MDedge Neurology

New classes of antimigraine drugs demonstrate efficacy and improved tolerability for patients with chronic migraine, a new systematic review and meta-analysis finds.

“[T]he lack of cardiovascular risks of these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may provide alternative treatment options for individuals for whom currently available acute treatments have failed or for those with cardiovascular contraindications,” write lead author Chun-Pai Yang, MD, PhD, of Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital and colleagues, in the paper, published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Methods

The new study compared the outcomes for acute migraine management using the ditan, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine [5HT]1F–receptor agonist), and the two gepants, rimegepant, and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene–related peptide [CGRP] antagonists), with standard triptan (selective 5-HT1B/1D–receptor agonist) therapy.

The researchers evaluated 64 double-blind randomized clinical trials which included 46,442 patients, the majority of whom (74%-87%) were women with an age range of 36-43 years.

The primary outcome evaluated was the odds ratio for freedom from pain at 2 hours after a single dose and secondary outcomes were the OR for pain relief at 2 hours following a dose, as well as any adverse events.
 

Results

Dr. Yang and colleagues found that virtually all medications with widespread clinical use, regardless of class, were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom when compared with placebo.

Compared to ditan and gepant agents, however, triptans were associated with significantly higher ORs for pain freedom. The odds ratio ranges were 1.72-3.40 for lasmiditan, 1.58-3.13 for rimegepant, and 1.54-3.05 for ubrogepant.

With respect to pain relief at 2 hours, while all medications were more effective than placebo, triptans were associated with higher ORs when compared with the other drug classes: lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.96 to OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.41-4.55), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76 to OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.33-3.88), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.88 to OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-4.15)

When assessing tolerability, the researchers found that overall, triptans were associated with the higher ORs for any adverse events (AE) with a trend of dose-response relationship. Lasmiditan (in the ditan class) was associated with the highest risk for AEs among all treatments. Most of the AEs were mild to moderate and included chest pain, tightness, heaviness, and pressure.

Dr. Yang and colleagues note that, “although these two new classes of antimigraine drugs may not be as efficacious as triptans, these novel abortive agents without cardiovascular risks might offer an alternative to current specific migraine treatments for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.”
 

Balancing efficacy and tolerability

“When choosing an acute medication for a patient there is always a balance between efficacy and tolerability,” headache specialist and associate director of North Shore Headache and Spine Lauren Natbony, MD, said in an interview.

“A medication can only be effective if a patient is able to tolerate it and will actually use it,” Dr. Natbony said.

With respect to the current review, Dr. Natbony pointed out, “response to acute therapy can differ between migraine attacks and may be based on variables not controlled for, such as how early in an attack the medication was taken, associated symptoms such as nausea that may make oral medications less efficacious, etc.”

The authors acknowledge that the focus on short-term responses and AEs after a single dose is a limitation of the study. They also pointed out what they considered to be a strength of the study, which was its network meta-analysis design. According to the authors, this design allowed for “multiple direct and indirect comparisons, ranking the efficacy and safety of individual pharmacologic interventions and providing more precise estimates than those of RCTs and traditional meta-analysis.”

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan; the Brain Research Center; and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

Dr. Yang has received personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grants from the Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Natbony disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

New classes of antimigraine drugs demonstrate efficacy and improved tolerability for patients with chronic migraine, a new systematic review and meta-analysis finds.

“[T]he lack of cardiovascular risks of these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may provide alternative treatment options for individuals for whom currently available acute treatments have failed or for those with cardiovascular contraindications,” write lead author Chun-Pai Yang, MD, PhD, of Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital and colleagues, in the paper, published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Methods

The new study compared the outcomes for acute migraine management using the ditan, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine [5HT]1F–receptor agonist), and the two gepants, rimegepant, and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene–related peptide [CGRP] antagonists), with standard triptan (selective 5-HT1B/1D–receptor agonist) therapy.

The researchers evaluated 64 double-blind randomized clinical trials which included 46,442 patients, the majority of whom (74%-87%) were women with an age range of 36-43 years.

The primary outcome evaluated was the odds ratio for freedom from pain at 2 hours after a single dose and secondary outcomes were the OR for pain relief at 2 hours following a dose, as well as any adverse events.
 

Results

Dr. Yang and colleagues found that virtually all medications with widespread clinical use, regardless of class, were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom when compared with placebo.

Compared to ditan and gepant agents, however, triptans were associated with significantly higher ORs for pain freedom. The odds ratio ranges were 1.72-3.40 for lasmiditan, 1.58-3.13 for rimegepant, and 1.54-3.05 for ubrogepant.

With respect to pain relief at 2 hours, while all medications were more effective than placebo, triptans were associated with higher ORs when compared with the other drug classes: lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.96 to OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.41-4.55), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76 to OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.33-3.88), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.88 to OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-4.15)

When assessing tolerability, the researchers found that overall, triptans were associated with the higher ORs for any adverse events (AE) with a trend of dose-response relationship. Lasmiditan (in the ditan class) was associated with the highest risk for AEs among all treatments. Most of the AEs were mild to moderate and included chest pain, tightness, heaviness, and pressure.

Dr. Yang and colleagues note that, “although these two new classes of antimigraine drugs may not be as efficacious as triptans, these novel abortive agents without cardiovascular risks might offer an alternative to current specific migraine treatments for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.”
 

Balancing efficacy and tolerability

“When choosing an acute medication for a patient there is always a balance between efficacy and tolerability,” headache specialist and associate director of North Shore Headache and Spine Lauren Natbony, MD, said in an interview.

“A medication can only be effective if a patient is able to tolerate it and will actually use it,” Dr. Natbony said.

With respect to the current review, Dr. Natbony pointed out, “response to acute therapy can differ between migraine attacks and may be based on variables not controlled for, such as how early in an attack the medication was taken, associated symptoms such as nausea that may make oral medications less efficacious, etc.”

The authors acknowledge that the focus on short-term responses and AEs after a single dose is a limitation of the study. They also pointed out what they considered to be a strength of the study, which was its network meta-analysis design. According to the authors, this design allowed for “multiple direct and indirect comparisons, ranking the efficacy and safety of individual pharmacologic interventions and providing more precise estimates than those of RCTs and traditional meta-analysis.”

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan; the Brain Research Center; and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

Dr. Yang has received personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grants from the Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Natbony disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

New classes of antimigraine drugs demonstrate efficacy and improved tolerability for patients with chronic migraine, a new systematic review and meta-analysis finds.

“[T]he lack of cardiovascular risks of these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may provide alternative treatment options for individuals for whom currently available acute treatments have failed or for those with cardiovascular contraindications,” write lead author Chun-Pai Yang, MD, PhD, of Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital and colleagues, in the paper, published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Methods

The new study compared the outcomes for acute migraine management using the ditan, lasmiditan (a 5-hydroxytryptamine [5HT]1F–receptor agonist), and the two gepants, rimegepant, and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene–related peptide [CGRP] antagonists), with standard triptan (selective 5-HT1B/1D–receptor agonist) therapy.

The researchers evaluated 64 double-blind randomized clinical trials which included 46,442 patients, the majority of whom (74%-87%) were women with an age range of 36-43 years.

The primary outcome evaluated was the odds ratio for freedom from pain at 2 hours after a single dose and secondary outcomes were the OR for pain relief at 2 hours following a dose, as well as any adverse events.
 

Results

Dr. Yang and colleagues found that virtually all medications with widespread clinical use, regardless of class, were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom when compared with placebo.

Compared to ditan and gepant agents, however, triptans were associated with significantly higher ORs for pain freedom. The odds ratio ranges were 1.72-3.40 for lasmiditan, 1.58-3.13 for rimegepant, and 1.54-3.05 for ubrogepant.

With respect to pain relief at 2 hours, while all medications were more effective than placebo, triptans were associated with higher ORs when compared with the other drug classes: lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.96 to OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.41-4.55), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76 to OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.33-3.88), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.88 to OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-4.15)

When assessing tolerability, the researchers found that overall, triptans were associated with the higher ORs for any adverse events (AE) with a trend of dose-response relationship. Lasmiditan (in the ditan class) was associated with the highest risk for AEs among all treatments. Most of the AEs were mild to moderate and included chest pain, tightness, heaviness, and pressure.

Dr. Yang and colleagues note that, “although these two new classes of antimigraine drugs may not be as efficacious as triptans, these novel abortive agents without cardiovascular risks might offer an alternative to current specific migraine treatments for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.”
 

Balancing efficacy and tolerability

“When choosing an acute medication for a patient there is always a balance between efficacy and tolerability,” headache specialist and associate director of North Shore Headache and Spine Lauren Natbony, MD, said in an interview.

“A medication can only be effective if a patient is able to tolerate it and will actually use it,” Dr. Natbony said.

With respect to the current review, Dr. Natbony pointed out, “response to acute therapy can differ between migraine attacks and may be based on variables not controlled for, such as how early in an attack the medication was taken, associated symptoms such as nausea that may make oral medications less efficacious, etc.”

The authors acknowledge that the focus on short-term responses and AEs after a single dose is a limitation of the study. They also pointed out what they considered to be a strength of the study, which was its network meta-analysis design. According to the authors, this design allowed for “multiple direct and indirect comparisons, ranking the efficacy and safety of individual pharmacologic interventions and providing more precise estimates than those of RCTs and traditional meta-analysis.”

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan; the Brain Research Center; and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

Dr. Yang has received personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grants from the Taiwan Ministry of Technology and Science, the Brain Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Taipei Veterans General Hospital outside the submitted work. The other authors and Dr. Natbony disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson & Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson & Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee on Oct. 15 voted 19-0 to authorize second doses of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost immunity. It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
 

Johnson & Johnson

In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.

It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.

Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.

In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.

This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
 

Limited data

The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.

These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.

But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.

Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.

“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”

“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.

She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.

But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.

“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.

Who needs a second dose?

On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.

COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.

The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.

Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.

The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.

“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
 

Trying to avoid confusion

Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.

“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.

Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.

Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.

“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.

Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.

“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.

“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
 

This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from two phase 3 studies found that in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), the new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody drug, ublituximab, is associated with significant improvement in the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score, a measure of disability, compared with teriflunomide (Aubagio).

The results were presented by Lawrence Steinman, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).   

Main results from the ULTIMATE I and II phase 3 trials, reported previously, showed a significant reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR) over a 96-week period (22 months) with ublituximab versus teriflunomide, as well as significant reductions in MRI lesions and improvements in the number of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA).

Data from these two trials are being used to support a recent approval application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ublituximab to treat patients with relapsing remitting MS.

Although ublituximab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with 12-week and 24-week confirmed disability improvement compared with teriflunomide, there was no significant difference between the two groups in confirmed disability progression.

Another ULTIMATE investigator, University of California, San Francisco neurologist Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, explained that the measures of confirmed disability improvement and confirmed disability progression used in MS clinical trials are based on changes in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). But he pointed out that this scale is a challenging score to use, as it typically changes very slightly over the course of a trial. He adds that the scale can also be variable.  

“Because confirmed disability worsening was not met as one of the secondary endpoints, one of the critiques of these trials could be that there wasn’t an effect of ublituximab. But worsening disability was rare in both treatment arms, so it would be very difficult, if not impossible to demonstrate a difference without much greater numbers of patients being included,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that the multiple sclerosis functional composite (MSFC) score was an alternative, more sensitive, measure of disability that includes three different tests: the 9-hole peg test, which assesses upper arm mobility; the timed 25-foot walk test, which gauges walking ability; and the paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT), a measure of attention and processing.

He reported results showing that ublituximab significantly improved the MFSC score in ULTIMATE I by 76% and by 89% in ULTIMATE II, compared with teriflunomide. In ULTIMATE 1, the MSFC score improved by 0.266 points during the 96-week trial in the teriflunomide group and by 0.469 points in the ublituximab group (P = .048). In ULTIMATE II, the MSFC score improved by 0.275 points in the teriflunomide group and by 0.521 points in the ublituximab group (P = .017).

These changes were driven by improvements in the 9-hole peg test and the timed 25-foot walk test, with no difference seen in the PASAT test.

Asked how ublituximab compares with other anti-CD20 antibodies already in use such as ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), Dr. Cree noted that ublituximab is associated with fewer infusion reactions, so it can be infused more quickly. It is given over just 1 hour, compared with several hours needed for the ocrelizumab infusion.

“In the ULTIMATE studies the only reaction with ublituximab during infusion was a mild increase in temperature, and this can be minimized by pretreatment with acetaminophen. The allergic-type reactions of itchiness and scratchiness seen with ocrelizumab infusions were far less common with ublituximab.”

Dr. Cree attributes this to the glycol-engineering of the ublituximab antibody, which he says “allows the cytokines released from the B cells to be metabolized within phagocytes rather than to be released into the bloodstream.”

The ULTIMATE trials were funded by TG Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Patients with functional neurological disorders demonstrate higher levels of depression and alexithymia – in addition to signs of an avoidant attachment style – compared with those with other neurological disorders and healthy controls, investigators report.

The pathological mechanism of functional neurological disorders (FND) remains poorly understood, but current models include both psychological and environmental factors, Sofia Cuoco, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a study published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

Previous studies have suggested a relationship between attachment styles (AS) and psychiatric symptoms in FND patients but most have been limited to the FND population, noted Dr. Cuoco, of the University of Salerno, Italy, and colleagues. In FND, “it is unclear to what extent psychiatric features are explained by AS per se or are part of the FND spectrum,” they said.

To conduct the study, the investigators recruited 46 patients with FND, 34 patients with neurological disorders (ND) and 30 healthy controls. Demographic characteristics, including age, education, and gender, were similar among the groups. Overall, depression and alexithymia were significantly more prevalent in the FND group, compared with the other groups. Anxiety was more common in the FND group, compared with healthy controls, but similar compared with the ND group. Patients in the FND group reported significantly lower quality of life, compared with those in the other groups.

In a multivariate analysis aimed at examining AS and psychiatric features, the researchers found that the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire avoidance, Beck Depression Inventory, Somatic Affective, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale (TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings) were significant predictors of FND and accounted for about half of the variance.

The researchers also compared FND to functional seizures, and found that the TAS-20 Difficulty Identifying Feelings scale, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale–Anxiety, and female gender were significant predictors of functional seizures.

The results were mainly in line with those from previous studies, the researchers said. However, “one of the novelties of this study is the inclusion of patients with other ND, whereby we demonstrated that FND patients were more depressed, anxious, and alexithymic than ND, which might suggest that these psychiatric features would not be merely reactive to physical symptoms,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of systematic interviews for personality disorders or traits, monitoring psychotropic medications, and conducting formal psychiatric assessments, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the heterogenous study population and absence of data on symptom severity, history of trauma, or other factors that might contributed to FND, they said.

However, the results suggest that avoidant AS might play an important role in the occurrence of psychiatric features in FND patients and should be considered in managing these conditions. More research is needed to explore the impact of attachment on pathophysiology with more complex instruments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview, Dr. Cuoco and colleagues said.

The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite reporting record profits during the COVID-19 pandemic, major insurance companies are delaying claims payments and making it more difficult for hospitals and physicians to get paid the full amount of claims, observers and physicians say.

Kaiser Health News recently reported that hospitals, in particular, are affected by the slowdown in claims payments from Anthem Blue Cross, the nation’s second largest health insurer. The investigative piece did not focus on outpatient or independent practices. Research by this news organization shows that the health plans’ new policies are also reducing cash flow and raising costs for ambulatory care groups. In addition, it showed that other payers besides Anthem have engaged in the same practices.

“What we’ve seen is that with complex claims, such as those with -25 modifiers, plans are routinely requiring documentation,” Jim Donohue, senior manager and associate principal at ECG Management Consultants, said in an interview. “It’s not a denial, it’s a request for more information for medical records prior to processing payments. That has the effect of slowing down payments.”

This is exactly what one internal medicine group in the Southeast has noticed. The internist who heads the practice, who asked not to be identified, says that about 4-6 months ago, United, Humana, and other payers started to require documentation for prepayment review on a higher percentage of complex claims such as 99214 (established patient), 99204 (new patient), and claims with -25 modifiers. (The latter are appended to evaluation and management [E/M] claims in which patients had comorbidities that were addressed in the same visit as the main complaint.)

“That’s really frustrating, because you have to print out or take the record for that particular visit and computer fax it to them,” the practice leader notes. “And invariably, they’ll say they didn’t get a certain percentage of them. It’s our fault because they lost the claim.”

In the past, he says, health plans would occasionally ask for the note related to a complex visit where they saw issues, and they’ve always done random postpayment chart audits. But the percentage of prepayment reviews has significantly increased in recent months, he says.

Until a plan does this review, the claim can’t be processed because it’s not regarded as a clean claim. And this has implications for insurers’ compliance with laws that, in most states, require them to pay claims within 30-40 days of submission. (Medicare’s limit is 30 days.) According to Mr. Donohue, the clock doesn’t start ticking on this requirement unless and until a claim is clean. So by requiring documentation on complex claims, the plans can not only justify downcoding a claim, but can also delay payment without triggering state penalties.
 

Insurer admits ‘challenges’ with claims processing

VCU Health, a health system affiliated with Virginia Commonwealth University, recently filed a complaint against Anthem with Virginia’s insurance commissioner, asking that the Virginia Bureau of Insurance investigate the company’s claims-processing delays. The complaint claimed Anthem owes VCU more than $385 million, of which $171 million is over 90 days old. Much of that consists of commercial claims, which are subject to the state’s 40-day claims payment rule.

VCU cited several problems it said Anthem had created that slowed claims payments:

Any claim over a certain dollar limit requires an itemized bill.

Anthem requests detailed medical records prior to considering payment of even clean claims.

Documents must be uploaded to a web portal that has technical problems, and Anthem has lost some documents as a result.

Claims are being incorrectly processed for some professionals, “resulting in multi-million-dollar underpayments of anesthesia, nurse practitioners, pathology, and behavioral health providers.”

In addition, as the Kaiser Health News article points out, hospitals have blamed the increase in payment delays or denials partly on “preauthorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers.”

In response to an inquiry from this news organization, an Anthem spokesman admitted that some payments to providers have been delayed, partly because of changes in the company’s claims-processing system. “We recognize there have been some challenges as we work with care providers to update claims processing, and readjust and adapt to a new set of dynamics as we continue to manage the pandemic,” said the spokesman.

The Kaiser Health News piece reported that Anthem’s CFO had told stock analysts on a conference call that the company had slowed claims payments to build up its financial reserves during the pandemic – a statement that some physicians called “outrageous.” But the Anthem spokesman told this news organization the quote was taken out of context and that the CFO was talking not about reserves but about “days in claims payable.” The spokesman said, “The payment delays that the article focuses on are not the primary driver or even a material driver of the increase in our overall reserves or DCPs [defined contribution plans] relative to historical levels. In fact, the vast majority of our claims are being processed in a timely manner.”

Some claims routinely downcoded

Even if that were the case, it would not explain why some physicians are seeing their higher-cost claims routinely downcoded. Will Sawyer, MD, a family physician in Cincinnati, told this news organization, “Anthem has been downcoding relentlessly since October 2020.” More often than not, when his office submits a claim with a 99214 code (office visit, 30-39 minutes, moderate medical decision-making), it’s changed to 99213 (office visit, 20-29 minutes, low medical decision-making) before processing, he says.

This has resulted in a significant diminution of his income, he notes. Anthem pays him less than Medicare for E/M visits, and the downcoding reduces his payment from $86 to $68 for a complex visit that may have taken half an hour or more.

In some cases where his office manager has noticed the downcoding, Dr. Sawyer says, she has resubmitted the claim with a copy of the encounter form. But Anthem hasn’t budged. And the refiling effort takes a toll on his solo practice, which doesn’t have sufficient staff, as it is.

Dr. Sawyer acknowledges that he has sent in a higher percentage of complex claims in the past year than he did previously. But much of that is the result of two factors beyond his control: First, many patients avoided coming into the office early in the pandemic, and when they returned, their preventive and chronic care needs were greater. Second, he says, “There are many comorbidities and mental health aspects, which exacerbate many issues and become an issue. We’re not dealing with engines here; they’re human beings. And it takes time.”

In response to Dr. Sawyer’s comments, Anthem said that it uses “analytical tools to review evaluation and management (E/M) codes during the claims adjudication and processing process.” Physicians who believe that certain claims should not have been downcoded can dispute these decisions; they must supply a statement explaining why they disagree with the decision along with documentation to support their statement, the company said. Anthem added that it reviews claims to lower costs for its members.
 

‘Revenue-grab strategy’

Dr. Sawyer believes that what Anthem is doing to him and other physicians reflects its desire to increase profits by netting extra revenue and keeping physicians’ money while it delays payments to them – a practice known in the trade as “the float.” Moreover, he says, the company depends on many practices not keeping track of their finances during the pandemic.

“When practices are running at warp speed, trying to keep people healthy and getting burned out, they aren’t paying as close attention to the details of payment. It’s an absolute revenue-grab strategy that’s unconscionable,” says Dr. Sawyer.

The Southeast internist also thinks that insurance companies other than Anthem – including United and Humana – are profiting from the float. Besides delaying his payments with gratuitous demands for documentation, he said, they also downcode many claims, forcing the practice to refile the claims and appeal. That forces the practice to pay overtime or bring on more claims staff, which raises administrative costs.

The plans’ strategy, the internist says, is this: “If they downcode millions of claims, a certain number of physicians will give up without appealing, and they’ll raise their profits.”

A United spokesperson said in an interview, “We pay claims appropriately under members’ plans and within the required time frame.” Humana had not responded to this news organization’s request for comment at press time.
 

Challenge to practice economics

Insurer policies that delay payments or downcode claims, ECG’s Mr. Donohue points out, are especially harmful to primary care and other ambulatory practices that have many small-dollar claims.

“That’s where it’s challenging, because it’s not like a $10,000 case where you add $100 to it [to meet records requests]. You’re talking about something that’s relatively low dollar, where the practice makes a small surplus, and when you add administrative costs, it can change the economics,” he says.

While the economic burden on ambulatory care practices may be greater, Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), said that the payment delays and demands for documentation – along with prior authorization – particularly affect inpatient care. The health plans are questioning big-ticket items more than ever, he said, and most of those services occur in hospitals.

However, the greater level of insurer scrutiny also affects physicians who treat patients in the hospital, including surgeons and emergency department physicians who contract with the facilities, he adds.

Mr. Gilberg views the current situation as an exacerbation of the health plan policies that physicians have long struggled with. “It’s not new to have insurers play the float and not pay claims on time. Unfortunately, this is something that medical practices are used to.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Three or more cortical lesions at the time of multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis predicts long-term cognitive decline, according to findings from a new analysis. The findings had good accuracy, and could help clinicians monitor and treat cognitive impairment as it develops, according to Stefano Ziccardi, PhD, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Verona in Italy.

“The number of cortical lesions at MS diagnosis accurately discriminates between the presence or the absence of cognitive impairment after diagnosis of MS, and this should be considered a predictive marker of long-term cognitive impairment in these patients. Early cortical lesion evaluation should be conducted in each MS patient to anticipate the manifestation of cognitive problems to improve the monitoring of cognitive abilities, improve the diagnosis of cognitive impairment, enable prompt intervention as necessary,” said Dr. Ziccardi at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Cortical lesions are highly prevalent in MS, perhaps more so than white matter lesions, said Dr. Ziccardi. They are associated with clinical disability and lead to disease progression. “However, prognostic data about the role of early cortical lesions with reference to long-term cognitive impairment are still missing,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

That’s important because cognitive impairment is very common in MS, affecting between one-third and two-thirds of patients. It may appear early in the disease course and worsen over time, and it predicts worse clinical and neurological progression. And it presents a clinical challenge. “Clinicians struggle to predict the evolution of cognitive abilities over time,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

The findings drew praise from Iris-Katharina Penner, PhD, who comoderated the session. “I think the important point … is that the predictive value of cortical lesions is very high, because it indicates finally that we probably have a patient at risk for developing cognitive impairment in the future,” said Dr. Penner, who is a neuropsychologist and cognitive neuroscientist at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

Clinicians often don’t pay enough attention to cognition and the complexities of MS, said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment. “It’s just adding layers of complexity. We’re peeling back the onion and you realize it’s a really complicated disease. It’s not just white matter plaques, gray matter plaques, disconnection syndrome, wires cut, atrophy, ongoing inflammation, immune deficiency. All these diseases are fascinating. And we think we’re experts. But the fact is, we have much to learn,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, New York.

The researchers analyzed data from 170 patients with MS who had a disease duration of approximately 20 years. Among the study cohort 62 patients were female, and the mean duration of disease was 19.2 years. Each patient had had a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scan to look for cortical lesions within 3 years of diagnosis. They had also undergone periodic MRIs as well as neuropsychological exams, and underwent a neuropsychological assessment at the end of the study, which included the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-NT) and the Stroop Test.

A total of 41% of subjects had no cortical lesions according to their first MRI; 19% had 1-2 lesions, and 40% had 3 or more. At follow-up, 50% were cognitively normal (failed no tests), 25% had mild cognitive impairment (failed one or more tests), and 25% had severe cognitive impairment (failed three or more tests).

In the overall cohort, the median number of cortical lesions at baseline was 1 (interquartile range, 5.0). Among the 50% with normal cognitive function, the median was 0 (IQR, 2.5), while for the remaining 50% with cognitive impairment, the median was 3 (IQR, 7.0).

Those with 3 or more lesions had increased odds of cognitive impairment at follow-up (odds ratio, 3.70; P < .001), with an accuracy of 65% (95% confidence interval, 58%-72%), specificity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-84%), and a sensitivity of 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Three or more lesions discriminated between cognitive impairment and no impairment with an area under the curve of 0.67.

Individuals with no cognitive impairment had a median 0 lesions (IQR, 2.5), those with mild cognitive impairment had a median of 2.0 (IQR, 6.0), and those with severe cognitive impairment had 4.0 (IQR, 7.25).

In a multinomial regression model, 3 or more baseline cortical lesions were associated with a greater than threefold risk of severe cognitive impairment (OR, 3.33; P = .01).

Of subjects with 0 baseline lesions, 62% were cognitively normal at follow-up. In the 1-2 lesion group, 64% were normal. In the 3 or more group, 31% were cognitively normal (P < .001). In the 0 lesion group, 26% had mild cognitive impairment and 12% had severe cognitive impairment. In the 3 or more group, 28% had mild cognitive impairment, and 41% had severe cognitive impairment.

During the Q&A session following the talk, Dr. Ziccardi was asked if the group compared cortical lesions to other MRI correlates of cognitive impairment, such as gray matter volume or white matter integrity. He responded that the group is looking into those comparisons, and recently found that neither the number nor the volume of white matter lesions improved the accuracy of the predictive models based on the number of cortical lesions. The group is also looking into the applicability of gray matter volume.

Three or more cortical lesions at the time of multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis predicts long-term cognitive decline, according to findings from a new analysis. The findings had good accuracy, and could help clinicians monitor and treat cognitive impairment as it develops, according to Stefano Ziccardi, PhD, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Verona in Italy.

“The number of cortical lesions at MS diagnosis accurately discriminates between the presence or the absence of cognitive impairment after diagnosis of MS, and this should be considered a predictive marker of long-term cognitive impairment in these patients. Early cortical lesion evaluation should be conducted in each MS patient to anticipate the manifestation of cognitive problems to improve the monitoring of cognitive abilities, improve the diagnosis of cognitive impairment, enable prompt intervention as necessary,” said Dr. Ziccardi at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Cortical lesions are highly prevalent in MS, perhaps more so than white matter lesions, said Dr. Ziccardi. They are associated with clinical disability and lead to disease progression. “However, prognostic data about the role of early cortical lesions with reference to long-term cognitive impairment are still missing,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

That’s important because cognitive impairment is very common in MS, affecting between one-third and two-thirds of patients. It may appear early in the disease course and worsen over time, and it predicts worse clinical and neurological progression. And it presents a clinical challenge. “Clinicians struggle to predict the evolution of cognitive abilities over time,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

The findings drew praise from Iris-Katharina Penner, PhD, who comoderated the session. “I think the important point … is that the predictive value of cortical lesions is very high, because it indicates finally that we probably have a patient at risk for developing cognitive impairment in the future,” said Dr. Penner, who is a neuropsychologist and cognitive neuroscientist at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

Clinicians often don’t pay enough attention to cognition and the complexities of MS, said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment. “It’s just adding layers of complexity. We’re peeling back the onion and you realize it’s a really complicated disease. It’s not just white matter plaques, gray matter plaques, disconnection syndrome, wires cut, atrophy, ongoing inflammation, immune deficiency. All these diseases are fascinating. And we think we’re experts. But the fact is, we have much to learn,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, New York.

The researchers analyzed data from 170 patients with MS who had a disease duration of approximately 20 years. Among the study cohort 62 patients were female, and the mean duration of disease was 19.2 years. Each patient had had a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scan to look for cortical lesions within 3 years of diagnosis. They had also undergone periodic MRIs as well as neuropsychological exams, and underwent a neuropsychological assessment at the end of the study, which included the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-NT) and the Stroop Test.

A total of 41% of subjects had no cortical lesions according to their first MRI; 19% had 1-2 lesions, and 40% had 3 or more. At follow-up, 50% were cognitively normal (failed no tests), 25% had mild cognitive impairment (failed one or more tests), and 25% had severe cognitive impairment (failed three or more tests).

In the overall cohort, the median number of cortical lesions at baseline was 1 (interquartile range, 5.0). Among the 50% with normal cognitive function, the median was 0 (IQR, 2.5), while for the remaining 50% with cognitive impairment, the median was 3 (IQR, 7.0).

Those with 3 or more lesions had increased odds of cognitive impairment at follow-up (odds ratio, 3.70; P < .001), with an accuracy of 65% (95% confidence interval, 58%-72%), specificity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-84%), and a sensitivity of 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Three or more lesions discriminated between cognitive impairment and no impairment with an area under the curve of 0.67.

Individuals with no cognitive impairment had a median 0 lesions (IQR, 2.5), those with mild cognitive impairment had a median of 2.0 (IQR, 6.0), and those with severe cognitive impairment had 4.0 (IQR, 7.25).

In a multinomial regression model, 3 or more baseline cortical lesions were associated with a greater than threefold risk of severe cognitive impairment (OR, 3.33; P = .01).

Of subjects with 0 baseline lesions, 62% were cognitively normal at follow-up. In the 1-2 lesion group, 64% were normal. In the 3 or more group, 31% were cognitively normal (P < .001). In the 0 lesion group, 26% had mild cognitive impairment and 12% had severe cognitive impairment. In the 3 or more group, 28% had mild cognitive impairment, and 41% had severe cognitive impairment.

During the Q&A session following the talk, Dr. Ziccardi was asked if the group compared cortical lesions to other MRI correlates of cognitive impairment, such as gray matter volume or white matter integrity. He responded that the group is looking into those comparisons, and recently found that neither the number nor the volume of white matter lesions improved the accuracy of the predictive models based on the number of cortical lesions. The group is also looking into the applicability of gray matter volume.

Three or more cortical lesions at the time of multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis predicts long-term cognitive decline, according to findings from a new analysis. The findings had good accuracy, and could help clinicians monitor and treat cognitive impairment as it develops, according to Stefano Ziccardi, PhD, who is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Verona in Italy.

“The number of cortical lesions at MS diagnosis accurately discriminates between the presence or the absence of cognitive impairment after diagnosis of MS, and this should be considered a predictive marker of long-term cognitive impairment in these patients. Early cortical lesion evaluation should be conducted in each MS patient to anticipate the manifestation of cognitive problems to improve the monitoring of cognitive abilities, improve the diagnosis of cognitive impairment, enable prompt intervention as necessary,” said Dr. Ziccardi at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Cortical lesions are highly prevalent in MS, perhaps more so than white matter lesions, said Dr. Ziccardi. They are associated with clinical disability and lead to disease progression. “However, prognostic data about the role of early cortical lesions with reference to long-term cognitive impairment are still missing,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

That’s important because cognitive impairment is very common in MS, affecting between one-third and two-thirds of patients. It may appear early in the disease course and worsen over time, and it predicts worse clinical and neurological progression. And it presents a clinical challenge. “Clinicians struggle to predict the evolution of cognitive abilities over time,” said Dr. Ziccardi.

The findings drew praise from Iris-Katharina Penner, PhD, who comoderated the session. “I think the important point … is that the predictive value of cortical lesions is very high, because it indicates finally that we probably have a patient at risk for developing cognitive impairment in the future,” said Dr. Penner, who is a neuropsychologist and cognitive neuroscientist at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

Clinicians often don’t pay enough attention to cognition and the complexities of MS, said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment. “It’s just adding layers of complexity. We’re peeling back the onion and you realize it’s a really complicated disease. It’s not just white matter plaques, gray matter plaques, disconnection syndrome, wires cut, atrophy, ongoing inflammation, immune deficiency. All these diseases are fascinating. And we think we’re experts. But the fact is, we have much to learn,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, New York.

The researchers analyzed data from 170 patients with MS who had a disease duration of approximately 20 years. Among the study cohort 62 patients were female, and the mean duration of disease was 19.2 years. Each patient had had a 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scan to look for cortical lesions within 3 years of diagnosis. They had also undergone periodic MRIs as well as neuropsychological exams, and underwent a neuropsychological assessment at the end of the study, which included the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-NT) and the Stroop Test.

A total of 41% of subjects had no cortical lesions according to their first MRI; 19% had 1-2 lesions, and 40% had 3 or more. At follow-up, 50% were cognitively normal (failed no tests), 25% had mild cognitive impairment (failed one or more tests), and 25% had severe cognitive impairment (failed three or more tests).

In the overall cohort, the median number of cortical lesions at baseline was 1 (interquartile range, 5.0). Among the 50% with normal cognitive function, the median was 0 (IQR, 2.5), while for the remaining 50% with cognitive impairment, the median was 3 (IQR, 7.0).

Those with 3 or more lesions had increased odds of cognitive impairment at follow-up (odds ratio, 3.70; P < .001), with an accuracy of 65% (95% confidence interval, 58%-72%), specificity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-84%), and a sensitivity of 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Three or more lesions discriminated between cognitive impairment and no impairment with an area under the curve of 0.67.

Individuals with no cognitive impairment had a median 0 lesions (IQR, 2.5), those with mild cognitive impairment had a median of 2.0 (IQR, 6.0), and those with severe cognitive impairment had 4.0 (IQR, 7.25).

In a multinomial regression model, 3 or more baseline cortical lesions were associated with a greater than threefold risk of severe cognitive impairment (OR, 3.33; P = .01).

Of subjects with 0 baseline lesions, 62% were cognitively normal at follow-up. In the 1-2 lesion group, 64% were normal. In the 3 or more group, 31% were cognitively normal (P < .001). In the 0 lesion group, 26% had mild cognitive impairment and 12% had severe cognitive impairment. In the 3 or more group, 28% had mild cognitive impairment, and 41% had severe cognitive impairment.

During the Q&A session following the talk, Dr. Ziccardi was asked if the group compared cortical lesions to other MRI correlates of cognitive impairment, such as gray matter volume or white matter integrity. He responded that the group is looking into those comparisons, and recently found that neither the number nor the volume of white matter lesions improved the accuracy of the predictive models based on the number of cortical lesions. The group is also looking into the applicability of gray matter volume.

The number of cortical lesions at baseline may indicate a patient’s risk of developing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to new research. Cortical lesions also may be an early marker of future disability accumulation.

In the study, patients who had developed secondary progressive MS after 20 years of follow-up had approximately 7 cortical lesions at baseline. This number was significantly higher than the baseline number of cortical lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS, or primary progressive MS at 20 years.

“Our study represented a clear indication that the assessment, presence, and high number of cortical lesions at diagnosis is one of the tools at the disposal of the neurologist for the early identification of patients with more serious disease course,” said Gian Marco Schiavi, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Verona, Italy, during the presentation of his research.

The study was presented October 14 at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Accumulation of disability

Previous research has indicated that cortical lesions play a role in the accumulation of disability in MS and the conversion to secondary progressive MS. Other observations suggest that the number of cortical lesions after 30 years of follow-up explains more than 40% of the difference in disability between patients with secondary progressive MS.

The current investigators sought to understand whether cortical lesions at diagnosis could predict a patient’s risk for development of secondary progressive MS and risk for disability accumulation. They included 220 patients with MS and approximately 20 years of follow-up in their study.

At the time of diagnosis, all participants underwent 1.5-T MRI with double inversion recovery. Participants also presented for periodic MRI and clinical evaluations.

The researchers used analysis of variance to compare the baseline number of cortical lesions between patients with CIS, relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, and primary progressive MS at 20 years. They also performed a multivariable regression analysis to predict patients’ final scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Variables included participants’ demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics.
 

Lesions and disease progression

At baseline (the time of diagnosis), 162 patients had relapsing-remitting MS, 45 had CIS, and 12 had primary progressive MS. In all, 106 patients had no cortical lesions, 47 had 3 or fewer cortical lesions, and 67 had more than 3 cortical lesions.

At 20 years, 12 patients still had CIS, 152 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 44 had developed secondary progressive MS.

The mean number of cortical lesions at diagnosis was 6.6 in patients with secondary progressive MS at 20 years, which was significantly higher than the mean 1.3 cortical lesions in the other patients (P < .001).

In addition, post-hoc analysis showed that the median number of cortical lesions was significantly higher in patients with secondary progressive MS (6), compared with those with CIS (0; P < .001), relapsing-remitting MS (0; P < .001), and primary progressive MS (4.5; P = .013). Patients with primary progressive MS had a higher number of cortical lesions than patients with CIS and those with relapsing-remitting MS (P = .001).

The investigators also examined disability at 20 years. At that timepoint, mean EDSS score was 1.5 in patients with no cortical lesions, 3.0 in patients with 1 to 3 cortical lesions at baseline, and 6.0 in patients with more than 3 cortical lesions.

In a regression analysis, the number of cortical lesions and EDSS at diagnosis were the best predictors of long-term disability (P < .001). These factors explained about 57% of the variance in EDSS score after 20 years.
 

‘Important study’

“This important study supports that the presence of cortical lesions at the time of diagnosis is associated with long-term disability and transition to a secondary progressive disease course,” said Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The study size and long duration of follow-up are important strengths of the findings, he added.

Still, further research is needed to validate cortical lesions as a biomarker in clinical practice. Aside from technical validation issues relating to the identification of cortical lesions, whether cortical lesion burden can be used to guide therapeutic decision-making in MS is not clear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

“Notably, these patients were diagnosed and enrolled in this study 20 years ago, prior to the availability of newer disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] that are more effective at preventing inflammatory disease activity in MS,” he said, referring to the participants in the current study.

While recent observational studies have suggested that early initiation of higher-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may reduce long-term disability and risk for transition to secondary progressive MS, the optimal approach to treatment in patients with a new diagnosis remains unclear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

Furthermore, it is unknown whether use of higher-efficacy DMTs may affect the risk of future disability in patients with high cortical lesion burden at baseline, said Dr. Sotirchos. “Or is it too late, especially considering the modest effects of DMTs in progressive patients and that cortical lesion burden was higher in patients that are progressive?”

One additional question to be addressed is how baseline cortical lesion burden adds to other factors that neurologists use in clinical practice to stratify patients’ risk of future disability, such as spinal cord involvement, motor or sphincter symptoms at onset, poor recovery from attacks, and white matter lesion burden, said Dr. Sotirchos.

The source of funding for this study was not reported. Dr. Schiavi and Dr. Sotirchos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of cortical lesions at baseline may indicate a patient’s risk of developing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to new research. Cortical lesions also may be an early marker of future disability accumulation.

In the study, patients who had developed secondary progressive MS after 20 years of follow-up had approximately 7 cortical lesions at baseline. This number was significantly higher than the baseline number of cortical lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS, or primary progressive MS at 20 years.

“Our study represented a clear indication that the assessment, presence, and high number of cortical lesions at diagnosis is one of the tools at the disposal of the neurologist for the early identification of patients with more serious disease course,” said Gian Marco Schiavi, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Verona, Italy, during the presentation of his research.

The study was presented October 14 at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Accumulation of disability

Previous research has indicated that cortical lesions play a role in the accumulation of disability in MS and the conversion to secondary progressive MS. Other observations suggest that the number of cortical lesions after 30 years of follow-up explains more than 40% of the difference in disability between patients with secondary progressive MS.

The current investigators sought to understand whether cortical lesions at diagnosis could predict a patient’s risk for development of secondary progressive MS and risk for disability accumulation. They included 220 patients with MS and approximately 20 years of follow-up in their study.

At the time of diagnosis, all participants underwent 1.5-T MRI with double inversion recovery. Participants also presented for periodic MRI and clinical evaluations.

The researchers used analysis of variance to compare the baseline number of cortical lesions between patients with CIS, relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, and primary progressive MS at 20 years. They also performed a multivariable regression analysis to predict patients’ final scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Variables included participants’ demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics.
 

Lesions and disease progression

At baseline (the time of diagnosis), 162 patients had relapsing-remitting MS, 45 had CIS, and 12 had primary progressive MS. In all, 106 patients had no cortical lesions, 47 had 3 or fewer cortical lesions, and 67 had more than 3 cortical lesions.

At 20 years, 12 patients still had CIS, 152 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 44 had developed secondary progressive MS.

The mean number of cortical lesions at diagnosis was 6.6 in patients with secondary progressive MS at 20 years, which was significantly higher than the mean 1.3 cortical lesions in the other patients (P < .001).

In addition, post-hoc analysis showed that the median number of cortical lesions was significantly higher in patients with secondary progressive MS (6), compared with those with CIS (0; P < .001), relapsing-remitting MS (0; P < .001), and primary progressive MS (4.5; P = .013). Patients with primary progressive MS had a higher number of cortical lesions than patients with CIS and those with relapsing-remitting MS (P = .001).

The investigators also examined disability at 20 years. At that timepoint, mean EDSS score was 1.5 in patients with no cortical lesions, 3.0 in patients with 1 to 3 cortical lesions at baseline, and 6.0 in patients with more than 3 cortical lesions.

In a regression analysis, the number of cortical lesions and EDSS at diagnosis were the best predictors of long-term disability (P < .001). These factors explained about 57% of the variance in EDSS score after 20 years.
 

‘Important study’

“This important study supports that the presence of cortical lesions at the time of diagnosis is associated with long-term disability and transition to a secondary progressive disease course,” said Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The study size and long duration of follow-up are important strengths of the findings, he added.

Still, further research is needed to validate cortical lesions as a biomarker in clinical practice. Aside from technical validation issues relating to the identification of cortical lesions, whether cortical lesion burden can be used to guide therapeutic decision-making in MS is not clear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

“Notably, these patients were diagnosed and enrolled in this study 20 years ago, prior to the availability of newer disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] that are more effective at preventing inflammatory disease activity in MS,” he said, referring to the participants in the current study.

While recent observational studies have suggested that early initiation of higher-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may reduce long-term disability and risk for transition to secondary progressive MS, the optimal approach to treatment in patients with a new diagnosis remains unclear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

Furthermore, it is unknown whether use of higher-efficacy DMTs may affect the risk of future disability in patients with high cortical lesion burden at baseline, said Dr. Sotirchos. “Or is it too late, especially considering the modest effects of DMTs in progressive patients and that cortical lesion burden was higher in patients that are progressive?”

One additional question to be addressed is how baseline cortical lesion burden adds to other factors that neurologists use in clinical practice to stratify patients’ risk of future disability, such as spinal cord involvement, motor or sphincter symptoms at onset, poor recovery from attacks, and white matter lesion burden, said Dr. Sotirchos.

The source of funding for this study was not reported. Dr. Schiavi and Dr. Sotirchos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of cortical lesions at baseline may indicate a patient’s risk of developing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), according to new research. Cortical lesions also may be an early marker of future disability accumulation.

In the study, patients who had developed secondary progressive MS after 20 years of follow-up had approximately 7 cortical lesions at baseline. This number was significantly higher than the baseline number of cortical lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS, or primary progressive MS at 20 years.

“Our study represented a clear indication that the assessment, presence, and high number of cortical lesions at diagnosis is one of the tools at the disposal of the neurologist for the early identification of patients with more serious disease course,” said Gian Marco Schiavi, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Verona, Italy, during the presentation of his research.

The study was presented October 14 at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Accumulation of disability

Previous research has indicated that cortical lesions play a role in the accumulation of disability in MS and the conversion to secondary progressive MS. Other observations suggest that the number of cortical lesions after 30 years of follow-up explains more than 40% of the difference in disability between patients with secondary progressive MS.

The current investigators sought to understand whether cortical lesions at diagnosis could predict a patient’s risk for development of secondary progressive MS and risk for disability accumulation. They included 220 patients with MS and approximately 20 years of follow-up in their study.

At the time of diagnosis, all participants underwent 1.5-T MRI with double inversion recovery. Participants also presented for periodic MRI and clinical evaluations.

The researchers used analysis of variance to compare the baseline number of cortical lesions between patients with CIS, relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, and primary progressive MS at 20 years. They also performed a multivariable regression analysis to predict patients’ final scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Variables included participants’ demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics.
 

Lesions and disease progression

At baseline (the time of diagnosis), 162 patients had relapsing-remitting MS, 45 had CIS, and 12 had primary progressive MS. In all, 106 patients had no cortical lesions, 47 had 3 or fewer cortical lesions, and 67 had more than 3 cortical lesions.

At 20 years, 12 patients still had CIS, 152 had relapsing-remitting MS, and 44 had developed secondary progressive MS.

The mean number of cortical lesions at diagnosis was 6.6 in patients with secondary progressive MS at 20 years, which was significantly higher than the mean 1.3 cortical lesions in the other patients (P < .001).

In addition, post-hoc analysis showed that the median number of cortical lesions was significantly higher in patients with secondary progressive MS (6), compared with those with CIS (0; P < .001), relapsing-remitting MS (0; P < .001), and primary progressive MS (4.5; P = .013). Patients with primary progressive MS had a higher number of cortical lesions than patients with CIS and those with relapsing-remitting MS (P = .001).

The investigators also examined disability at 20 years. At that timepoint, mean EDSS score was 1.5 in patients with no cortical lesions, 3.0 in patients with 1 to 3 cortical lesions at baseline, and 6.0 in patients with more than 3 cortical lesions.

In a regression analysis, the number of cortical lesions and EDSS at diagnosis were the best predictors of long-term disability (P < .001). These factors explained about 57% of the variance in EDSS score after 20 years.
 

‘Important study’

“This important study supports that the presence of cortical lesions at the time of diagnosis is associated with long-term disability and transition to a secondary progressive disease course,” said Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. The study size and long duration of follow-up are important strengths of the findings, he added.

Still, further research is needed to validate cortical lesions as a biomarker in clinical practice. Aside from technical validation issues relating to the identification of cortical lesions, whether cortical lesion burden can be used to guide therapeutic decision-making in MS is not clear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

“Notably, these patients were diagnosed and enrolled in this study 20 years ago, prior to the availability of newer disease-modifying therapies [DMTs] that are more effective at preventing inflammatory disease activity in MS,” he said, referring to the participants in the current study.

While recent observational studies have suggested that early initiation of higher-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may reduce long-term disability and risk for transition to secondary progressive MS, the optimal approach to treatment in patients with a new diagnosis remains unclear, said Dr. Sotirchos.

Furthermore, it is unknown whether use of higher-efficacy DMTs may affect the risk of future disability in patients with high cortical lesion burden at baseline, said Dr. Sotirchos. “Or is it too late, especially considering the modest effects of DMTs in progressive patients and that cortical lesion burden was higher in patients that are progressive?”

One additional question to be addressed is how baseline cortical lesion burden adds to other factors that neurologists use in clinical practice to stratify patients’ risk of future disability, such as spinal cord involvement, motor or sphincter symptoms at onset, poor recovery from attacks, and white matter lesion burden, said Dr. Sotirchos.

The source of funding for this study was not reported. Dr. Schiavi and Dr. Sotirchos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among postmenopausal women who received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) in the lumbar spine to treat back and leg pain arising from a compressed nerve in the spine, levels of bone formation biomarkers were decreased. The decrease in levels persisted more than 12 weeks, results from a new study show.

In addition, serum cortisol levels decreased by 50% at week 1 after the ESI, indicating systemic absorption of the steroid.

“The extent and duration of these effects suggest that patients who receive multiple [ESIs in the lumbar spine] may be at particular risk for harmful skeletal consequences,” Shannon Clare reported in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Further studies are needed of the relationship between these short-term changes in bone turnover and bone loss and the risk for fracture among the burgeoning population treated with ESIs, added Ms. Clare, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York.

The researchers examined changes in serum levels of bone formation and resorption markers and other analytes in 24 women who received a lumbar ESI for radicular back pain and in 8 other women from the hospital population who served as control persons.

Among the women who received ESI, 1 week after the injection, serum levels of two bone formation biomarkers – total procollagen type 1 N-terminal peptide (P1NP) and osteocalcin – were about 27% lower than at baseline. The suppression persisted beyond 12 weeks.

Serum levels of the bone resorption biomarker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) did not differ significantly after ESI.

“Our results are notable because we found that the duration of suppression of bone formation extended beyond 12 weeks, a far longer duration than seen previously with intra-articular injections” of glucocorticoids, said Ms. Clare and senior author Emily M. Stein, MD, director of research for the Metabolic Bone Service and an endocrinologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery and is associate professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

The findings suggest that patients should not receive multiple doses within a 12-week period, they told this news organization in a joint email response.

Women are not typically screened for osteopenia or osteoporosis before ESI. However, “our results suggest that physicians should consider screening women for osteoporosis who receive ESI, particularly those who are treated with multiple doses,” said Ms. Clare and Dr. Stein. “Steroid exposure should be minimized as much as possible by having patients space injections as far as they can tolerate.”
 

Systemic absorption, negative impact on bone turnover markers

“The hypothesis that [ESIs] interfere with the vertebral osseous microenvironment and increase the risk of vertebral fractures has been supported with evidence in the literature,” Mohamad Bydon, MD, professor of neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and health services research at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Prior studies have demonstrated a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) and an increase in vertebral fractures following ESI, added Dr. Bydon, senior author of a 2018 review of the effect of ESI on BMD and vertebral fracture risk that was published in Pain Medicine. He was not involved with the current study.

“The article by Clare et al. provides evidence on the systemic absorption of glucocorticoids by demonstrating a drop in serum cortisol following ESI,” he noted. “The measurement of bone metabolism biomarkers offers molecular confirmation of clinical and radiological observations of previous studies” showing that ESI affects the vertebrae.
 

More than 9 million ESIs each year

Each year, more than 9 million ESIs are administered to patients in the United States to relieve radicular back and leg pain that may be caused by a herniated disc or spinal stenosis (a gradual narrowing of the open spaces in the spinal column, which is common in older adults), the researchers explained.

Some patients experience sufficient pain relief with ESIs. Others may not be eligible for surgery and may receive multiple ESIs annually for many years because they provide pain relief.

It is well established that oral and intravenous glucocorticoids profoundly suppress bone formation and transiently increase bone resorption, causing substantial bone loss and increased fracture risk within 3 months of administration, Ms. Clare explained in the session.

Long-term use of high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids has been associated with bone loss and fractures. However, the effect of ESIs on bone has been less well studied.

The researchers hypothesized that ESIs are systemically absorbed and cause suppression of bone formation without a compensatory decrease in bone resorption.

They enrolled 24 patients who had undergone lumbar ESIs and 8 control patients. The mean age of the patients in the two groups was 63 years and 68 years, respectively. Most patients were White (88% and 100%, respectively). The mean body mass index was 27 kg/m² and 28 kg/m², respectively. On average, the patients had entered menopause 12 and 16 years earlier, respectively.

In the group that received steroid injections, almost two-thirds (15 patients, 63%) received triamcinolone. The rest received dexamethasone (six patients, 25%) or betamethasone (three patients, 12%) at doses that were equivalent to 80 mg triamcinolone.

The patients’ baseline serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D, parathyroid hormone, cortisol, P1NP, osteocalcin, and CTX were within the reference ranges and were similar in the two groups.

The researchers also determined serum levels of cortisol (to assess suppression of endogenous glucocorticoids), osteocalcin, P1NP, and CTX in the patients and control persons at 1, 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after patients had received the ESI.

The researchers acknowledged that the small sample is a study limitation. In addition, the first serum samples were taken 1 week after the injection, and so any earlier changes in analyte levels were not captured. The patients also received different types of steroids, although the doses were similar when converted to triamcinolone equivalents.

The study was supported by a Spine Service grant from the Hospital for Special Surgery. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among postmenopausal women who received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) in the lumbar spine to treat back and leg pain arising from a compressed nerve in the spine, levels of bone formation biomarkers were decreased. The decrease in levels persisted more than 12 weeks, results from a new study show.

In addition, serum cortisol levels decreased by 50% at week 1 after the ESI, indicating systemic absorption of the steroid.

“The extent and duration of these effects suggest that patients who receive multiple [ESIs in the lumbar spine] may be at particular risk for harmful skeletal consequences,” Shannon Clare reported in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Further studies are needed of the relationship between these short-term changes in bone turnover and bone loss and the risk for fracture among the burgeoning population treated with ESIs, added Ms. Clare, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York.

The researchers examined changes in serum levels of bone formation and resorption markers and other analytes in 24 women who received a lumbar ESI for radicular back pain and in 8 other women from the hospital population who served as control persons.

Among the women who received ESI, 1 week after the injection, serum levels of two bone formation biomarkers – total procollagen type 1 N-terminal peptide (P1NP) and osteocalcin – were about 27% lower than at baseline. The suppression persisted beyond 12 weeks.

Serum levels of the bone resorption biomarker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) did not differ significantly after ESI.

“Our results are notable because we found that the duration of suppression of bone formation extended beyond 12 weeks, a far longer duration than seen previously with intra-articular injections” of glucocorticoids, said Ms. Clare and senior author Emily M. Stein, MD, director of research for the Metabolic Bone Service and an endocrinologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery and is associate professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

The findings suggest that patients should not receive multiple doses within a 12-week period, they told this news organization in a joint email response.

Women are not typically screened for osteopenia or osteoporosis before ESI. However, “our results suggest that physicians should consider screening women for osteoporosis who receive ESI, particularly those who are treated with multiple doses,” said Ms. Clare and Dr. Stein. “Steroid exposure should be minimized as much as possible by having patients space injections as far as they can tolerate.”
 

Systemic absorption, negative impact on bone turnover markers

“The hypothesis that [ESIs] interfere with the vertebral osseous microenvironment and increase the risk of vertebral fractures has been supported with evidence in the literature,” Mohamad Bydon, MD, professor of neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and health services research at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Prior studies have demonstrated a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) and an increase in vertebral fractures following ESI, added Dr. Bydon, senior author of a 2018 review of the effect of ESI on BMD and vertebral fracture risk that was published in Pain Medicine. He was not involved with the current study.

“The article by Clare et al. provides evidence on the systemic absorption of glucocorticoids by demonstrating a drop in serum cortisol following ESI,” he noted. “The measurement of bone metabolism biomarkers offers molecular confirmation of clinical and radiological observations of previous studies” showing that ESI affects the vertebrae.
 

More than 9 million ESIs each year

Each year, more than 9 million ESIs are administered to patients in the United States to relieve radicular back and leg pain that may be caused by a herniated disc or spinal stenosis (a gradual narrowing of the open spaces in the spinal column, which is common in older adults), the researchers explained.

Some patients experience sufficient pain relief with ESIs. Others may not be eligible for surgery and may receive multiple ESIs annually for many years because they provide pain relief.

It is well established that oral and intravenous glucocorticoids profoundly suppress bone formation and transiently increase bone resorption, causing substantial bone loss and increased fracture risk within 3 months of administration, Ms. Clare explained in the session.

Long-term use of high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids has been associated with bone loss and fractures. However, the effect of ESIs on bone has been less well studied.

The researchers hypothesized that ESIs are systemically absorbed and cause suppression of bone formation without a compensatory decrease in bone resorption.

They enrolled 24 patients who had undergone lumbar ESIs and 8 control patients. The mean age of the patients in the two groups was 63 years and 68 years, respectively. Most patients were White (88% and 100%, respectively). The mean body mass index was 27 kg/m² and 28 kg/m², respectively. On average, the patients had entered menopause 12 and 16 years earlier, respectively.

In the group that received steroid injections, almost two-thirds (15 patients, 63%) received triamcinolone. The rest received dexamethasone (six patients, 25%) or betamethasone (three patients, 12%) at doses that were equivalent to 80 mg triamcinolone.

The patients’ baseline serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D, parathyroid hormone, cortisol, P1NP, osteocalcin, and CTX were within the reference ranges and were similar in the two groups.

The researchers also determined serum levels of cortisol (to assess suppression of endogenous glucocorticoids), osteocalcin, P1NP, and CTX in the patients and control persons at 1, 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after patients had received the ESI.

The researchers acknowledged that the small sample is a study limitation. In addition, the first serum samples were taken 1 week after the injection, and so any earlier changes in analyte levels were not captured. The patients also received different types of steroids, although the doses were similar when converted to triamcinolone equivalents.

The study was supported by a Spine Service grant from the Hospital for Special Surgery. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among postmenopausal women who received an epidural steroid injection (ESI) in the lumbar spine to treat back and leg pain arising from a compressed nerve in the spine, levels of bone formation biomarkers were decreased. The decrease in levels persisted more than 12 weeks, results from a new study show.

In addition, serum cortisol levels decreased by 50% at week 1 after the ESI, indicating systemic absorption of the steroid.

“The extent and duration of these effects suggest that patients who receive multiple [ESIs in the lumbar spine] may be at particular risk for harmful skeletal consequences,” Shannon Clare reported in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Further studies are needed of the relationship between these short-term changes in bone turnover and bone loss and the risk for fracture among the burgeoning population treated with ESIs, added Ms. Clare, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York.

The researchers examined changes in serum levels of bone formation and resorption markers and other analytes in 24 women who received a lumbar ESI for radicular back pain and in 8 other women from the hospital population who served as control persons.

Among the women who received ESI, 1 week after the injection, serum levels of two bone formation biomarkers – total procollagen type 1 N-terminal peptide (P1NP) and osteocalcin – were about 27% lower than at baseline. The suppression persisted beyond 12 weeks.

Serum levels of the bone resorption biomarker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) did not differ significantly after ESI.

“Our results are notable because we found that the duration of suppression of bone formation extended beyond 12 weeks, a far longer duration than seen previously with intra-articular injections” of glucocorticoids, said Ms. Clare and senior author Emily M. Stein, MD, director of research for the Metabolic Bone Service and an endocrinologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery and is associate professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

The findings suggest that patients should not receive multiple doses within a 12-week period, they told this news organization in a joint email response.

Women are not typically screened for osteopenia or osteoporosis before ESI. However, “our results suggest that physicians should consider screening women for osteoporosis who receive ESI, particularly those who are treated with multiple doses,” said Ms. Clare and Dr. Stein. “Steroid exposure should be minimized as much as possible by having patients space injections as far as they can tolerate.”
 

Systemic absorption, negative impact on bone turnover markers

“The hypothesis that [ESIs] interfere with the vertebral osseous microenvironment and increase the risk of vertebral fractures has been supported with evidence in the literature,” Mohamad Bydon, MD, professor of neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and health services research at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Prior studies have demonstrated a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) and an increase in vertebral fractures following ESI, added Dr. Bydon, senior author of a 2018 review of the effect of ESI on BMD and vertebral fracture risk that was published in Pain Medicine. He was not involved with the current study.

“The article by Clare et al. provides evidence on the systemic absorption of glucocorticoids by demonstrating a drop in serum cortisol following ESI,” he noted. “The measurement of bone metabolism biomarkers offers molecular confirmation of clinical and radiological observations of previous studies” showing that ESI affects the vertebrae.
 

More than 9 million ESIs each year

Each year, more than 9 million ESIs are administered to patients in the United States to relieve radicular back and leg pain that may be caused by a herniated disc or spinal stenosis (a gradual narrowing of the open spaces in the spinal column, which is common in older adults), the researchers explained.

Some patients experience sufficient pain relief with ESIs. Others may not be eligible for surgery and may receive multiple ESIs annually for many years because they provide pain relief.

It is well established that oral and intravenous glucocorticoids profoundly suppress bone formation and transiently increase bone resorption, causing substantial bone loss and increased fracture risk within 3 months of administration, Ms. Clare explained in the session.

Long-term use of high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids has been associated with bone loss and fractures. However, the effect of ESIs on bone has been less well studied.

The researchers hypothesized that ESIs are systemically absorbed and cause suppression of bone formation without a compensatory decrease in bone resorption.

They enrolled 24 patients who had undergone lumbar ESIs and 8 control patients. The mean age of the patients in the two groups was 63 years and 68 years, respectively. Most patients were White (88% and 100%, respectively). The mean body mass index was 27 kg/m² and 28 kg/m², respectively. On average, the patients had entered menopause 12 and 16 years earlier, respectively.

In the group that received steroid injections, almost two-thirds (15 patients, 63%) received triamcinolone. The rest received dexamethasone (six patients, 25%) or betamethasone (three patients, 12%) at doses that were equivalent to 80 mg triamcinolone.

The patients’ baseline serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D, parathyroid hormone, cortisol, P1NP, osteocalcin, and CTX were within the reference ranges and were similar in the two groups.

The researchers also determined serum levels of cortisol (to assess suppression of endogenous glucocorticoids), osteocalcin, P1NP, and CTX in the patients and control persons at 1, 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after patients had received the ESI.

The researchers acknowledged that the small sample is a study limitation. In addition, the first serum samples were taken 1 week after the injection, and so any earlier changes in analyte levels were not captured. The patients also received different types of steroids, although the doses were similar when converted to triamcinolone equivalents.

The study was supported by a Spine Service grant from the Hospital for Special Surgery. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Homework adherence between behavior therapy sessions is a significant predictor of therapeutic improvement in patients with Tourette’s disorder (TD), a study of 119 youth and adults suggests.

The assigning of “homework” to be completed between sessions – often used in cognitive-behavioral therapy – has been shown to reinforce learning but has not been well studied in TD.

“Understanding the relationship between homework adherence and therapeutic improvement from behavior therapy for TD may offer new insights for enhancing tic severity reductions achieved during this evidence-based treatment,” wrote Joey Ka-Yee Essoe, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

To conduct the study, published in Behaviour Research and Therapy, the researchers recruited 70 youth and 49 adults with TD, ranging in age from 9 to 67 years, who underwent treatment at a single center. The average age was 21 years, and 80 participants were male. Treatment response was based on the Clinical Global Impressions of Improvement scale (CGI-I). Participants were assessed at baseline for tic severity and received eight sessions over 10 weeks. During those sessions, they were taught to perform a competing response to inhibit the expression of a tic when the tic or urge was detected.

Participants received homework at each weekly therapy session; most consisted of three to four practice sessions of about 30 minutes per week. Therapists reviewed the homework at the following session and adapted as needed to improve tic reduction skills.

After eight sessions of behavior therapy, overall greater homework adherence significantly predicted reduced tic severity and therapeutic improvement. However, early homework adherence predicted therapeutic improvement in youth, while late homework adherence predicted it in adults.

Overall, homework adherence significantly predicted tic reductions, compared with baseline (P = .037), based on the clinician-rated Yale Global Tic Severity Scale.

However, homework adherence dipped midway through treatment in youth and showed a linear decline in adults, the researchers noted.

Among youth, baseline predictors of early homework adherence included lower levels of hyperactivity/impulsivity and caregiver strain. Among adults, baseline predictors of early homework adherence included lower anger scores, less social disability, and greater work disability.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of complete data on baseline predictors of homework adherence, reliance on a single measure of tic severity and improvement, and reliance on therapists’ reports of homework adherence, the researchers noted.

Future research should include objective measures of homework adherence, such as time-stamped videos, and different strategies may be needed for youth vs. adults, they added.

“Strategies that optimize homework adherence may enhance the efficacy of behavioral therapy, lead to greater tic severity reductions, and higher treatment response rates,” Dr. Essoe and colleagues wrote.

The study was supported by the Tourette Association of America, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Academy of Neurology, and the American Psychological Foundation.

Homework adherence between behavior therapy sessions is a significant predictor of therapeutic improvement in patients with Tourette’s disorder (TD), a study of 119 youth and adults suggests.

The assigning of “homework” to be completed between sessions – often used in cognitive-behavioral therapy – has been shown to reinforce learning but has not been well studied in TD.

“Understanding the relationship between homework adherence and therapeutic improvement from behavior therapy for TD may offer new insights for enhancing tic severity reductions achieved during this evidence-based treatment,” wrote Joey Ka-Yee Essoe, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

To conduct the study, published in Behaviour Research and Therapy, the researchers recruited 70 youth and 49 adults with TD, ranging in age from 9 to 67 years, who underwent treatment at a single center. The average age was 21 years, and 80 participants were male. Treatment response was based on the Clinical Global Impressions of Improvement scale (CGI-I). Participants were assessed at baseline for tic severity and received eight sessions over 10 weeks. During those sessions, they were taught to perform a competing response to inhibit the expression of a tic when the tic or urge was detected.

Participants received homework at each weekly therapy session; most consisted of three to four practice sessions of about 30 minutes per week. Therapists reviewed the homework at the following session and adapted as needed to improve tic reduction skills.

After eight sessions of behavior therapy, overall greater homework adherence significantly predicted reduced tic severity and therapeutic improvement. However, early homework adherence predicted therapeutic improvement in youth, while late homework adherence predicted it in adults.

Overall, homework adherence significantly predicted tic reductions, compared with baseline (P = .037), based on the clinician-rated Yale Global Tic Severity Scale.

However, homework adherence dipped midway through treatment in youth and showed a linear decline in adults, the researchers noted.

Among youth, baseline predictors of early homework adherence included lower levels of hyperactivity/impulsivity and caregiver strain. Among adults, baseline predictors of early homework adherence included lower anger scores, less social disability, and greater work disability.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of complete data on baseline predictors of homework adherence, reliance on a single measure of tic severity and improvement, and reliance on therapists’ reports of homework adherence, the researchers noted.

Future research should include objective measures of homework adherence, such as time-stamped videos, and different strategies may be needed for youth vs. adults, they added.

“Strategies that optimize homework adherence may enhance the efficacy of behavioral therapy, lead to greater tic severity reductions, and higher treatment response rates,” Dr. Essoe and colleagues wrote.

The study was supported by the Tourette Association of America, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Academy of Neurology, and the American Psychological Foundation.

Homework adherence between behavior therapy sessions is a significant predictor of therapeutic improvement in patients with Tourette’s disorder (TD), a study of 119 youth and adults suggests.

The assigning of “homework” to be completed between sessions – often used in cognitive-behavioral therapy – has been shown to reinforce learning but has not been well studied in TD.

“Understanding the relationship between homework adherence and therapeutic improvement from behavior therapy for TD may offer new insights for enhancing tic severity reductions achieved during this evidence-based treatment,” wrote Joey Ka-Yee Essoe, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

To conduct the study, published in Behaviour Research and Therapy, the researchers recruited 70 youth and 49 adults with TD, ranging in age from 9 to 67 years, who underwent treatment at a single center. The average age was 21 years, and 80 participants were male. Treatment response was based on the Clinical Global Impressions of Improvement scale (CGI-I). Participants were assessed at baseline for tic severity and received eight sessions over 10 weeks. During those sessions, they were taught to perform a competing response to inhibit the expression of a tic when the tic or urge was detected.

Participants received homework at each weekly therapy session; most consisted of three to four practice sessions of about 30 minutes per week. Therapists reviewed the homework at the following session and adapted as needed to improve tic reduction skills.

After eight sessions of behavior therapy, overall greater homework adherence significantly predicted reduced tic severity and therapeutic improvement. However, early homework adherence predicted therapeutic improvement in youth, while late homework adherence predicted it in adults.

Overall, homework adherence significantly predicted tic reductions, compared with baseline (P = .037), based on the clinician-rated Yale Global Tic Severity Scale.

However, homework adherence dipped midway through treatment in youth and showed a linear decline in adults, the researchers noted.

Among youth, baseline predictors of early homework adherence included lower levels of hyperactivity/impulsivity and caregiver strain. Among adults, baseline predictors of early homework adherence included lower anger scores, less social disability, and greater work disability.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of complete data on baseline predictors of homework adherence, reliance on a single measure of tic severity and improvement, and reliance on therapists’ reports of homework adherence, the researchers noted.

Future research should include objective measures of homework adherence, such as time-stamped videos, and different strategies may be needed for youth vs. adults, they added.

“Strategies that optimize homework adherence may enhance the efficacy of behavioral therapy, lead to greater tic severity reductions, and higher treatment response rates,” Dr. Essoe and colleagues wrote.

The study was supported by the Tourette Association of America, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Academy of Neurology, and the American Psychological Foundation.

Melatonin improved sleep time and sleep efficiency in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who also had sleep disturbance, according to a new pilot study.

The study included only 30 patients, but the findings suggest that melatonin could potentially help patients with MS who have sleep issues, according to Wan-Yu Hsu, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

There is no optimal management of sleep issues for these patients, and objective studies of sleep in patients with MS are scarce, said Dr. Hsu, who is an associate specialist in the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco. She worked with Riley Bove, MD, who is an associate professor of neurology at UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

“Melatonin use was associated with improvement in sleep quality and sleep disturbance in MS patients, although there was no significant change in other outcomes, like daytime sleepiness, mood, and walking ability” Dr. Hsu said in an interview.

Melatonin is inexpensive and readily available over the counter, but it’s too soon to begin recommending it to MS patients experiencing sleep problems, according to Dr. Hsu. “It’s a good start that we’re seeing some effects here with this relatively small group of people. Larger studies are needed to unravel the complex relationship between MS and sleep disturbances, as well as develop successful interventions. But for now, since melatonin is an over-the-counter, low-cost supplement, many patients are trying it already.”

Melatonin regulates the sleep-wake cycle, and previous research has shown a decrease in melatonin serum levels as a result of corticosteroid administration. Other work has suggested that the decline of melatonin secretion in MS may reflect progressive failure of the pineal gland in the pathogenesis of MS. “The cause of sleep problems can be lesions and neural damage to brain structures involved in sleep, or symptoms that indirectly disrupt sleep,” she said.

Indeed, sleep issues in MS are common and wide-ranging, according to Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. His group previously reported that 65% of people with MS who reported fatigue had undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea. He also pointed out that disruption of the neural network also disrupts sleep. “That is not only sleep-disordered breathing, that’s sleep onset, REM latency, and sleep efficiency,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y.

Dr. Gudesblatt cautioned that melatonin, as a dietary supplement, is unregulated. The potency listed on the package may not be accurate and also may not be the correct dose for the patient. “It’s fraught with problems, but ultimately it’s relatively safe,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Participants had a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score of 5 or more, or an Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) score higher than 14 at baseline. Other baseline assessments included patient-reported outcomes for sleep disturbances, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, fatigue, walking ability, and mood. Half of the participants received melatonin for the first 2 weeks and then switched to placebo. The other half started with placebo and moved over to melatonin at the beginning of week 3.

Participants in the trial started out at 0.5 mg melatonin and were stepped up to 3.0 mg after 3 days if they didn't feel it was working, both when taking melatonin and when taking placebo. Of the 30 patients, 24 stepped up to 3.0 mg when they were receiving melatonin.*

During the second and fourth weeks, participants wore an actigraph watch to measure their physical and sleep activities, and then repeated the patient-reported outcome measures at the end of weeks 2 and 4. Melatonin improved average sleep time (6.96 vs. 6.67 hours; P = .03) as measured by the actigraph watch. Sleep efficiency was also nominally improved (84.7% vs. 83.2%), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .07). Other trends toward statistical significance included improvements in ISI (–3.5 vs. –2.4; P = .07), change in PSQI component 1 (–0.03 vs. 0.0; P = .07), and change in the NeuroQoL-Fatigue score (–4.7 vs. –2.4; P = .06).

Dr. Hsu hopes to conduct larger studies to examine how the disease-modifying therapies might affect the results of the study.

The study was funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Hsu and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on Oct. 15.

Melatonin improved sleep time and sleep efficiency in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who also had sleep disturbance, according to a new pilot study.

The study included only 30 patients, but the findings suggest that melatonin could potentially help patients with MS who have sleep issues, according to Wan-Yu Hsu, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

There is no optimal management of sleep issues for these patients, and objective studies of sleep in patients with MS are scarce, said Dr. Hsu, who is an associate specialist in the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco. She worked with Riley Bove, MD, who is an associate professor of neurology at UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

“Melatonin use was associated with improvement in sleep quality and sleep disturbance in MS patients, although there was no significant change in other outcomes, like daytime sleepiness, mood, and walking ability” Dr. Hsu said in an interview.

Melatonin is inexpensive and readily available over the counter, but it’s too soon to begin recommending it to MS patients experiencing sleep problems, according to Dr. Hsu. “It’s a good start that we’re seeing some effects here with this relatively small group of people. Larger studies are needed to unravel the complex relationship between MS and sleep disturbances, as well as develop successful interventions. But for now, since melatonin is an over-the-counter, low-cost supplement, many patients are trying it already.”

Melatonin regulates the sleep-wake cycle, and previous research has shown a decrease in melatonin serum levels as a result of corticosteroid administration. Other work has suggested that the decline of melatonin secretion in MS may reflect progressive failure of the pineal gland in the pathogenesis of MS. “The cause of sleep problems can be lesions and neural damage to brain structures involved in sleep, or symptoms that indirectly disrupt sleep,” she said.

Indeed, sleep issues in MS are common and wide-ranging, according to Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. His group previously reported that 65% of people with MS who reported fatigue had undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea. He also pointed out that disruption of the neural network also disrupts sleep. “That is not only sleep-disordered breathing, that’s sleep onset, REM latency, and sleep efficiency,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y.

Dr. Gudesblatt cautioned that melatonin, as a dietary supplement, is unregulated. The potency listed on the package may not be accurate and also may not be the correct dose for the patient. “It’s fraught with problems, but ultimately it’s relatively safe,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Participants had a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score of 5 or more, or an Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) score higher than 14 at baseline. Other baseline assessments included patient-reported outcomes for sleep disturbances, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, fatigue, walking ability, and mood. Half of the participants received melatonin for the first 2 weeks and then switched to placebo. The other half started with placebo and moved over to melatonin at the beginning of week 3.

Participants in the trial started out at 0.5 mg melatonin and were stepped up to 3.0 mg after 3 days if they didn't feel it was working, both when taking melatonin and when taking placebo. Of the 30 patients, 24 stepped up to 3.0 mg when they were receiving melatonin.*

During the second and fourth weeks, participants wore an actigraph watch to measure their physical and sleep activities, and then repeated the patient-reported outcome measures at the end of weeks 2 and 4. Melatonin improved average sleep time (6.96 vs. 6.67 hours; P = .03) as measured by the actigraph watch. Sleep efficiency was also nominally improved (84.7% vs. 83.2%), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .07). Other trends toward statistical significance included improvements in ISI (–3.5 vs. –2.4; P = .07), change in PSQI component 1 (–0.03 vs. 0.0; P = .07), and change in the NeuroQoL-Fatigue score (–4.7 vs. –2.4; P = .06).

Dr. Hsu hopes to conduct larger studies to examine how the disease-modifying therapies might affect the results of the study.

The study was funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Hsu and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on Oct. 15.

Melatonin improved sleep time and sleep efficiency in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who also had sleep disturbance, according to a new pilot study.

The study included only 30 patients, but the findings suggest that melatonin could potentially help patients with MS who have sleep issues, according to Wan-Yu Hsu, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

There is no optimal management of sleep issues for these patients, and objective studies of sleep in patients with MS are scarce, said Dr. Hsu, who is an associate specialist in the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco. She worked with Riley Bove, MD, who is an associate professor of neurology at UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

“Melatonin use was associated with improvement in sleep quality and sleep disturbance in MS patients, although there was no significant change in other outcomes, like daytime sleepiness, mood, and walking ability” Dr. Hsu said in an interview.

Melatonin is inexpensive and readily available over the counter, but it’s too soon to begin recommending it to MS patients experiencing sleep problems, according to Dr. Hsu. “It’s a good start that we’re seeing some effects here with this relatively small group of people. Larger studies are needed to unravel the complex relationship between MS and sleep disturbances, as well as develop successful interventions. But for now, since melatonin is an over-the-counter, low-cost supplement, many patients are trying it already.”

Melatonin regulates the sleep-wake cycle, and previous research has shown a decrease in melatonin serum levels as a result of corticosteroid administration. Other work has suggested that the decline of melatonin secretion in MS may reflect progressive failure of the pineal gland in the pathogenesis of MS. “The cause of sleep problems can be lesions and neural damage to brain structures involved in sleep, or symptoms that indirectly disrupt sleep,” she said.

Indeed, sleep issues in MS are common and wide-ranging, according to Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. His group previously reported that 65% of people with MS who reported fatigue had undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea. He also pointed out that disruption of the neural network also disrupts sleep. “That is not only sleep-disordered breathing, that’s sleep onset, REM latency, and sleep efficiency,” said Dr. Gudesblatt, who is medical director of the Comprehensive MS Care Center at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y.

Dr. Gudesblatt cautioned that melatonin, as a dietary supplement, is unregulated. The potency listed on the package may not be accurate and also may not be the correct dose for the patient. “It’s fraught with problems, but ultimately it’s relatively safe,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Participants had a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score of 5 or more, or an Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) score higher than 14 at baseline. Other baseline assessments included patient-reported outcomes for sleep disturbances, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, fatigue, walking ability, and mood. Half of the participants received melatonin for the first 2 weeks and then switched to placebo. The other half started with placebo and moved over to melatonin at the beginning of week 3.

Participants in the trial started out at 0.5 mg melatonin and were stepped up to 3.0 mg after 3 days if they didn't feel it was working, both when taking melatonin and when taking placebo. Of the 30 patients, 24 stepped up to 3.0 mg when they were receiving melatonin.*

During the second and fourth weeks, participants wore an actigraph watch to measure their physical and sleep activities, and then repeated the patient-reported outcome measures at the end of weeks 2 and 4. Melatonin improved average sleep time (6.96 vs. 6.67 hours; P = .03) as measured by the actigraph watch. Sleep efficiency was also nominally improved (84.7% vs. 83.2%), though the result was not statistically significant (P = .07). Other trends toward statistical significance included improvements in ISI (–3.5 vs. –2.4; P = .07), change in PSQI component 1 (–0.03 vs. 0.0; P = .07), and change in the NeuroQoL-Fatigue score (–4.7 vs. –2.4; P = .06).

Dr. Hsu hopes to conduct larger studies to examine how the disease-modifying therapies might affect the results of the study.

The study was funded by the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Hsu and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on Oct. 15.