nuclei at the circuit level, and suggest, the authors argued, that differences in how different neuronal subpopulations adapt to dopamine loss could explain some of the patterns of progression seen in Parkinson’s disease.

The findings “establish the differential contributions from two distinct GPe-PV microcircuits in specific Parkinsonian-like behaviors linked to early and late stages of the disease,” Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “[F]urther elucidation of the detailed connectivity of GPe subpopulations to their downstream targets … is needed to fully define the function of each microcircuit and design better therapeutic strategies for the various behavioral impairments of Parkinson’s disease.” 

Commenting on the research, Stefan Lang, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta said, “While Parkinson’s disease is often referred to as a movement disorder, it is well known that nonmotor symptoms, including cognitive and behavioral impairment, are common and debilitating. Impairment of basal ganglia function is known to contribute to these different symptom domains, though the specific circuits have never been elucidated. [Dr.] Lilascharoen et al. tease apart specific basal ganglia circuits associated with motor and behavioral symptoms, thereby providing evidence that distinct microcircuits might contribute to unique behaviours. As technological advances in neuromodulatory therapies continue to improve the spatial and temporal resolution of stimulation, future treatments may allow for specific targeting of behavioral impairment symptoms in Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Lilascharoen and Dr. Lang did not report outside funding or conflicts of interest.

Motor and cognitive aspects of Parkinson’s disease are associated with discrete neural microcircuits within the brain’s basal ganglia, according to a new study using a mouse model of disease. 

Parkinson’s disease is characterized by a range of cognitive and motor symptoms, which appear at different disease stages. While recent research has pointed to specific neuronal subpopulations, or microcircuits, operating in the basal ganglia, researchers lacked a clear understanding of how they might correspond with specific symptom domains. 

In a study published online March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, lead author Varoth Lilascharoen, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported that two different neuronal subpopulations within the external globus pallidus, an important nucleus within the basal ganglia, are associated, respectively, with movement and with reversal learning (having to adapt to a reward pattern that is the reverse of a previous pattern). This is the first time, the investigators said, that the contributions of specific microcircuits in the basal ganglia have been linked to different behaviors.

Using electrophysiology, viral tracing, and other approaches, Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues demonstrated that two microcircuits or populations of parvalbumin-expressing neurons could be manipulated to exacerbate or alleviate the motor or cognitive deficits in the dopamine-depleted mice. 

One of these microcircuits, made up of substantia nigra pars reticulata-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated in ways that promoted or inhibited the mice’s movement. The other, which comprises parafascicular thalamus-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated to affect reversal learning, the researchers found. Activation or inhibition of either circuit was not seen affecting function in the other. 

The results shed light on the functional organization of the different basal ganglia nuclei at the circuit level, and suggest, the authors argued, that differences in how different neuronal subpopulations adapt to dopamine loss could explain some of the patterns of progression seen in Parkinson’s disease.

The findings “establish the differential contributions from two distinct GPe-PV microcircuits in specific Parkinsonian-like behaviors linked to early and late stages of the disease,” Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “[F]urther elucidation of the detailed connectivity of GPe subpopulations to their downstream targets … is needed to fully define the function of each microcircuit and design better therapeutic strategies for the various behavioral impairments of Parkinson’s disease.” 

Commenting on the research, Stefan Lang, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta said, “While Parkinson’s disease is often referred to as a movement disorder, it is well known that nonmotor symptoms, including cognitive and behavioral impairment, are common and debilitating. Impairment of basal ganglia function is known to contribute to these different symptom domains, though the specific circuits have never been elucidated. [Dr.] Lilascharoen et al. tease apart specific basal ganglia circuits associated with motor and behavioral symptoms, thereby providing evidence that distinct microcircuits might contribute to unique behaviours. As technological advances in neuromodulatory therapies continue to improve the spatial and temporal resolution of stimulation, future treatments may allow for specific targeting of behavioral impairment symptoms in Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Lilascharoen and Dr. Lang did not report outside funding or conflicts of interest.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Stroke, dementias, and migraine cause the most disability among neurological disorders in the United States, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study. 

The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
 

Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases

Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.

The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.

The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.

Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
 

Regional variations

The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”

Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.

Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”

The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
 

Time to adjust the stroke belt?

Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia. 

“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”

Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Stroke, dementias, and migraine cause the most disability among neurological disorders in the United States, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study. 

The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
 

Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases

Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.

The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.

The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.

Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
 

Regional variations

The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”

Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.

Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”

The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
 

Time to adjust the stroke belt?

Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia. 

“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”

Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Stroke, dementias, and migraine cause the most disability among neurological disorders in the United States, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study. 

The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
 

Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases

Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.

The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.

The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.

Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
 

Regional variations

The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”

Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.

Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”

The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
 

Time to adjust the stroke belt?

Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia. 

“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”

Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Adverse cognitive and psychiatric effects seen associated with the investigational Alzheimer’s drug atabecestat were reversed within 6 months of treatment cessation, according to follow-up results from a truncated clinical trial.

A blinded, placebo-controlled, manufacturer-sponsored trial that had randomized 557 patients with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease to 25 mg daily oral atabecestat, 5 mg atabecestat, or placebo, was halted in 2018 over concerns about liver toxicity. The main outcome measure of the trial was change on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite, while two other scales were used to assess cognitive function and neuropsychological status.

A preliminary analysis found the higher dose of the atabecestat to significantly worsen subjects’ cognition starting at around 3 months of treatment, compared with placebo. Treatment with atabecestat was also seen associated with higher incidence of neuropsychiatric adverse events, including anxiety and depression.

In their follow-up study published Jan. 19, 2021 in JAMA Neurology (doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4857), Reisa Sperling, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues reported that the cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric adverse effects seen linked to atabecestat treatment reverted to baseline levels within 6 months of halting treatment. Most of the worsening seen in the study was associated with episodic memory tasks, including “list learning, story memory, list recognition, story recall, and figure recall,” Dr. Sperling and colleagues found.

Atabecestat was also associated with “dose-related and duration-related decreases in whole-brain volume, compared with placebo treatment,” the investigators reported. Brain volume loss has been seen in trials of other beta-secretase (BACE) inhibitors and shown with one, umibecestat, to be reversible after stopping treatment.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues acknowledged as a major limitation of their study that just over a third of the cohort received another cognitive composite score after baseline. “The observation that cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric-related [adverse events] recovered following discontinuation of atabecestat is encouraging but needs replication, given that the observation period after stopping treatment was variable and not preplanned,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. After a median exposure of 21 weeks to the study drug or placebo, subjects were followed off treatment for a median 15 weeks.
 

Questions surround BACE inhibitors

Development of atabecestat has been discontinued along with others in its class of agents, known as BACE inhibitors, which target an enzyme that initiates production of amyloid-beta, the plaque-forming peptide that is considered a driver of Alzheimer’s disease. In the past few years a number of BACE inhibitors have been shown in trials to worsen cognition in a dose-dependent way, compared with placebo. The reasons for these effects are still unknown.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues concluded that, if BACE investigators like atabecestat are to be studied anew, it must be at low doses, with more modest enzyme inhibition, and alongside careful safety and cognitive monitoring.

While no BACE inhibitor is currently in the pipeline for Alzheimer’s – trials of these agents have been stopped for futility or toxicity –Paul Aisen, MD of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study, commented that it was important that clinical investigation of BACE inhibitors continue. 

“This drug class is optimal to correct the metabolic dysregulation that is likely a primary root cause” of Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Aisen said in an interview. “Evidence from trials such as this suggest that the cognitive toxicity of BACE inhibitors is dose related, nonprogressive, and reversible. We should now focus on establishing the safety of relatively low-dose BACE inhibition so that such regimens can be tested in AD trials.”
 

Research should continue

Robert Vassar, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not a coauthor on the study, also expressed a desire for BACE inhibitor research to continue.

“It is my view that the cognitive worsening of atabecestat and the other BACE inhibitors was caused by overinhibition of the enzyme related to functions of certain BACE substrates in the brain,” Dr. Vassar commented. “A major question is whether a lower dose of BACE inhibitor – achieving about 30% inhibition – could be safe and lower amyloid-beta enough to delay onset in people still without symptoms. The good news of this study is that the atabecestat-related cognitive worsening is reversible, leaving open the possibility of low-dose prevention trials.”

Dr. Vassar noted that, with both doses of atabecestat, Dr. Sperling and colleagues did not see changes in neurofilament light or total tau, two biomarkers of neurodegeneration, but did report decreases in phosphorylated tau (p181 tau), a marker of disease progression, compared with placebo.

“This indicates that atabecestat did not cause neurodegeneration and in fact moved p181 tau in the beneficial direction for Alzheimer’s disease. Perhaps if it were not for the liver toxicity, the trial may have been completed and other Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers may have changed in the beneficial direction as well,” Dr. Vassar said.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study was sponsored by Janssen, the manufacturer of atabecestat. Dr. Sperling disclosed receiving research funding from Janssen and other drug makers, while nearly all the study’s coauthors reported being directly employed by the sponsor or receiving industry funding. Dr. Aisen disclosed personal fees from several manufacturers and past fees from the sponsor. Dr. Vassar disclosed consulting and other financial relationships with biotechnology companies that did not include this study’s sponsor.

Adverse cognitive and psychiatric effects seen associated with the investigational Alzheimer’s drug atabecestat were reversed within 6 months of treatment cessation, according to follow-up results from a truncated clinical trial.

A blinded, placebo-controlled, manufacturer-sponsored trial that had randomized 557 patients with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease to 25 mg daily oral atabecestat, 5 mg atabecestat, or placebo, was halted in 2018 over concerns about liver toxicity. The main outcome measure of the trial was change on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite, while two other scales were used to assess cognitive function and neuropsychological status.

A preliminary analysis found the higher dose of the atabecestat to significantly worsen subjects’ cognition starting at around 3 months of treatment, compared with placebo. Treatment with atabecestat was also seen associated with higher incidence of neuropsychiatric adverse events, including anxiety and depression.

In their follow-up study published Jan. 19, 2021 in JAMA Neurology (doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4857), Reisa Sperling, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues reported that the cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric adverse effects seen linked to atabecestat treatment reverted to baseline levels within 6 months of halting treatment. Most of the worsening seen in the study was associated with episodic memory tasks, including “list learning, story memory, list recognition, story recall, and figure recall,” Dr. Sperling and colleagues found.

Atabecestat was also associated with “dose-related and duration-related decreases in whole-brain volume, compared with placebo treatment,” the investigators reported. Brain volume loss has been seen in trials of other beta-secretase (BACE) inhibitors and shown with one, umibecestat, to be reversible after stopping treatment.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues acknowledged as a major limitation of their study that just over a third of the cohort received another cognitive composite score after baseline. “The observation that cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric-related [adverse events] recovered following discontinuation of atabecestat is encouraging but needs replication, given that the observation period after stopping treatment was variable and not preplanned,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. After a median exposure of 21 weeks to the study drug or placebo, subjects were followed off treatment for a median 15 weeks.
 

Questions surround BACE inhibitors

Development of atabecestat has been discontinued along with others in its class of agents, known as BACE inhibitors, which target an enzyme that initiates production of amyloid-beta, the plaque-forming peptide that is considered a driver of Alzheimer’s disease. In the past few years a number of BACE inhibitors have been shown in trials to worsen cognition in a dose-dependent way, compared with placebo. The reasons for these effects are still unknown.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues concluded that, if BACE investigators like atabecestat are to be studied anew, it must be at low doses, with more modest enzyme inhibition, and alongside careful safety and cognitive monitoring.

While no BACE inhibitor is currently in the pipeline for Alzheimer’s – trials of these agents have been stopped for futility or toxicity –Paul Aisen, MD of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study, commented that it was important that clinical investigation of BACE inhibitors continue. 

“This drug class is optimal to correct the metabolic dysregulation that is likely a primary root cause” of Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Aisen said in an interview. “Evidence from trials such as this suggest that the cognitive toxicity of BACE inhibitors is dose related, nonprogressive, and reversible. We should now focus on establishing the safety of relatively low-dose BACE inhibition so that such regimens can be tested in AD trials.”
 

Research should continue

Robert Vassar, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not a coauthor on the study, also expressed a desire for BACE inhibitor research to continue.

“It is my view that the cognitive worsening of atabecestat and the other BACE inhibitors was caused by overinhibition of the enzyme related to functions of certain BACE substrates in the brain,” Dr. Vassar commented. “A major question is whether a lower dose of BACE inhibitor – achieving about 30% inhibition – could be safe and lower amyloid-beta enough to delay onset in people still without symptoms. The good news of this study is that the atabecestat-related cognitive worsening is reversible, leaving open the possibility of low-dose prevention trials.”

Dr. Vassar noted that, with both doses of atabecestat, Dr. Sperling and colleagues did not see changes in neurofilament light or total tau, two biomarkers of neurodegeneration, but did report decreases in phosphorylated tau (p181 tau), a marker of disease progression, compared with placebo.

“This indicates that atabecestat did not cause neurodegeneration and in fact moved p181 tau in the beneficial direction for Alzheimer’s disease. Perhaps if it were not for the liver toxicity, the trial may have been completed and other Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers may have changed in the beneficial direction as well,” Dr. Vassar said.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study was sponsored by Janssen, the manufacturer of atabecestat. Dr. Sperling disclosed receiving research funding from Janssen and other drug makers, while nearly all the study’s coauthors reported being directly employed by the sponsor or receiving industry funding. Dr. Aisen disclosed personal fees from several manufacturers and past fees from the sponsor. Dr. Vassar disclosed consulting and other financial relationships with biotechnology companies that did not include this study’s sponsor.

Adverse cognitive and psychiatric effects seen associated with the investigational Alzheimer’s drug atabecestat were reversed within 6 months of treatment cessation, according to follow-up results from a truncated clinical trial.

A blinded, placebo-controlled, manufacturer-sponsored trial that had randomized 557 patients with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease to 25 mg daily oral atabecestat, 5 mg atabecestat, or placebo, was halted in 2018 over concerns about liver toxicity. The main outcome measure of the trial was change on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite, while two other scales were used to assess cognitive function and neuropsychological status.

A preliminary analysis found the higher dose of the atabecestat to significantly worsen subjects’ cognition starting at around 3 months of treatment, compared with placebo. Treatment with atabecestat was also seen associated with higher incidence of neuropsychiatric adverse events, including anxiety and depression.

In their follow-up study published Jan. 19, 2021 in JAMA Neurology (doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4857), Reisa Sperling, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues reported that the cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric adverse effects seen linked to atabecestat treatment reverted to baseline levels within 6 months of halting treatment. Most of the worsening seen in the study was associated with episodic memory tasks, including “list learning, story memory, list recognition, story recall, and figure recall,” Dr. Sperling and colleagues found.

Atabecestat was also associated with “dose-related and duration-related decreases in whole-brain volume, compared with placebo treatment,” the investigators reported. Brain volume loss has been seen in trials of other beta-secretase (BACE) inhibitors and shown with one, umibecestat, to be reversible after stopping treatment.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues acknowledged as a major limitation of their study that just over a third of the cohort received another cognitive composite score after baseline. “The observation that cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric-related [adverse events] recovered following discontinuation of atabecestat is encouraging but needs replication, given that the observation period after stopping treatment was variable and not preplanned,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. After a median exposure of 21 weeks to the study drug or placebo, subjects were followed off treatment for a median 15 weeks.
 

Questions surround BACE inhibitors

Development of atabecestat has been discontinued along with others in its class of agents, known as BACE inhibitors, which target an enzyme that initiates production of amyloid-beta, the plaque-forming peptide that is considered a driver of Alzheimer’s disease. In the past few years a number of BACE inhibitors have been shown in trials to worsen cognition in a dose-dependent way, compared with placebo. The reasons for these effects are still unknown.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues concluded that, if BACE investigators like atabecestat are to be studied anew, it must be at low doses, with more modest enzyme inhibition, and alongside careful safety and cognitive monitoring.

While no BACE inhibitor is currently in the pipeline for Alzheimer’s – trials of these agents have been stopped for futility or toxicity –Paul Aisen, MD of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study, commented that it was important that clinical investigation of BACE inhibitors continue. 

“This drug class is optimal to correct the metabolic dysregulation that is likely a primary root cause” of Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Aisen said in an interview. “Evidence from trials such as this suggest that the cognitive toxicity of BACE inhibitors is dose related, nonprogressive, and reversible. We should now focus on establishing the safety of relatively low-dose BACE inhibition so that such regimens can be tested in AD trials.”
 

Research should continue

Robert Vassar, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not a coauthor on the study, also expressed a desire for BACE inhibitor research to continue.

“It is my view that the cognitive worsening of atabecestat and the other BACE inhibitors was caused by overinhibition of the enzyme related to functions of certain BACE substrates in the brain,” Dr. Vassar commented. “A major question is whether a lower dose of BACE inhibitor – achieving about 30% inhibition – could be safe and lower amyloid-beta enough to delay onset in people still without symptoms. The good news of this study is that the atabecestat-related cognitive worsening is reversible, leaving open the possibility of low-dose prevention trials.”

Dr. Vassar noted that, with both doses of atabecestat, Dr. Sperling and colleagues did not see changes in neurofilament light or total tau, two biomarkers of neurodegeneration, but did report decreases in phosphorylated tau (p181 tau), a marker of disease progression, compared with placebo.

“This indicates that atabecestat did not cause neurodegeneration and in fact moved p181 tau in the beneficial direction for Alzheimer’s disease. Perhaps if it were not for the liver toxicity, the trial may have been completed and other Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers may have changed in the beneficial direction as well,” Dr. Vassar said.

Dr. Sperling and colleagues’ study was sponsored by Janssen, the manufacturer of atabecestat. Dr. Sperling disclosed receiving research funding from Janssen and other drug makers, while nearly all the study’s coauthors reported being directly employed by the sponsor or receiving industry funding. Dr. Aisen disclosed personal fees from several manufacturers and past fees from the sponsor. Dr. Vassar disclosed consulting and other financial relationships with biotechnology companies that did not include this study’s sponsor.