MDedge Neurology

A drug approved to treat constipation appears to improve cognitive impairment and boost brain activity for patients with mental illness, new research suggests.

In a randomized controlled trial, 44 healthy individuals were assigned to receive the selective serotonin-4 (5-HT4) receptor agonist prucalopride (Motegrity) or placebo for 1 week.

After 6 days, the active-treatment group performed significantly better on memory tests than the participants who received placebo. In addition, the drug increased activity in brain areas related to cognition.

“What we’re hoping is...these agents may be able to help those with cognitive impairment as part of their mental illness,” lead author Angharad N. de Cates, a clinical DPhil student in the department of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, told meeting attendees.

“Currently, we’re looking to see if we can translate our finding a step further and do a similar study in those with depression,” Ms. de Cates added.

The findings were presented at the 34th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and were simultaneously published in Translational Psychiatry.
 

“Exciting early evidence”

“Even when the low mood associated with depression is well-treated with conventional antidepressants, many patients continue to experience problems with their memory,” co-investigator Susannah Murphy, PhD, a senior research fellow at the University of Oxford, said in a release.

“Our study provides exciting early evidence in humans of a new approach that might be a helpful way to treat these residual cognitive symptoms,” Dr. Murphy added.

Preclinical and animal studies suggest that the 5-HT4 receptor is a promising treatment target for cognitive impairment in individuals with psychiatric disorders, although studies in humans have been limited by the adverse effects of early agents.

“We’ve had our eye on this receptor for a while,” explained de Cates, inasmuch as the animal data “have been so good.”

However, she said in an interview that “a lack of safe human agents made translation tricky.”

As previously reported, prucalopride, a selective high-affinity 5-HT4 partial agonist, was approved in 2018 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation.

The current researchers note that the drug has “good brain penetration,” which “allowed us to investigate 5-HT4-receptor agonism in humans.”

Having previously shown that a single dose of the drug has “pro-cognitive effects,” the investigators conducted the new trial in 44 healthy participants. All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either prucalopride 1 mg for 7 days or placebo.

In accordance with enrollment criteria, patients were 18 to 36 years of age, right-handed, and were not pregnant or breastfeeding. Participants’ body mass index was 18 to 30 kg/m², and they had no contraindications to the study drug. The two treatment groups were well balanced; the participants who received placebo were significantly more likely to be nonnative English speakers (P = .02).

On day 6 of treatment administration, all participants underwent 3T MRI.

Before undergoing imaging, the participants were presented with eight emotionally neutral images of animals or landscapes and were asked to indicate whether or not the images were of animals. The task was then repeated with the eight familiar images and eight novel ones.

During the scan, participants were shown the same images or eight novel images and were again asked whether or not the images contained an animal. They were also instructed to try to remember the images for a subsequent memory task. In that task, the eight original images, 48 novel images, and 27 “distractor” images were presented.
 

Better memory

In the pre-scan assessment, results showed no significant differences in the ability of members of the prucalopride and placebo groups to identify images as being familiar or different.

However, taking prucalopride was associated with significantly improved memory performance in the post-scan recall task.

Compared to the placebo group, participants in the prucalopride group were more accurate in selecting images as familiar vs distractors (P = .029) and in distinguishing images as familiar, novel, or distractors (P = .035).

Functional MRI revealed increased activity in the left and right hippocampus in response to both novel and familiar images among the participants in the prucalopride group in comparison with those in the placebo group.

There was also increased activity in the right angular gyrus in the prucalopride group in comparison with the placebo group in response to familiar images (P < .005).

“Clinically, angular gyri lesions cause language dysfunction, low mood, and poor memory and can mimic dementia or pseudodementia,” the investigators write. They note that the right angular gyrus “shows significantly decreased activity” in mild cognitive impairment.

“Therefore, the increased activity seen in the right angular gyrus following prucalopride administration in our study is consistent with the pro-cognitive behavioural effects we observed,” they add.

Ms. De Cates noted that the dose used in their study was lower than the 2 mg given for constipation.

“At the low dose, there were no differences in side effects between groups and no withdrawals from the prucalopride group for side effects. We are going to try increasing the dose in our next study actually, as we don’t have PET data to tell us what the optimal dose for binding at the receptor should be,” said Ms. de Cates.

“In safety studies, the dose was trialled in healthy volunteers at 4 mg, which was found to be safe, although perhaps less well tolerated than 2 mg,” she said.
 

Generalizable findings?

Commenting on the research, Vibe G. Frøkjær, MD, adjunct professor, department of psychology, Copenhagen University, Denmark, said the study “highlights a very interesting and much needed potential for repurposing drugs to help cognitive dysfunction.”

He noted that cognitive dysfunction is often associated with psychiatric disorders -- even in states of remission.

“Importantly, as the authors also state, it will be vital to translate these findings from healthy populations into clinical populations,” said Dr. Frøkjær, who was not involved in the research.

“It will also be important to understand if prucalopride adds to the effects of existing antidepressant treatments or can be used as a stand-alone therapy,” he added.

The study was funded by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center and by the Wellcome Center for Integrative Neuroscience. Ms. De Cates has received a travel grant from the Royal College of Psychiatrists/Gatsby Foundation and support from Wellcome. The other authors have relationships with P1vital Ltd, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sage Therapeutics, Pfizer, Zogenix, Compass Pathways, and Lundbeck.

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

A drug approved to treat constipation appears to improve cognitive impairment and boost brain activity for patients with mental illness, new research suggests.

In a randomized controlled trial, 44 healthy individuals were assigned to receive the selective serotonin-4 (5-HT4) receptor agonist prucalopride (Motegrity) or placebo for 1 week.

After 6 days, the active-treatment group performed significantly better on memory tests than the participants who received placebo. In addition, the drug increased activity in brain areas related to cognition.

“What we’re hoping is...these agents may be able to help those with cognitive impairment as part of their mental illness,” lead author Angharad N. de Cates, a clinical DPhil student in the department of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, told meeting attendees.

“Currently, we’re looking to see if we can translate our finding a step further and do a similar study in those with depression,” Ms. de Cates added.

The findings were presented at the 34th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and were simultaneously published in Translational Psychiatry.
 

“Exciting early evidence”

“Even when the low mood associated with depression is well-treated with conventional antidepressants, many patients continue to experience problems with their memory,” co-investigator Susannah Murphy, PhD, a senior research fellow at the University of Oxford, said in a release.

“Our study provides exciting early evidence in humans of a new approach that might be a helpful way to treat these residual cognitive symptoms,” Dr. Murphy added.

Preclinical and animal studies suggest that the 5-HT4 receptor is a promising treatment target for cognitive impairment in individuals with psychiatric disorders, although studies in humans have been limited by the adverse effects of early agents.

“We’ve had our eye on this receptor for a while,” explained de Cates, inasmuch as the animal data “have been so good.”

However, she said in an interview that “a lack of safe human agents made translation tricky.”

As previously reported, prucalopride, a selective high-affinity 5-HT4 partial agonist, was approved in 2018 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation.

The current researchers note that the drug has “good brain penetration,” which “allowed us to investigate 5-HT4-receptor agonism in humans.”

Having previously shown that a single dose of the drug has “pro-cognitive effects,” the investigators conducted the new trial in 44 healthy participants. All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either prucalopride 1 mg for 7 days or placebo.

In accordance with enrollment criteria, patients were 18 to 36 years of age, right-handed, and were not pregnant or breastfeeding. Participants’ body mass index was 18 to 30 kg/m², and they had no contraindications to the study drug. The two treatment groups were well balanced; the participants who received placebo were significantly more likely to be nonnative English speakers (P = .02).

On day 6 of treatment administration, all participants underwent 3T MRI.

Before undergoing imaging, the participants were presented with eight emotionally neutral images of animals or landscapes and were asked to indicate whether or not the images were of animals. The task was then repeated with the eight familiar images and eight novel ones.

During the scan, participants were shown the same images or eight novel images and were again asked whether or not the images contained an animal. They were also instructed to try to remember the images for a subsequent memory task. In that task, the eight original images, 48 novel images, and 27 “distractor” images were presented.
 

Better memory

In the pre-scan assessment, results showed no significant differences in the ability of members of the prucalopride and placebo groups to identify images as being familiar or different.

However, taking prucalopride was associated with significantly improved memory performance in the post-scan recall task.

Compared to the placebo group, participants in the prucalopride group were more accurate in selecting images as familiar vs distractors (P = .029) and in distinguishing images as familiar, novel, or distractors (P = .035).

Functional MRI revealed increased activity in the left and right hippocampus in response to both novel and familiar images among the participants in the prucalopride group in comparison with those in the placebo group.

There was also increased activity in the right angular gyrus in the prucalopride group in comparison with the placebo group in response to familiar images (P < .005).

“Clinically, angular gyri lesions cause language dysfunction, low mood, and poor memory and can mimic dementia or pseudodementia,” the investigators write. They note that the right angular gyrus “shows significantly decreased activity” in mild cognitive impairment.

“Therefore, the increased activity seen in the right angular gyrus following prucalopride administration in our study is consistent with the pro-cognitive behavioural effects we observed,” they add.

Ms. De Cates noted that the dose used in their study was lower than the 2 mg given for constipation.

“At the low dose, there were no differences in side effects between groups and no withdrawals from the prucalopride group for side effects. We are going to try increasing the dose in our next study actually, as we don’t have PET data to tell us what the optimal dose for binding at the receptor should be,” said Ms. de Cates.

“In safety studies, the dose was trialled in healthy volunteers at 4 mg, which was found to be safe, although perhaps less well tolerated than 2 mg,” she said.
 

Generalizable findings?

Commenting on the research, Vibe G. Frøkjær, MD, adjunct professor, department of psychology, Copenhagen University, Denmark, said the study “highlights a very interesting and much needed potential for repurposing drugs to help cognitive dysfunction.”

He noted that cognitive dysfunction is often associated with psychiatric disorders -- even in states of remission.

“Importantly, as the authors also state, it will be vital to translate these findings from healthy populations into clinical populations,” said Dr. Frøkjær, who was not involved in the research.

“It will also be important to understand if prucalopride adds to the effects of existing antidepressant treatments or can be used as a stand-alone therapy,” he added.

The study was funded by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center and by the Wellcome Center for Integrative Neuroscience. Ms. De Cates has received a travel grant from the Royal College of Psychiatrists/Gatsby Foundation and support from Wellcome. The other authors have relationships with P1vital Ltd, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sage Therapeutics, Pfizer, Zogenix, Compass Pathways, and Lundbeck.

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

A drug approved to treat constipation appears to improve cognitive impairment and boost brain activity for patients with mental illness, new research suggests.

In a randomized controlled trial, 44 healthy individuals were assigned to receive the selective serotonin-4 (5-HT4) receptor agonist prucalopride (Motegrity) or placebo for 1 week.

After 6 days, the active-treatment group performed significantly better on memory tests than the participants who received placebo. In addition, the drug increased activity in brain areas related to cognition.

“What we’re hoping is...these agents may be able to help those with cognitive impairment as part of their mental illness,” lead author Angharad N. de Cates, a clinical DPhil student in the department of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, told meeting attendees.

“Currently, we’re looking to see if we can translate our finding a step further and do a similar study in those with depression,” Ms. de Cates added.

The findings were presented at the 34th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress and were simultaneously published in Translational Psychiatry.
 

“Exciting early evidence”

“Even when the low mood associated with depression is well-treated with conventional antidepressants, many patients continue to experience problems with their memory,” co-investigator Susannah Murphy, PhD, a senior research fellow at the University of Oxford, said in a release.

“Our study provides exciting early evidence in humans of a new approach that might be a helpful way to treat these residual cognitive symptoms,” Dr. Murphy added.

Preclinical and animal studies suggest that the 5-HT4 receptor is a promising treatment target for cognitive impairment in individuals with psychiatric disorders, although studies in humans have been limited by the adverse effects of early agents.

“We’ve had our eye on this receptor for a while,” explained de Cates, inasmuch as the animal data “have been so good.”

However, she said in an interview that “a lack of safe human agents made translation tricky.”

As previously reported, prucalopride, a selective high-affinity 5-HT4 partial agonist, was approved in 2018 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation.

The current researchers note that the drug has “good brain penetration,” which “allowed us to investigate 5-HT4-receptor agonism in humans.”

Having previously shown that a single dose of the drug has “pro-cognitive effects,” the investigators conducted the new trial in 44 healthy participants. All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either prucalopride 1 mg for 7 days or placebo.

In accordance with enrollment criteria, patients were 18 to 36 years of age, right-handed, and were not pregnant or breastfeeding. Participants’ body mass index was 18 to 30 kg/m², and they had no contraindications to the study drug. The two treatment groups were well balanced; the participants who received placebo were significantly more likely to be nonnative English speakers (P = .02).

On day 6 of treatment administration, all participants underwent 3T MRI.

Before undergoing imaging, the participants were presented with eight emotionally neutral images of animals or landscapes and were asked to indicate whether or not the images were of animals. The task was then repeated with the eight familiar images and eight novel ones.

During the scan, participants were shown the same images or eight novel images and were again asked whether or not the images contained an animal. They were also instructed to try to remember the images for a subsequent memory task. In that task, the eight original images, 48 novel images, and 27 “distractor” images were presented.
 

Better memory

In the pre-scan assessment, results showed no significant differences in the ability of members of the prucalopride and placebo groups to identify images as being familiar or different.

However, taking prucalopride was associated with significantly improved memory performance in the post-scan recall task.

Compared to the placebo group, participants in the prucalopride group were more accurate in selecting images as familiar vs distractors (P = .029) and in distinguishing images as familiar, novel, or distractors (P = .035).

Functional MRI revealed increased activity in the left and right hippocampus in response to both novel and familiar images among the participants in the prucalopride group in comparison with those in the placebo group.

There was also increased activity in the right angular gyrus in the prucalopride group in comparison with the placebo group in response to familiar images (P < .005).

“Clinically, angular gyri lesions cause language dysfunction, low mood, and poor memory and can mimic dementia or pseudodementia,” the investigators write. They note that the right angular gyrus “shows significantly decreased activity” in mild cognitive impairment.

“Therefore, the increased activity seen in the right angular gyrus following prucalopride administration in our study is consistent with the pro-cognitive behavioural effects we observed,” they add.

Ms. De Cates noted that the dose used in their study was lower than the 2 mg given for constipation.

“At the low dose, there were no differences in side effects between groups and no withdrawals from the prucalopride group for side effects. We are going to try increasing the dose in our next study actually, as we don’t have PET data to tell us what the optimal dose for binding at the receptor should be,” said Ms. de Cates.

“In safety studies, the dose was trialled in healthy volunteers at 4 mg, which was found to be safe, although perhaps less well tolerated than 2 mg,” she said.
 

Generalizable findings?

Commenting on the research, Vibe G. Frøkjær, MD, adjunct professor, department of psychology, Copenhagen University, Denmark, said the study “highlights a very interesting and much needed potential for repurposing drugs to help cognitive dysfunction.”

He noted that cognitive dysfunction is often associated with psychiatric disorders -- even in states of remission.

“Importantly, as the authors also state, it will be vital to translate these findings from healthy populations into clinical populations,” said Dr. Frøkjær, who was not involved in the research.

“It will also be important to understand if prucalopride adds to the effects of existing antidepressant treatments or can be used as a stand-alone therapy,” he added.

The study was funded by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Center and by the Wellcome Center for Integrative Neuroscience. Ms. De Cates has received a travel grant from the Royal College of Psychiatrists/Gatsby Foundation and support from Wellcome. The other authors have relationships with P1vital Ltd, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sage Therapeutics, Pfizer, Zogenix, Compass Pathways, and Lundbeck.

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

An 8-year-old girl who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 died after developing an extremely rare condition known as acute fulminant cerebral edema (AFCE), according to pediatric neurologists who are urging colleagues to watch out for similar cases.

At least one other child in the United States has died after becoming infected with the virus and developing cerebral edema. “The rapid and devastating clinical course in both of these cases highlights the need for early recognition of a cerebral edema and AFCE as potential complications of COVID-19 in pediatric patients,” the neurologists wrote.

The case was highlighted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society and in a report published earlier this year in Child Neurology Open.

According to pediatric neurologist Timothy Gershon, MD, PhD , of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the child appeared in clinic in July 2020. She had been healthy but was suffering from 1 day of fever, seizure-like activity (generalized convulsions and drooling), anorexia, and lethargy.

The girl, who was subsequently diagnosed with COVID-19, deteriorated in the hospital. “She received IV dexamethasone in attempts to reduce cerebral edema,” the neurologists wrote. “Regarding immunomodulatory therapy, she received intravenous immunoglobulin (2 g/kg), anakinra, and hydrocortisone; despite approval for remdesivir and COVID-19 convalescent plasma, these were ultimately withheld due to poor prognosis.”

Brain death examinations at 24 and 48 hours after cardiac arrest were consistent with brain death, they reported.

Neurologists believe the patient suffered from AFCE, “an often fatal pediatric clinical entity consisting of fever, encephalopathy, and new-onset seizures followed by rapid, diffuse, and medically-refractory cerebral edema.” They add that “AFCE occurs as a rare complication of a variety of common pediatric infections, and a CNS [central nervous system] pathogen is identified in only a minority of cases, suggesting a para-infectious mechanism of edema.”

Neurologists offered a case definition of the “recently recognized” AFCE earlier this year.

“This was an extremely rare rapid progression to cerebral edema. I think it was related to the patient’s COVID infection, but why this patient got it and others don’t is unknown,” Dr. Gershon said in an interview. “The full spectrum of neurological complications of COVID were not yet known [at the time]. We didn’t know, and still don’t know, what the causative links are between COVID and suddenly having seizures and brain swelling.”

He said he’d treat a similar patient differently now and give dexamethasone earlier in the clinical course, although “there is no data to tell us if any therapy could have reversed it.” Specifically, he said, “I’d give dexamethasone at the first sign of brain involvement, using the dosing recommended for cerebral edema, and try to get the MRI earlier in the course.”

Dr. Gershon and colleagues noted another case of fatal cerebral edema in a child, a 7-year-old boy who was treated in New York state. That case “shows that fatal cerebral edema may complicate pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome,” they wrote.

Pediatric critical care specialist Preetha Krishnan, MD, of Randall Children’s Hospital at Legacy Emanuel in Portland, Ore., helped develop the new definition of AFCE. In an interview, she said AFCE is difficult to diagnose because the signs/symptoms – such as fever, altered sensorium, and seizures – are found in other conditions such as febrile status epilepticus with a viral illness. 
“The key to recognition of AFCE is that unlike other disease processes, these children have rapid neurologic progression,” she said. “In addition, many of our AFCE patients also had vomiting and/or headache, which in retrospect was likely an indication of elevated ICP [intracranial pressure] rather than viral infection.”
She added that “if a child with fever, seizures, and encephalopathy has cerebral edema on imaging and/or has neurologic progression, AFCE should be considered. Most of our cases of AFCE had fulminant progression within the first 3 days of their head imaging noting cerebral edema. There are other neurologic diseases, such as acute necrotizing encephalopathy of childhood, that also have progressive signs/symptoms, but head imaging and lab work should help differentiate many of these etiologies.”
In regard to treatment, she said, “our unit would likely err on the side of providing as much neuroprotective measures as is reasonable, such as maintaining normothermia, consideration of hyperosmolar therapy, maintaining normocarbia and normoxemia, managing seizures, etc. I would recommend getting the entire neurocritical care team involved in the management discussion. This varies by center, but will likely include neurology, ID [infectious disease], possibly neurosurgery, and PICU.”
As for the new case report, Krishnan said COVID-19 has been linked to neurologic complications, “so it does not surprise me that AFCE is part of the neurologic spectrum of disease.”
No funding was reported, and the authors report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Krishnan has no disclosures.

An 8-year-old girl who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 died after developing an extremely rare condition known as acute fulminant cerebral edema (AFCE), according to pediatric neurologists who are urging colleagues to watch out for similar cases.

At least one other child in the United States has died after becoming infected with the virus and developing cerebral edema. “The rapid and devastating clinical course in both of these cases highlights the need for early recognition of a cerebral edema and AFCE as potential complications of COVID-19 in pediatric patients,” the neurologists wrote.

The case was highlighted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society and in a report published earlier this year in Child Neurology Open.

According to pediatric neurologist Timothy Gershon, MD, PhD , of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the child appeared in clinic in July 2020. She had been healthy but was suffering from 1 day of fever, seizure-like activity (generalized convulsions and drooling), anorexia, and lethargy.

The girl, who was subsequently diagnosed with COVID-19, deteriorated in the hospital. “She received IV dexamethasone in attempts to reduce cerebral edema,” the neurologists wrote. “Regarding immunomodulatory therapy, she received intravenous immunoglobulin (2 g/kg), anakinra, and hydrocortisone; despite approval for remdesivir and COVID-19 convalescent plasma, these were ultimately withheld due to poor prognosis.”

Brain death examinations at 24 and 48 hours after cardiac arrest were consistent with brain death, they reported.

Neurologists believe the patient suffered from AFCE, “an often fatal pediatric clinical entity consisting of fever, encephalopathy, and new-onset seizures followed by rapid, diffuse, and medically-refractory cerebral edema.” They add that “AFCE occurs as a rare complication of a variety of common pediatric infections, and a CNS [central nervous system] pathogen is identified in only a minority of cases, suggesting a para-infectious mechanism of edema.”

Neurologists offered a case definition of the “recently recognized” AFCE earlier this year.

“This was an extremely rare rapid progression to cerebral edema. I think it was related to the patient’s COVID infection, but why this patient got it and others don’t is unknown,” Dr. Gershon said in an interview. “The full spectrum of neurological complications of COVID were not yet known [at the time]. We didn’t know, and still don’t know, what the causative links are between COVID and suddenly having seizures and brain swelling.”

He said he’d treat a similar patient differently now and give dexamethasone earlier in the clinical course, although “there is no data to tell us if any therapy could have reversed it.” Specifically, he said, “I’d give dexamethasone at the first sign of brain involvement, using the dosing recommended for cerebral edema, and try to get the MRI earlier in the course.”

Dr. Gershon and colleagues noted another case of fatal cerebral edema in a child, a 7-year-old boy who was treated in New York state. That case “shows that fatal cerebral edema may complicate pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome,” they wrote.

Pediatric critical care specialist Preetha Krishnan, MD, of Randall Children’s Hospital at Legacy Emanuel in Portland, Ore., helped develop the new definition of AFCE. In an interview, she said AFCE is difficult to diagnose because the signs/symptoms – such as fever, altered sensorium, and seizures – are found in other conditions such as febrile status epilepticus with a viral illness. 
“The key to recognition of AFCE is that unlike other disease processes, these children have rapid neurologic progression,” she said. “In addition, many of our AFCE patients also had vomiting and/or headache, which in retrospect was likely an indication of elevated ICP [intracranial pressure] rather than viral infection.”
She added that “if a child with fever, seizures, and encephalopathy has cerebral edema on imaging and/or has neurologic progression, AFCE should be considered. Most of our cases of AFCE had fulminant progression within the first 3 days of their head imaging noting cerebral edema. There are other neurologic diseases, such as acute necrotizing encephalopathy of childhood, that also have progressive signs/symptoms, but head imaging and lab work should help differentiate many of these etiologies.”
In regard to treatment, she said, “our unit would likely err on the side of providing as much neuroprotective measures as is reasonable, such as maintaining normothermia, consideration of hyperosmolar therapy, maintaining normocarbia and normoxemia, managing seizures, etc. I would recommend getting the entire neurocritical care team involved in the management discussion. This varies by center, but will likely include neurology, ID [infectious disease], possibly neurosurgery, and PICU.”
As for the new case report, Krishnan said COVID-19 has been linked to neurologic complications, “so it does not surprise me that AFCE is part of the neurologic spectrum of disease.”
No funding was reported, and the authors report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Krishnan has no disclosures.

An 8-year-old girl who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 died after developing an extremely rare condition known as acute fulminant cerebral edema (AFCE), according to pediatric neurologists who are urging colleagues to watch out for similar cases.

At least one other child in the United States has died after becoming infected with the virus and developing cerebral edema. “The rapid and devastating clinical course in both of these cases highlights the need for early recognition of a cerebral edema and AFCE as potential complications of COVID-19 in pediatric patients,” the neurologists wrote.

The case was highlighted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society and in a report published earlier this year in Child Neurology Open.

According to pediatric neurologist Timothy Gershon, MD, PhD , of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the child appeared in clinic in July 2020. She had been healthy but was suffering from 1 day of fever, seizure-like activity (generalized convulsions and drooling), anorexia, and lethargy.

The girl, who was subsequently diagnosed with COVID-19, deteriorated in the hospital. “She received IV dexamethasone in attempts to reduce cerebral edema,” the neurologists wrote. “Regarding immunomodulatory therapy, she received intravenous immunoglobulin (2 g/kg), anakinra, and hydrocortisone; despite approval for remdesivir and COVID-19 convalescent plasma, these were ultimately withheld due to poor prognosis.”

Brain death examinations at 24 and 48 hours after cardiac arrest were consistent with brain death, they reported.

Neurologists believe the patient suffered from AFCE, “an often fatal pediatric clinical entity consisting of fever, encephalopathy, and new-onset seizures followed by rapid, diffuse, and medically-refractory cerebral edema.” They add that “AFCE occurs as a rare complication of a variety of common pediatric infections, and a CNS [central nervous system] pathogen is identified in only a minority of cases, suggesting a para-infectious mechanism of edema.”

Neurologists offered a case definition of the “recently recognized” AFCE earlier this year.

“This was an extremely rare rapid progression to cerebral edema. I think it was related to the patient’s COVID infection, but why this patient got it and others don’t is unknown,” Dr. Gershon said in an interview. “The full spectrum of neurological complications of COVID were not yet known [at the time]. We didn’t know, and still don’t know, what the causative links are between COVID and suddenly having seizures and brain swelling.”

He said he’d treat a similar patient differently now and give dexamethasone earlier in the clinical course, although “there is no data to tell us if any therapy could have reversed it.” Specifically, he said, “I’d give dexamethasone at the first sign of brain involvement, using the dosing recommended for cerebral edema, and try to get the MRI earlier in the course.”

Dr. Gershon and colleagues noted another case of fatal cerebral edema in a child, a 7-year-old boy who was treated in New York state. That case “shows that fatal cerebral edema may complicate pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome,” they wrote.

Pediatric critical care specialist Preetha Krishnan, MD, of Randall Children’s Hospital at Legacy Emanuel in Portland, Ore., helped develop the new definition of AFCE. In an interview, she said AFCE is difficult to diagnose because the signs/symptoms – such as fever, altered sensorium, and seizures – are found in other conditions such as febrile status epilepticus with a viral illness. 
“The key to recognition of AFCE is that unlike other disease processes, these children have rapid neurologic progression,” she said. “In addition, many of our AFCE patients also had vomiting and/or headache, which in retrospect was likely an indication of elevated ICP [intracranial pressure] rather than viral infection.”
She added that “if a child with fever, seizures, and encephalopathy has cerebral edema on imaging and/or has neurologic progression, AFCE should be considered. Most of our cases of AFCE had fulminant progression within the first 3 days of their head imaging noting cerebral edema. There are other neurologic diseases, such as acute necrotizing encephalopathy of childhood, that also have progressive signs/symptoms, but head imaging and lab work should help differentiate many of these etiologies.”
In regard to treatment, she said, “our unit would likely err on the side of providing as much neuroprotective measures as is reasonable, such as maintaining normothermia, consideration of hyperosmolar therapy, maintaining normocarbia and normoxemia, managing seizures, etc. I would recommend getting the entire neurocritical care team involved in the management discussion. This varies by center, but will likely include neurology, ID [infectious disease], possibly neurosurgery, and PICU.”
As for the new case report, Krishnan said COVID-19 has been linked to neurologic complications, “so it does not surprise me that AFCE is part of the neurologic spectrum of disease.”
No funding was reported, and the authors report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Krishnan has no disclosures.

Newborns of pregnant women who were treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors during the third trimester are almost three times as likely to develop neonatal encephalopathy (NE), although the overall risk remains extremely low, a new study finds.

The findings were presented in a poster at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

“Our work showed that neonates exposed to SSRI in utero had higher risks of neonatal encephalopathy even when adjusting for confounders such as maternal mental health disorders and age. SSRIs could cause side effects such as encephalopathy in neonates, and these risks need to be balanced carefully with the potential benefits of treatment to the mother,” study lead author Marie Cornet, MD, a neonatology fellow with Benioff Children’s Hospital at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Cornet, “we know that SSRI exposure in utero is associated with increased risks of respiratory distress at birth, need for positive-pressure ventilation, and an abnormal neurologic exam.” The researchers launched the new study to determine if the estimated 4%-8% of pregnant women who take SSRIs may be putting their newborns at greater risk of NE.

The researchers retrospectively tracked 305,426 infants who were born in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health system (≥35 weeks) from 2011 to 2019. The mothers had an average age of 31 years, and approximately 34.7% were White, 34.7% of unknown race, 23.3% Asian, and 6.2% Black.

The researchers defined NE as a “5-minute APGAR score <7 and abnormal level of consciousness, activity, tone, or reflexes.”

A total of 8,024 infants (2.6%) had mothers who used SSRIs in the third trimester, and 510 (0.17%) were determined to have had NE.

After adjustment for maternal depression or anxiety, maternal age, race, and hospital, exposed neonates had 2.7 times higher odds of NE (odds ratio, 2.7).

Each 25 mg per day increase in the dose of SSRIs, as equalized to doses of sertraline (Zoloft), was linked to a significant 31% increase in the odds of developing NE (OR, 1.31).

The study doesn’t examine the benefits of SSRI treatment in pregnancy. Those taking SSRIs were much more likely to have depression during pregnancy (76.5% vs. 13.5%) and anxiety (56.7% vs. 6.9%), compared with those who did not take the drug.

The possible connection between SSRIs and NE is unclear. “SSRIs may contribute to NE by a withdrawal mechanism or by a toxicity mechanism. It is also possible that SSRIs themselves are not responsible for encephalopathy, or that the severity of maternal mental health is itself responsible for increased neonatal encephalopathy,” Dr. Cornet said. “However, we believe we adjusted our results thoroughly for that. Furthermore, in this cohort, neonates born from mothers with untreated depression were not at higher risk of encephalopathy than neonates born to mothers without depression.”

She added: “When infants have acidosis or require prolonged resuscitation after birth, they get treated with therapeutic hypothermia. This invasive treatment was shown to decrease mortality and morbidity in neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. However, therapeutic hypothermia may not be helpful in infants with encephalopathy due to other causes than acute hypoxia-ischemia, such as infection, inflammation, genetic conditions, or exposure to toxins. In the case of SSRIs, our results show that, while neonates often have encephalopathy, this encephalopathy is often mild and self-resolved. We did not see a statistically significant increase in acidosis or treatment with therapeutic hypothermia.”

In the future neurologists should consider SSRI use as a potential cause in cases of NE, Dr. Cornet said. “If there are no signs of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy – no evidence of acidosis, acute perinatal event – treatment with therapeutic hypothermia may not be indicated.”

Dr. Cornet said more research is in the works. “Studying the long-term side effect of SSRIs on neonatal brain development and injury is essential,” she said. “We plan to compare brain injury in neonates exposed and unexposed to SSRIs and examine long-term outcomes to assess if the effect of SSRI exposure is transient or has a lasting impact.”

This study was funded by the Thrasher Early Career Research Grant and by the Newborn Brain Research Innovation Award at UCSF. The authors have no relevant disclosures.
 

Newborns of pregnant women who were treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors during the third trimester are almost three times as likely to develop neonatal encephalopathy (NE), although the overall risk remains extremely low, a new study finds.

The findings were presented in a poster at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

“Our work showed that neonates exposed to SSRI in utero had higher risks of neonatal encephalopathy even when adjusting for confounders such as maternal mental health disorders and age. SSRIs could cause side effects such as encephalopathy in neonates, and these risks need to be balanced carefully with the potential benefits of treatment to the mother,” study lead author Marie Cornet, MD, a neonatology fellow with Benioff Children’s Hospital at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Cornet, “we know that SSRI exposure in utero is associated with increased risks of respiratory distress at birth, need for positive-pressure ventilation, and an abnormal neurologic exam.” The researchers launched the new study to determine if the estimated 4%-8% of pregnant women who take SSRIs may be putting their newborns at greater risk of NE.

The researchers retrospectively tracked 305,426 infants who were born in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health system (≥35 weeks) from 2011 to 2019. The mothers had an average age of 31 years, and approximately 34.7% were White, 34.7% of unknown race, 23.3% Asian, and 6.2% Black.

The researchers defined NE as a “5-minute APGAR score <7 and abnormal level of consciousness, activity, tone, or reflexes.”

A total of 8,024 infants (2.6%) had mothers who used SSRIs in the third trimester, and 510 (0.17%) were determined to have had NE.

After adjustment for maternal depression or anxiety, maternal age, race, and hospital, exposed neonates had 2.7 times higher odds of NE (odds ratio, 2.7).

Each 25 mg per day increase in the dose of SSRIs, as equalized to doses of sertraline (Zoloft), was linked to a significant 31% increase in the odds of developing NE (OR, 1.31).

The study doesn’t examine the benefits of SSRI treatment in pregnancy. Those taking SSRIs were much more likely to have depression during pregnancy (76.5% vs. 13.5%) and anxiety (56.7% vs. 6.9%), compared with those who did not take the drug.

The possible connection between SSRIs and NE is unclear. “SSRIs may contribute to NE by a withdrawal mechanism or by a toxicity mechanism. It is also possible that SSRIs themselves are not responsible for encephalopathy, or that the severity of maternal mental health is itself responsible for increased neonatal encephalopathy,” Dr. Cornet said. “However, we believe we adjusted our results thoroughly for that. Furthermore, in this cohort, neonates born from mothers with untreated depression were not at higher risk of encephalopathy than neonates born to mothers without depression.”

She added: “When infants have acidosis or require prolonged resuscitation after birth, they get treated with therapeutic hypothermia. This invasive treatment was shown to decrease mortality and morbidity in neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. However, therapeutic hypothermia may not be helpful in infants with encephalopathy due to other causes than acute hypoxia-ischemia, such as infection, inflammation, genetic conditions, or exposure to toxins. In the case of SSRIs, our results show that, while neonates often have encephalopathy, this encephalopathy is often mild and self-resolved. We did not see a statistically significant increase in acidosis or treatment with therapeutic hypothermia.”

In the future neurologists should consider SSRI use as a potential cause in cases of NE, Dr. Cornet said. “If there are no signs of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy – no evidence of acidosis, acute perinatal event – treatment with therapeutic hypothermia may not be indicated.”

Dr. Cornet said more research is in the works. “Studying the long-term side effect of SSRIs on neonatal brain development and injury is essential,” she said. “We plan to compare brain injury in neonates exposed and unexposed to SSRIs and examine long-term outcomes to assess if the effect of SSRI exposure is transient or has a lasting impact.”

This study was funded by the Thrasher Early Career Research Grant and by the Newborn Brain Research Innovation Award at UCSF. The authors have no relevant disclosures.
 

Newborns of pregnant women who were treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors during the third trimester are almost three times as likely to develop neonatal encephalopathy (NE), although the overall risk remains extremely low, a new study finds.

The findings were presented in a poster at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

“Our work showed that neonates exposed to SSRI in utero had higher risks of neonatal encephalopathy even when adjusting for confounders such as maternal mental health disorders and age. SSRIs could cause side effects such as encephalopathy in neonates, and these risks need to be balanced carefully with the potential benefits of treatment to the mother,” study lead author Marie Cornet, MD, a neonatology fellow with Benioff Children’s Hospital at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Cornet, “we know that SSRI exposure in utero is associated with increased risks of respiratory distress at birth, need for positive-pressure ventilation, and an abnormal neurologic exam.” The researchers launched the new study to determine if the estimated 4%-8% of pregnant women who take SSRIs may be putting their newborns at greater risk of NE.

The researchers retrospectively tracked 305,426 infants who were born in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health system (≥35 weeks) from 2011 to 2019. The mothers had an average age of 31 years, and approximately 34.7% were White, 34.7% of unknown race, 23.3% Asian, and 6.2% Black.

The researchers defined NE as a “5-minute APGAR score <7 and abnormal level of consciousness, activity, tone, or reflexes.”

A total of 8,024 infants (2.6%) had mothers who used SSRIs in the third trimester, and 510 (0.17%) were determined to have had NE.

After adjustment for maternal depression or anxiety, maternal age, race, and hospital, exposed neonates had 2.7 times higher odds of NE (odds ratio, 2.7).

Each 25 mg per day increase in the dose of SSRIs, as equalized to doses of sertraline (Zoloft), was linked to a significant 31% increase in the odds of developing NE (OR, 1.31).

The study doesn’t examine the benefits of SSRI treatment in pregnancy. Those taking SSRIs were much more likely to have depression during pregnancy (76.5% vs. 13.5%) and anxiety (56.7% vs. 6.9%), compared with those who did not take the drug.

The possible connection between SSRIs and NE is unclear. “SSRIs may contribute to NE by a withdrawal mechanism or by a toxicity mechanism. It is also possible that SSRIs themselves are not responsible for encephalopathy, or that the severity of maternal mental health is itself responsible for increased neonatal encephalopathy,” Dr. Cornet said. “However, we believe we adjusted our results thoroughly for that. Furthermore, in this cohort, neonates born from mothers with untreated depression were not at higher risk of encephalopathy than neonates born to mothers without depression.”

She added: “When infants have acidosis or require prolonged resuscitation after birth, they get treated with therapeutic hypothermia. This invasive treatment was shown to decrease mortality and morbidity in neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. However, therapeutic hypothermia may not be helpful in infants with encephalopathy due to other causes than acute hypoxia-ischemia, such as infection, inflammation, genetic conditions, or exposure to toxins. In the case of SSRIs, our results show that, while neonates often have encephalopathy, this encephalopathy is often mild and self-resolved. We did not see a statistically significant increase in acidosis or treatment with therapeutic hypothermia.”

In the future neurologists should consider SSRI use as a potential cause in cases of NE, Dr. Cornet said. “If there are no signs of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy – no evidence of acidosis, acute perinatal event – treatment with therapeutic hypothermia may not be indicated.”

Dr. Cornet said more research is in the works. “Studying the long-term side effect of SSRIs on neonatal brain development and injury is essential,” she said. “We plan to compare brain injury in neonates exposed and unexposed to SSRIs and examine long-term outcomes to assess if the effect of SSRI exposure is transient or has a lasting impact.”

This study was funded by the Thrasher Early Career Research Grant and by the Newborn Brain Research Innovation Award at UCSF. The authors have no relevant disclosures.
 

When treating oromandibular dystonia with botulinum toxin injection to the lateral pterygoid muscle, an intraoral approach is the safest way to avoid injury to the maxillary artery, new research suggests.

Oromandibular dystonia causes an involuntary opening of the mouth, which can be disabling and disfiguring. Although injection of the lateral pterygoid muscle with botulinum toxin is the preferred treatment for oromandibular dystonia, a potential complication concerns the maxillary artery, which can run either lateral or medial to the lateral pterygoid muscle.

In a study of 200 Turkish patients, researchers documented significant variations between men and women in the anatomical location of the maxillary artery – and even found lateral versus medial differences on the left and right side in the same individual.

“The results showed that the maxillary artery runs lateral to the muscle in 67% of the Turkish patients,” Rezzak Yilmaz, MD, department of neurology, University of Ankara Medical School, Turkey, reported at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

Given this high rate, there is a high risk for injury “that may result in pain and hematoma” when using preauricular extraoral injections, Dr. Yilmaz and colleagues noted. Instead, they recommend an intraoral injection approach to the lateral pterygoid muscle. “However, this critical anatomical variation is still unrecognized by most clinicians performing [botulinum toxin] injections,” they wrote.
 

Significant gender differences

The maxillary artery is the largest branch of the external carotid artery.

In the current study, the researchers used magnetic resonance angiography to assess the relevant anatomy in a cohort of 200 individuals (mean age, 56.4 years; 64% women) without a history of facial trauma or movement disorders.

Results showed that the maxillary artery ran lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle in 67% of the study population.

“This result was also more frequent in females compared with males. Also, there was a considerable variability between the left and the right side in 20% of the participants,” Dr. Yilmaz reported.

Statistically significant gender differences were found for the artery running lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle on both sides (71.1% in women vs. 58.5% in men; P = .007) and for the artery running lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle on just the left side (69.8% in women vs. 53.5% in men; P = .02).

In an email exchange, Dr. Yilmaz said if medical personnel are not trained to perform an intraoral approach, “imaging to visualize the path of the maxillary artery before an extraoral/transcutaneous injection can be recommended.”

“If the imaging reveals that the maxillary artery passes lateral to the muscle, then the patient needs to be referred to another center for an intraoral injection,” unless the clinician is trained for an intraoral approach, he added.
 

Useful education

Commenting on the study, Michele Tagliati, MD, director of the Movement Disorders Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said the results were educational. “I didn’t know about all this variability. I was working under the assumption that the artery was medial,” said Dr. Tagliati, who was not involved with the research.

Among his large practice of about 2,000 patients, Dr. Tagliati estimated having five patients for whom he provides this type of injection – and has never encountered a problem with them.

“Maybe all my patients are medial, but now that I’m aware I’ll probably pay more attention,” Dr. Tagliati said. He does not currently perform magnetic resonance angiography before injecting them, “although maybe I should,” he said.

When asked if it is worth the time and expense to perform magnetic resonance angiography on every patient who comes in for lateral pterygoid muscle injections, Dr. Tagliati said that although he has done the injections without problems in his current patients, he may “start obtaining imaging studies to make sure that we’re not taking unnecessary risk” if the maxillary artery is lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle in new patients.

If there is a risk, he’ll then consider talking with colleagues in oral or facial surgery. Dr. Tagliati added that the number of patients he sees with oromandibular dystonia is rather small, so this extra step would not add a lot of additional imaging.

Overall, Dr. Tagliati noted that the study outcome was significant enough to want to use it for professional education. “I can definitely tell you that I’m going to bring it to the attention of my Fellows. [Every year] I teach one or two Fellows to inject Botox,” he said.

There was no funding for the study. Dr. Yilmaz and Dr. Tagliati have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When treating oromandibular dystonia with botulinum toxin injection to the lateral pterygoid muscle, an intraoral approach is the safest way to avoid injury to the maxillary artery, new research suggests.

Oromandibular dystonia causes an involuntary opening of the mouth, which can be disabling and disfiguring. Although injection of the lateral pterygoid muscle with botulinum toxin is the preferred treatment for oromandibular dystonia, a potential complication concerns the maxillary artery, which can run either lateral or medial to the lateral pterygoid muscle.

In a study of 200 Turkish patients, researchers documented significant variations between men and women in the anatomical location of the maxillary artery – and even found lateral versus medial differences on the left and right side in the same individual.

“The results showed that the maxillary artery runs lateral to the muscle in 67% of the Turkish patients,” Rezzak Yilmaz, MD, department of neurology, University of Ankara Medical School, Turkey, reported at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

Given this high rate, there is a high risk for injury “that may result in pain and hematoma” when using preauricular extraoral injections, Dr. Yilmaz and colleagues noted. Instead, they recommend an intraoral injection approach to the lateral pterygoid muscle. “However, this critical anatomical variation is still unrecognized by most clinicians performing [botulinum toxin] injections,” they wrote.
 

Significant gender differences

The maxillary artery is the largest branch of the external carotid artery.

In the current study, the researchers used magnetic resonance angiography to assess the relevant anatomy in a cohort of 200 individuals (mean age, 56.4 years; 64% women) without a history of facial trauma or movement disorders.

Results showed that the maxillary artery ran lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle in 67% of the study population.

“This result was also more frequent in females compared with males. Also, there was a considerable variability between the left and the right side in 20% of the participants,” Dr. Yilmaz reported.

Statistically significant gender differences were found for the artery running lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle on both sides (71.1% in women vs. 58.5% in men; P = .007) and for the artery running lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle on just the left side (69.8% in women vs. 53.5% in men; P = .02).

In an email exchange, Dr. Yilmaz said if medical personnel are not trained to perform an intraoral approach, “imaging to visualize the path of the maxillary artery before an extraoral/transcutaneous injection can be recommended.”

“If the imaging reveals that the maxillary artery passes lateral to the muscle, then the patient needs to be referred to another center for an intraoral injection,” unless the clinician is trained for an intraoral approach, he added.
 

Useful education

Commenting on the study, Michele Tagliati, MD, director of the Movement Disorders Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said the results were educational. “I didn’t know about all this variability. I was working under the assumption that the artery was medial,” said Dr. Tagliati, who was not involved with the research.

Among his large practice of about 2,000 patients, Dr. Tagliati estimated having five patients for whom he provides this type of injection – and has never encountered a problem with them.

“Maybe all my patients are medial, but now that I’m aware I’ll probably pay more attention,” Dr. Tagliati said. He does not currently perform magnetic resonance angiography before injecting them, “although maybe I should,” he said.

When asked if it is worth the time and expense to perform magnetic resonance angiography on every patient who comes in for lateral pterygoid muscle injections, Dr. Tagliati said that although he has done the injections without problems in his current patients, he may “start obtaining imaging studies to make sure that we’re not taking unnecessary risk” if the maxillary artery is lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle in new patients.

If there is a risk, he’ll then consider talking with colleagues in oral or facial surgery. Dr. Tagliati added that the number of patients he sees with oromandibular dystonia is rather small, so this extra step would not add a lot of additional imaging.

Overall, Dr. Tagliati noted that the study outcome was significant enough to want to use it for professional education. “I can definitely tell you that I’m going to bring it to the attention of my Fellows. [Every year] I teach one or two Fellows to inject Botox,” he said.

There was no funding for the study. Dr. Yilmaz and Dr. Tagliati have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When treating oromandibular dystonia with botulinum toxin injection to the lateral pterygoid muscle, an intraoral approach is the safest way to avoid injury to the maxillary artery, new research suggests.

Oromandibular dystonia causes an involuntary opening of the mouth, which can be disabling and disfiguring. Although injection of the lateral pterygoid muscle with botulinum toxin is the preferred treatment for oromandibular dystonia, a potential complication concerns the maxillary artery, which can run either lateral or medial to the lateral pterygoid muscle.

In a study of 200 Turkish patients, researchers documented significant variations between men and women in the anatomical location of the maxillary artery – and even found lateral versus medial differences on the left and right side in the same individual.

“The results showed that the maxillary artery runs lateral to the muscle in 67% of the Turkish patients,” Rezzak Yilmaz, MD, department of neurology, University of Ankara Medical School, Turkey, reported at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

Given this high rate, there is a high risk for injury “that may result in pain and hematoma” when using preauricular extraoral injections, Dr. Yilmaz and colleagues noted. Instead, they recommend an intraoral injection approach to the lateral pterygoid muscle. “However, this critical anatomical variation is still unrecognized by most clinicians performing [botulinum toxin] injections,” they wrote.
 

Significant gender differences

The maxillary artery is the largest branch of the external carotid artery.

In the current study, the researchers used magnetic resonance angiography to assess the relevant anatomy in a cohort of 200 individuals (mean age, 56.4 years; 64% women) without a history of facial trauma or movement disorders.

Results showed that the maxillary artery ran lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle in 67% of the study population.

“This result was also more frequent in females compared with males. Also, there was a considerable variability between the left and the right side in 20% of the participants,” Dr. Yilmaz reported.

Statistically significant gender differences were found for the artery running lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle on both sides (71.1% in women vs. 58.5% in men; P = .007) and for the artery running lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle on just the left side (69.8% in women vs. 53.5% in men; P = .02).

In an email exchange, Dr. Yilmaz said if medical personnel are not trained to perform an intraoral approach, “imaging to visualize the path of the maxillary artery before an extraoral/transcutaneous injection can be recommended.”

“If the imaging reveals that the maxillary artery passes lateral to the muscle, then the patient needs to be referred to another center for an intraoral injection,” unless the clinician is trained for an intraoral approach, he added.
 

Useful education

Commenting on the study, Michele Tagliati, MD, director of the Movement Disorders Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said the results were educational. “I didn’t know about all this variability. I was working under the assumption that the artery was medial,” said Dr. Tagliati, who was not involved with the research.

Among his large practice of about 2,000 patients, Dr. Tagliati estimated having five patients for whom he provides this type of injection – and has never encountered a problem with them.

“Maybe all my patients are medial, but now that I’m aware I’ll probably pay more attention,” Dr. Tagliati said. He does not currently perform magnetic resonance angiography before injecting them, “although maybe I should,” he said.

When asked if it is worth the time and expense to perform magnetic resonance angiography on every patient who comes in for lateral pterygoid muscle injections, Dr. Tagliati said that although he has done the injections without problems in his current patients, he may “start obtaining imaging studies to make sure that we’re not taking unnecessary risk” if the maxillary artery is lateral to the lateral pterygoid muscle in new patients.

If there is a risk, he’ll then consider talking with colleagues in oral or facial surgery. Dr. Tagliati added that the number of patients he sees with oromandibular dystonia is rather small, so this extra step would not add a lot of additional imaging.

Overall, Dr. Tagliati noted that the study outcome was significant enough to want to use it for professional education. “I can definitely tell you that I’m going to bring it to the attention of my Fellows. [Every year] I teach one or two Fellows to inject Botox,” he said.

There was no funding for the study. Dr. Yilmaz and Dr. Tagliati have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Soon after Merck announced on Oct. 1 that it would ask federal regulators for emergency use authorization (EUA) for its auspicious new COVID-19 pill, the accolades began.

Former Food and Drug Administration chief Scott Gottlieb, MD, told CNBC the drug was “a profound game changer.” Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, called the early data “impressive.” The World Health Organization termed it “certainly good news,” while saying it awaits more data.

Merck, partnering with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics on the investigational oral antiviral medicine molnupiravir, plans to submit applications to regulatory agencies worldwide, hoping to deliver the first oral antiviral medication for COVID-19. 

Interim clinical trial results show that the drug may slash the risk for hospitalization or death by 50% in those with mild to moderate COVID-19.

When the results were found to be so favorable, the study was halted at the recommendation of an independent data-monitoring committee and in consultation with the FDA.

That initial enthusiasm is now tempered with some perspective on the pros and cons. “This anticipated drug has gotten a little more hype than it deserves,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. He and others suggest a reality check.

“It’s not exactly a home run, like penicillin for strep throat,” agreed Carl Fichtenbaum, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Cincinnati, who is investigating a similar pill for a rival company, Atea, partnering with Roche. 

“But it is encouraging,” he said. “It will probably be an incremental improvement on what we have.” The fact that it can be taken at home is a plus: “Anything we can do to keep people from getting sicker is a good thing.”

“The data show in this higher risk group [those who were studied had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19, such as age or a medical condition], it reduces the risk of advancing to severe disease by 50%,” Dr. Schaffner said. While that’s a clear benefit for half, it of course leaves the other half without benefit, he said.

Others critiqued the predicted cost of the drug. The U.S. government has already agreed to pay about $700 per patient, according to a new report from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and King’s College Hospital, London. That analysis concluded that the actual cost of production for the 5-day course is $17.74.

“We fully expect that having an oral treatment that reduces the risk of hospitalizations will be significantly cost effective for society,” Melissa Moody, a Merck spokesperson, told this news organization. “We are optimistic that molnupiravir can become an important medicine as part of the global effort to fight the pandemic.”

Merck expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with additional doses expected to be produced in 2022, according to a company press release. Earlier in 2021, Merck finalized its agreement with the U.S. government to supply about 1.7 million courses of the drug at the $700 price, once an EUA or FDA approval is given.

Merck also has supply and purchase agreements with other governments worldwide, pending regulatory approval.
 

Study details

Details about the study findings came from a Merck press release. In the planned interim analysis, Merck and Ridgeback evaluated data from 775 patients initially enrolled in the phase 3 MOVe-OUT trial.

All adults had lab-confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19, and reported onset of symptoms within 5 days of being randomly assigned to the drug or placebo. All had at least one risk factor linked with poor disease outcome (such as older age or obesity).

The drug is a ribonucleoside and works by creating mutations in the virus’s genome, halting the ability of the virus to replicate.

Through day 29 of the study, the drug reduced the risk or hospitalization or death by about 50%. While 7.3% of those who received the drug either died or were hospitalized by day 29, 14.1% of those on placebo did, a statistically significant difference (P = .0012).

Side effects were similar in both groups, with 35% of the drug-treated and 40% of the placebo group reporting some side effect, Merck reported. Adverse drug-related events were 12% in the drug group and 11% in the placebo group. While 1.3% of the drug-treated group quit the study because of an adverse event, 3.4% of the placebo group quit.
 

Pros, cons, and unknowns

The ability to take the drug orally, and at home, is a definite plus, Dr. Schaffner said,  compared with the monoclonal antibody treatment currently approved that must be given intravenously or subcutaneously and in certain locations.

More people could be reached and helped with the option of an at-home, oral medicine, he and others agreed.

The regimen for molnupiravir is four pills, two times daily, for 5 days, even if symptoms are mild. As with other prescription drugs, “there will always be folks who don’t comply completely” with the prescribed regimen, Dr. Schaffner said. With this pill, that might be especially true if the symptoms are very mild.

The 50% reduction is not as effective as the benefit often quoted for monoclonal antibody treatment. In clinical trials of Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody treatment, the regimen reduced COVID-19–related hospitalization or death in high-risk patients by 70%.

Even so, the new pill could change the pandemic’s course, others say. “I think molnupiravir has the potential to change how we take care of people who have COVID and risk factors for developing severe disease,” Rajesh Tim Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization. 

“What we’ll need to do, however, is make sure that people get tested quickly after they develop symptoms and, if they’re confirmed to have COVID, start on the pills within 5 days of developing symptoms,” he said, while warning that more data are needed about the drug and the trial results.

Another concern is that the promise of a pill will stall vaccination rates, with some people figuring why get vaccinated when they can obtain the pill if they do get sick.

Relying on treatment alone won’t work, Dr. Schaffner said. “Let’s [also] focus on prevention, which is the vaccine. We have to keep working both sides of the street.”

Dr. Gandhi added: “It’s important to remember that even though molnupiravir reduced the likelihood of hospitalization and death, a number of people who received the drug still got sick enough to end up in the hospital.”

Also unknown, he said, is how severe their disease was and whether they will develop long COVID.

The Merck study included only unvaccinated people. Might it work for those vaccinated people who get a breakthrough infection? “From a purely scientific perspective, there is no reason to believe molnupiravir would not work in people who are vaccinated, but the overall efficacy on top of the vaccine is likely dependent on how well they were able to mount a protective immune response to the vaccine,” Ms. Moody said. Still, Merck believes the pill could be of benefit for these infections too, she added.

As for the expected cost, Ms. Moody said that the company takes into account a number of factors in setting pricing, “but fundamentally we look at the impact of the disease, the benefits that the drug delivers to patients and to society, and at supporting ongoing drug development.”
 

On Merck’s heels: Pfizer, Roche, Atea

Pfizer is studying an antiviral pill, PF-07321332, a protease inhibitor that blocks the protease enzymes and halts replication of the virus.

In addition to studying the drug in infected patients at high risk of severe illness and in those at typical risk, Pfizer launched a phase 2-3 study in late September that will enroll people who live in the same household as a person with a confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 infection to see if the drug can prevent disease in those who have been exposed.

Atea and Roche’s COVID pill, AT527, is in phase 3 trials as well. AT527 is an inhibitor of polymerase, an enzyme many viruses have, to stop replications. Atea is evaluating the drug to reduce disease “burden” and for both pre- and postexposure prevention.
 

Big picture: Role of COVID-19 pills

It may be necessary to target the coronavirus with more than one antiviral agent, said Dr. Fichtenbaum, a principal investigator for the AT527 trials. 

“Sometimes viruses require two or three active agents to control their replication,” he said, citing information gleaned from other viral research, such as HIV. For control of HIV infection, a cocktail or combination of antivirals is often recommended.

That may well be the case for COVID-19, Dr. Fichtenbaum said. The goal would be to attack the virus at more than one pathway.

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

Soon after Merck announced on Oct. 1 that it would ask federal regulators for emergency use authorization (EUA) for its auspicious new COVID-19 pill, the accolades began.

Former Food and Drug Administration chief Scott Gottlieb, MD, told CNBC the drug was “a profound game changer.” Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, called the early data “impressive.” The World Health Organization termed it “certainly good news,” while saying it awaits more data.

Merck, partnering with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics on the investigational oral antiviral medicine molnupiravir, plans to submit applications to regulatory agencies worldwide, hoping to deliver the first oral antiviral medication for COVID-19. 

Interim clinical trial results show that the drug may slash the risk for hospitalization or death by 50% in those with mild to moderate COVID-19.

When the results were found to be so favorable, the study was halted at the recommendation of an independent data-monitoring committee and in consultation with the FDA.

That initial enthusiasm is now tempered with some perspective on the pros and cons. “This anticipated drug has gotten a little more hype than it deserves,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. He and others suggest a reality check.

“It’s not exactly a home run, like penicillin for strep throat,” agreed Carl Fichtenbaum, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Cincinnati, who is investigating a similar pill for a rival company, Atea, partnering with Roche. 

“But it is encouraging,” he said. “It will probably be an incremental improvement on what we have.” The fact that it can be taken at home is a plus: “Anything we can do to keep people from getting sicker is a good thing.”

“The data show in this higher risk group [those who were studied had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19, such as age or a medical condition], it reduces the risk of advancing to severe disease by 50%,” Dr. Schaffner said. While that’s a clear benefit for half, it of course leaves the other half without benefit, he said.

Others critiqued the predicted cost of the drug. The U.S. government has already agreed to pay about $700 per patient, according to a new report from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and King’s College Hospital, London. That analysis concluded that the actual cost of production for the 5-day course is $17.74.

“We fully expect that having an oral treatment that reduces the risk of hospitalizations will be significantly cost effective for society,” Melissa Moody, a Merck spokesperson, told this news organization. “We are optimistic that molnupiravir can become an important medicine as part of the global effort to fight the pandemic.”

Merck expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with additional doses expected to be produced in 2022, according to a company press release. Earlier in 2021, Merck finalized its agreement with the U.S. government to supply about 1.7 million courses of the drug at the $700 price, once an EUA or FDA approval is given.

Merck also has supply and purchase agreements with other governments worldwide, pending regulatory approval.
 

Study details

Details about the study findings came from a Merck press release. In the planned interim analysis, Merck and Ridgeback evaluated data from 775 patients initially enrolled in the phase 3 MOVe-OUT trial.

All adults had lab-confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19, and reported onset of symptoms within 5 days of being randomly assigned to the drug or placebo. All had at least one risk factor linked with poor disease outcome (such as older age or obesity).

The drug is a ribonucleoside and works by creating mutations in the virus’s genome, halting the ability of the virus to replicate.

Through day 29 of the study, the drug reduced the risk or hospitalization or death by about 50%. While 7.3% of those who received the drug either died or were hospitalized by day 29, 14.1% of those on placebo did, a statistically significant difference (P = .0012).

Side effects were similar in both groups, with 35% of the drug-treated and 40% of the placebo group reporting some side effect, Merck reported. Adverse drug-related events were 12% in the drug group and 11% in the placebo group. While 1.3% of the drug-treated group quit the study because of an adverse event, 3.4% of the placebo group quit.
 

Pros, cons, and unknowns

The ability to take the drug orally, and at home, is a definite plus, Dr. Schaffner said,  compared with the monoclonal antibody treatment currently approved that must be given intravenously or subcutaneously and in certain locations.

More people could be reached and helped with the option of an at-home, oral medicine, he and others agreed.

The regimen for molnupiravir is four pills, two times daily, for 5 days, even if symptoms are mild. As with other prescription drugs, “there will always be folks who don’t comply completely” with the prescribed regimen, Dr. Schaffner said. With this pill, that might be especially true if the symptoms are very mild.

The 50% reduction is not as effective as the benefit often quoted for monoclonal antibody treatment. In clinical trials of Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody treatment, the regimen reduced COVID-19–related hospitalization or death in high-risk patients by 70%.

Even so, the new pill could change the pandemic’s course, others say. “I think molnupiravir has the potential to change how we take care of people who have COVID and risk factors for developing severe disease,” Rajesh Tim Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization. 

“What we’ll need to do, however, is make sure that people get tested quickly after they develop symptoms and, if they’re confirmed to have COVID, start on the pills within 5 days of developing symptoms,” he said, while warning that more data are needed about the drug and the trial results.

Another concern is that the promise of a pill will stall vaccination rates, with some people figuring why get vaccinated when they can obtain the pill if they do get sick.

Relying on treatment alone won’t work, Dr. Schaffner said. “Let’s [also] focus on prevention, which is the vaccine. We have to keep working both sides of the street.”

Dr. Gandhi added: “It’s important to remember that even though molnupiravir reduced the likelihood of hospitalization and death, a number of people who received the drug still got sick enough to end up in the hospital.”

Also unknown, he said, is how severe their disease was and whether they will develop long COVID.

The Merck study included only unvaccinated people. Might it work for those vaccinated people who get a breakthrough infection? “From a purely scientific perspective, there is no reason to believe molnupiravir would not work in people who are vaccinated, but the overall efficacy on top of the vaccine is likely dependent on how well they were able to mount a protective immune response to the vaccine,” Ms. Moody said. Still, Merck believes the pill could be of benefit for these infections too, she added.

As for the expected cost, Ms. Moody said that the company takes into account a number of factors in setting pricing, “but fundamentally we look at the impact of the disease, the benefits that the drug delivers to patients and to society, and at supporting ongoing drug development.”
 

On Merck’s heels: Pfizer, Roche, Atea

Pfizer is studying an antiviral pill, PF-07321332, a protease inhibitor that blocks the protease enzymes and halts replication of the virus.

In addition to studying the drug in infected patients at high risk of severe illness and in those at typical risk, Pfizer launched a phase 2-3 study in late September that will enroll people who live in the same household as a person with a confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 infection to see if the drug can prevent disease in those who have been exposed.

Atea and Roche’s COVID pill, AT527, is in phase 3 trials as well. AT527 is an inhibitor of polymerase, an enzyme many viruses have, to stop replications. Atea is evaluating the drug to reduce disease “burden” and for both pre- and postexposure prevention.
 

Big picture: Role of COVID-19 pills

It may be necessary to target the coronavirus with more than one antiviral agent, said Dr. Fichtenbaum, a principal investigator for the AT527 trials. 

“Sometimes viruses require two or three active agents to control their replication,” he said, citing information gleaned from other viral research, such as HIV. For control of HIV infection, a cocktail or combination of antivirals is often recommended.

That may well be the case for COVID-19, Dr. Fichtenbaum said. The goal would be to attack the virus at more than one pathway.

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

Soon after Merck announced on Oct. 1 that it would ask federal regulators for emergency use authorization (EUA) for its auspicious new COVID-19 pill, the accolades began.

Former Food and Drug Administration chief Scott Gottlieb, MD, told CNBC the drug was “a profound game changer.” Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, called the early data “impressive.” The World Health Organization termed it “certainly good news,” while saying it awaits more data.

Merck, partnering with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics on the investigational oral antiviral medicine molnupiravir, plans to submit applications to regulatory agencies worldwide, hoping to deliver the first oral antiviral medication for COVID-19. 

Interim clinical trial results show that the drug may slash the risk for hospitalization or death by 50% in those with mild to moderate COVID-19.

When the results were found to be so favorable, the study was halted at the recommendation of an independent data-monitoring committee and in consultation with the FDA.

That initial enthusiasm is now tempered with some perspective on the pros and cons. “This anticipated drug has gotten a little more hype than it deserves,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. He and others suggest a reality check.

“It’s not exactly a home run, like penicillin for strep throat,” agreed Carl Fichtenbaum, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Cincinnati, who is investigating a similar pill for a rival company, Atea, partnering with Roche. 

“But it is encouraging,” he said. “It will probably be an incremental improvement on what we have.” The fact that it can be taken at home is a plus: “Anything we can do to keep people from getting sicker is a good thing.”

“The data show in this higher risk group [those who were studied had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19, such as age or a medical condition], it reduces the risk of advancing to severe disease by 50%,” Dr. Schaffner said. While that’s a clear benefit for half, it of course leaves the other half without benefit, he said.

Others critiqued the predicted cost of the drug. The U.S. government has already agreed to pay about $700 per patient, according to a new report from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and King’s College Hospital, London. That analysis concluded that the actual cost of production for the 5-day course is $17.74.

“We fully expect that having an oral treatment that reduces the risk of hospitalizations will be significantly cost effective for society,” Melissa Moody, a Merck spokesperson, told this news organization. “We are optimistic that molnupiravir can become an important medicine as part of the global effort to fight the pandemic.”

Merck expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with additional doses expected to be produced in 2022, according to a company press release. Earlier in 2021, Merck finalized its agreement with the U.S. government to supply about 1.7 million courses of the drug at the $700 price, once an EUA or FDA approval is given.

Merck also has supply and purchase agreements with other governments worldwide, pending regulatory approval.
 

Study details

Details about the study findings came from a Merck press release. In the planned interim analysis, Merck and Ridgeback evaluated data from 775 patients initially enrolled in the phase 3 MOVe-OUT trial.

All adults had lab-confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19, and reported onset of symptoms within 5 days of being randomly assigned to the drug or placebo. All had at least one risk factor linked with poor disease outcome (such as older age or obesity).

The drug is a ribonucleoside and works by creating mutations in the virus’s genome, halting the ability of the virus to replicate.

Through day 29 of the study, the drug reduced the risk or hospitalization or death by about 50%. While 7.3% of those who received the drug either died or were hospitalized by day 29, 14.1% of those on placebo did, a statistically significant difference (P = .0012).

Side effects were similar in both groups, with 35% of the drug-treated and 40% of the placebo group reporting some side effect, Merck reported. Adverse drug-related events were 12% in the drug group and 11% in the placebo group. While 1.3% of the drug-treated group quit the study because of an adverse event, 3.4% of the placebo group quit.
 

Pros, cons, and unknowns

The ability to take the drug orally, and at home, is a definite plus, Dr. Schaffner said,  compared with the monoclonal antibody treatment currently approved that must be given intravenously or subcutaneously and in certain locations.

More people could be reached and helped with the option of an at-home, oral medicine, he and others agreed.

The regimen for molnupiravir is four pills, two times daily, for 5 days, even if symptoms are mild. As with other prescription drugs, “there will always be folks who don’t comply completely” with the prescribed regimen, Dr. Schaffner said. With this pill, that might be especially true if the symptoms are very mild.

The 50% reduction is not as effective as the benefit often quoted for monoclonal antibody treatment. In clinical trials of Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody treatment, the regimen reduced COVID-19–related hospitalization or death in high-risk patients by 70%.

Even so, the new pill could change the pandemic’s course, others say. “I think molnupiravir has the potential to change how we take care of people who have COVID and risk factors for developing severe disease,” Rajesh Tim Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization. 

“What we’ll need to do, however, is make sure that people get tested quickly after they develop symptoms and, if they’re confirmed to have COVID, start on the pills within 5 days of developing symptoms,” he said, while warning that more data are needed about the drug and the trial results.

Another concern is that the promise of a pill will stall vaccination rates, with some people figuring why get vaccinated when they can obtain the pill if they do get sick.

Relying on treatment alone won’t work, Dr. Schaffner said. “Let’s [also] focus on prevention, which is the vaccine. We have to keep working both sides of the street.”

Dr. Gandhi added: “It’s important to remember that even though molnupiravir reduced the likelihood of hospitalization and death, a number of people who received the drug still got sick enough to end up in the hospital.”

Also unknown, he said, is how severe their disease was and whether they will develop long COVID.

The Merck study included only unvaccinated people. Might it work for those vaccinated people who get a breakthrough infection? “From a purely scientific perspective, there is no reason to believe molnupiravir would not work in people who are vaccinated, but the overall efficacy on top of the vaccine is likely dependent on how well they were able to mount a protective immune response to the vaccine,” Ms. Moody said. Still, Merck believes the pill could be of benefit for these infections too, she added.

As for the expected cost, Ms. Moody said that the company takes into account a number of factors in setting pricing, “but fundamentally we look at the impact of the disease, the benefits that the drug delivers to patients and to society, and at supporting ongoing drug development.”
 

On Merck’s heels: Pfizer, Roche, Atea

Pfizer is studying an antiviral pill, PF-07321332, a protease inhibitor that blocks the protease enzymes and halts replication of the virus.

In addition to studying the drug in infected patients at high risk of severe illness and in those at typical risk, Pfizer launched a phase 2-3 study in late September that will enroll people who live in the same household as a person with a confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 infection to see if the drug can prevent disease in those who have been exposed.

Atea and Roche’s COVID pill, AT527, is in phase 3 trials as well. AT527 is an inhibitor of polymerase, an enzyme many viruses have, to stop replications. Atea is evaluating the drug to reduce disease “burden” and for both pre- and postexposure prevention.
 

Big picture: Role of COVID-19 pills

It may be necessary to target the coronavirus with more than one antiviral agent, said Dr. Fichtenbaum, a principal investigator for the AT527 trials. 

“Sometimes viruses require two or three active agents to control their replication,” he said, citing information gleaned from other viral research, such as HIV. For control of HIV infection, a cocktail or combination of antivirals is often recommended.

That may well be the case for COVID-19, Dr. Fichtenbaum said. The goal would be to attack the virus at more than one pathway.

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

Personalized deep brain stimulation (DBS) appears to rapidly and effectively improve symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, new research suggests.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Getty Images

In a proof-of-concept study, investigators identified specific brain activity patterns responsible for a single patient’s severe depression and customized a DBS protocol to modulate the patterns. Results showed rapid and sustained improvement in depression scores.

“This study points the way to a new paradigm that is desperately needed in psychiatry,” Andrew Krystal, PhD, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, said in a news release.

“We’ve developed a precision-medicine approach that has successfully managed our patient’s treatment-resistant depression by identifying and modulating the circuit in her brain that’s uniquely associated with her symptoms,” Dr. Krystal added.

The findings were published online Oct. 4 in Nature Medicine.
 

Closed-loop, on-demand stimulation

The patient was a 36-year-old woman with longstanding, severe, and treatment-resistant major depressive disorder. She was unresponsive to multiple antidepressant combinations and electroconvulsive therapy.

The researchers used intracranial electrophysiology and focal electrical stimulation to identify the specific pattern of electrical brain activity that correlated with her depressed mood.

They identified the right ventral striatum – which is involved in emotion, motivation, and reward – as the stimulation site that led to consistent, sustained, and dose-dependent improvement of symptoms and served as the neural biomarker.

In addition, the investigators identified a neural activity pattern in the amygdala that predicted both the mood symptoms, symptom severity, and stimulation efficacy.

The patient was implanted with the Food and Drug Administration–approved NeuroPace RNS System. The device was placed in the right hemisphere. A single sensing lead was positioned in the amygdala and the second stimulation lead was placed in the ventral striatum.

When the sensing lead detected the activity pattern associated with depression, the other lead delivered a tiny dose (1 milliampere/1 mA) of electricity for 6 seconds, which altered the neural activity and relieved mood symptoms.
 

Remission achieved

Once this personalized, closed-loop therapy was fully operational, the patient’s depression score on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) dropped from 33 before turning treatment ON to 14 at the first ON-treatment assessment carried out after 12 days of stimulation. The score dropped below 10, representing remission, several months later.

The treatment also rapidly improved symptom severity, as measured daily with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-6) and visual analog scales.

“Success was predicated on a clinical mapping stage before chronic device placement, a strategy that has been utilized in epilepsy to map seizure foci in a personalized manner but has not previously been performed in other neuropsychiatric conditions,” the investigators wrote.

This patient represents “one of the first examples of precision psychiatry – a treatment tailored to an individual,” the study’s lead author, Katherine Scangos, MD, also with UCSF Weill Institute, said in an interview.

She added that the treatment “was personally tailored both spatially,” meaning at the brain location, and temporally – the time it was delivered.

“This is the first time a neural biomarker has been used to automatically trigger therapeutic stimulation in depression as a successful long-term treatment,” said Dr. Scangos. However, “we have a lot of work left to do,” she added.

“This study provides proof-of-principle that we can utilize a multimodal brain mapping approach to identify a personalized depression circuit and target that circuit with successful treatment. We will need to test the approach in more patients before we can determine its efficacy,” Dr. Scangos said.
 

First reliable biomarker in psychiatry

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Vladimir Litvak, PhD, with the Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, said that the study is interesting, noting that it is from “one of the leading groups in the field.”

The fact that depression symptoms can be treated in some patients by electrical stimulation of the ventral striatum is not new, Dr. Litvak said. However, what is “exciting” is that the authors identified a particular neural activity pattern in the amygdala as a reliable predictor of both symptom severity and stimulation effectiveness, he noted.

“Patterns of brain activity correlated with disease symptoms when testing over a large group of patients are commonly discovered. But there are just a handful of examples of patterns that are reliable enough to be predictive on a short time scale in a single patient,” said Dr. Litvak, who was not associated with the research.

“Furthermore, to my knowledge, this is the first example of such a reliable biomarker for psychiatric symptoms. The other examples were all for neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, dystonia, and epilepsy,” he added.

He cautioned that this is a single case, but “if reproduced in additional patients, it will bring at least some psychiatric conditions into the domain of brain diseases that can be characterized and diagnosed objectively rather than based on symptoms alone.”

Dr. Litvak pointed out two other critical aspects of the study: the use of exploratory recordings and stimulation to determine the most effective treatment strategy, and the use of a closed-loop device that stimulates only when detecting the amygdala biomarker.

“It is hard to say based on this single case how important these will be in the future. There is no comparison to constant stimulation that might have worked as well because the implanted device used in the study is not suitable for that,” Dr. Litvak said.

It should also be noted that implanting multiple depth electrodes at different brain sites is a “traumatic invasive procedure only reserved to date for severe cases of drug-resistant epilepsy,” he said. “Furthermore, it only allows [researchers] to test a small number of candidate sites, so it relies heavily on prior knowledge.

“Once clinicians know better what to look for, it might be possible to avoid this procedure altogether by using noninvasive methods,” such as functional MRI or EEG, to match the right treatment option to a patient, Dr. Litvak concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, and the Ray and Dagmar Dolby Family Fund through the department of psychiatry at UCSF. Dr. Scangos has reported no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available in the original article. Dr. Litvak is participating in a research funding application to search for electrophysiological biomarkers of depression symptoms using invasive recordings.

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

Personalized deep brain stimulation (DBS) appears to rapidly and effectively improve symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, new research suggests.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Getty Images

In a proof-of-concept study, investigators identified specific brain activity patterns responsible for a single patient’s severe depression and customized a DBS protocol to modulate the patterns. Results showed rapid and sustained improvement in depression scores.

“This study points the way to a new paradigm that is desperately needed in psychiatry,” Andrew Krystal, PhD, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, said in a news release.

“We’ve developed a precision-medicine approach that has successfully managed our patient’s treatment-resistant depression by identifying and modulating the circuit in her brain that’s uniquely associated with her symptoms,” Dr. Krystal added.

The findings were published online Oct. 4 in Nature Medicine.
 

Closed-loop, on-demand stimulation

The patient was a 36-year-old woman with longstanding, severe, and treatment-resistant major depressive disorder. She was unresponsive to multiple antidepressant combinations and electroconvulsive therapy.

The researchers used intracranial electrophysiology and focal electrical stimulation to identify the specific pattern of electrical brain activity that correlated with her depressed mood.

They identified the right ventral striatum – which is involved in emotion, motivation, and reward – as the stimulation site that led to consistent, sustained, and dose-dependent improvement of symptoms and served as the neural biomarker.

In addition, the investigators identified a neural activity pattern in the amygdala that predicted both the mood symptoms, symptom severity, and stimulation efficacy.

The patient was implanted with the Food and Drug Administration–approved NeuroPace RNS System. The device was placed in the right hemisphere. A single sensing lead was positioned in the amygdala and the second stimulation lead was placed in the ventral striatum.

When the sensing lead detected the activity pattern associated with depression, the other lead delivered a tiny dose (1 milliampere/1 mA) of electricity for 6 seconds, which altered the neural activity and relieved mood symptoms.
 

Remission achieved

Once this personalized, closed-loop therapy was fully operational, the patient’s depression score on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) dropped from 33 before turning treatment ON to 14 at the first ON-treatment assessment carried out after 12 days of stimulation. The score dropped below 10, representing remission, several months later.

The treatment also rapidly improved symptom severity, as measured daily with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-6) and visual analog scales.

“Success was predicated on a clinical mapping stage before chronic device placement, a strategy that has been utilized in epilepsy to map seizure foci in a personalized manner but has not previously been performed in other neuropsychiatric conditions,” the investigators wrote.

This patient represents “one of the first examples of precision psychiatry – a treatment tailored to an individual,” the study’s lead author, Katherine Scangos, MD, also with UCSF Weill Institute, said in an interview.

She added that the treatment “was personally tailored both spatially,” meaning at the brain location, and temporally – the time it was delivered.

“This is the first time a neural biomarker has been used to automatically trigger therapeutic stimulation in depression as a successful long-term treatment,” said Dr. Scangos. However, “we have a lot of work left to do,” she added.

“This study provides proof-of-principle that we can utilize a multimodal brain mapping approach to identify a personalized depression circuit and target that circuit with successful treatment. We will need to test the approach in more patients before we can determine its efficacy,” Dr. Scangos said.
 

First reliable biomarker in psychiatry

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Vladimir Litvak, PhD, with the Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, said that the study is interesting, noting that it is from “one of the leading groups in the field.”

The fact that depression symptoms can be treated in some patients by electrical stimulation of the ventral striatum is not new, Dr. Litvak said. However, what is “exciting” is that the authors identified a particular neural activity pattern in the amygdala as a reliable predictor of both symptom severity and stimulation effectiveness, he noted.

“Patterns of brain activity correlated with disease symptoms when testing over a large group of patients are commonly discovered. But there are just a handful of examples of patterns that are reliable enough to be predictive on a short time scale in a single patient,” said Dr. Litvak, who was not associated with the research.

“Furthermore, to my knowledge, this is the first example of such a reliable biomarker for psychiatric symptoms. The other examples were all for neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, dystonia, and epilepsy,” he added.

He cautioned that this is a single case, but “if reproduced in additional patients, it will bring at least some psychiatric conditions into the domain of brain diseases that can be characterized and diagnosed objectively rather than based on symptoms alone.”

Dr. Litvak pointed out two other critical aspects of the study: the use of exploratory recordings and stimulation to determine the most effective treatment strategy, and the use of a closed-loop device that stimulates only when detecting the amygdala biomarker.

“It is hard to say based on this single case how important these will be in the future. There is no comparison to constant stimulation that might have worked as well because the implanted device used in the study is not suitable for that,” Dr. Litvak said.

It should also be noted that implanting multiple depth electrodes at different brain sites is a “traumatic invasive procedure only reserved to date for severe cases of drug-resistant epilepsy,” he said. “Furthermore, it only allows [researchers] to test a small number of candidate sites, so it relies heavily on prior knowledge.

“Once clinicians know better what to look for, it might be possible to avoid this procedure altogether by using noninvasive methods,” such as functional MRI or EEG, to match the right treatment option to a patient, Dr. Litvak concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, and the Ray and Dagmar Dolby Family Fund through the department of psychiatry at UCSF. Dr. Scangos has reported no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available in the original article. Dr. Litvak is participating in a research funding application to search for electrophysiological biomarkers of depression symptoms using invasive recordings.

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

Personalized deep brain stimulation (DBS) appears to rapidly and effectively improve symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, new research suggests.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Getty Images

In a proof-of-concept study, investigators identified specific brain activity patterns responsible for a single patient’s severe depression and customized a DBS protocol to modulate the patterns. Results showed rapid and sustained improvement in depression scores.

“This study points the way to a new paradigm that is desperately needed in psychiatry,” Andrew Krystal, PhD, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, said in a news release.

“We’ve developed a precision-medicine approach that has successfully managed our patient’s treatment-resistant depression by identifying and modulating the circuit in her brain that’s uniquely associated with her symptoms,” Dr. Krystal added.

The findings were published online Oct. 4 in Nature Medicine.
 

Closed-loop, on-demand stimulation

The patient was a 36-year-old woman with longstanding, severe, and treatment-resistant major depressive disorder. She was unresponsive to multiple antidepressant combinations and electroconvulsive therapy.

The researchers used intracranial electrophysiology and focal electrical stimulation to identify the specific pattern of electrical brain activity that correlated with her depressed mood.

They identified the right ventral striatum – which is involved in emotion, motivation, and reward – as the stimulation site that led to consistent, sustained, and dose-dependent improvement of symptoms and served as the neural biomarker.

In addition, the investigators identified a neural activity pattern in the amygdala that predicted both the mood symptoms, symptom severity, and stimulation efficacy.

The patient was implanted with the Food and Drug Administration–approved NeuroPace RNS System. The device was placed in the right hemisphere. A single sensing lead was positioned in the amygdala and the second stimulation lead was placed in the ventral striatum.

When the sensing lead detected the activity pattern associated with depression, the other lead delivered a tiny dose (1 milliampere/1 mA) of electricity for 6 seconds, which altered the neural activity and relieved mood symptoms.
 

Remission achieved

Once this personalized, closed-loop therapy was fully operational, the patient’s depression score on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) dropped from 33 before turning treatment ON to 14 at the first ON-treatment assessment carried out after 12 days of stimulation. The score dropped below 10, representing remission, several months later.

The treatment also rapidly improved symptom severity, as measured daily with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-6) and visual analog scales.

“Success was predicated on a clinical mapping stage before chronic device placement, a strategy that has been utilized in epilepsy to map seizure foci in a personalized manner but has not previously been performed in other neuropsychiatric conditions,” the investigators wrote.

This patient represents “one of the first examples of precision psychiatry – a treatment tailored to an individual,” the study’s lead author, Katherine Scangos, MD, also with UCSF Weill Institute, said in an interview.

She added that the treatment “was personally tailored both spatially,” meaning at the brain location, and temporally – the time it was delivered.

“This is the first time a neural biomarker has been used to automatically trigger therapeutic stimulation in depression as a successful long-term treatment,” said Dr. Scangos. However, “we have a lot of work left to do,” she added.

“This study provides proof-of-principle that we can utilize a multimodal brain mapping approach to identify a personalized depression circuit and target that circuit with successful treatment. We will need to test the approach in more patients before we can determine its efficacy,” Dr. Scangos said.
 

First reliable biomarker in psychiatry

In a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre, Vladimir Litvak, PhD, with the Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London, said that the study is interesting, noting that it is from “one of the leading groups in the field.”

The fact that depression symptoms can be treated in some patients by electrical stimulation of the ventral striatum is not new, Dr. Litvak said. However, what is “exciting” is that the authors identified a particular neural activity pattern in the amygdala as a reliable predictor of both symptom severity and stimulation effectiveness, he noted.

“Patterns of brain activity correlated with disease symptoms when testing over a large group of patients are commonly discovered. But there are just a handful of examples of patterns that are reliable enough to be predictive on a short time scale in a single patient,” said Dr. Litvak, who was not associated with the research.

“Furthermore, to my knowledge, this is the first example of such a reliable biomarker for psychiatric symptoms. The other examples were all for neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, dystonia, and epilepsy,” he added.

He cautioned that this is a single case, but “if reproduced in additional patients, it will bring at least some psychiatric conditions into the domain of brain diseases that can be characterized and diagnosed objectively rather than based on symptoms alone.”

Dr. Litvak pointed out two other critical aspects of the study: the use of exploratory recordings and stimulation to determine the most effective treatment strategy, and the use of a closed-loop device that stimulates only when detecting the amygdala biomarker.

“It is hard to say based on this single case how important these will be in the future. There is no comparison to constant stimulation that might have worked as well because the implanted device used in the study is not suitable for that,” Dr. Litvak said.

It should also be noted that implanting multiple depth electrodes at different brain sites is a “traumatic invasive procedure only reserved to date for severe cases of drug-resistant epilepsy,” he said. “Furthermore, it only allows [researchers] to test a small number of candidate sites, so it relies heavily on prior knowledge.

“Once clinicians know better what to look for, it might be possible to avoid this procedure altogether by using noninvasive methods,” such as functional MRI or EEG, to match the right treatment option to a patient, Dr. Litvak concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, and the Ray and Dagmar Dolby Family Fund through the department of psychiatry at UCSF. Dr. Scangos has reported no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available in the original article. Dr. Litvak is participating in a research funding application to search for electrophysiological biomarkers of depression symptoms using invasive recordings.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared SyncThink’s Eye-Sync technology to aid in the diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury, the company has announced.

Eye-Sync is a virtual reality eye-tracking platform that provides objective measurements to aid in the assessment of concussion. It’s the first mobile, rapid test for concussion that has been cleared by the FDA, the company said.

As reported by this news organization, Eye-Sync received breakthrough designation from the FDA for this indication in March 2019.

The FDA initially cleared the Eye-Sync platform for recording, viewing, and analyzing eye movements to help clinicians identify visual tracking impairment.

The Eye-Sync technology uses a series of 60-second eye tracking assessments, neurocognitive batteries, symptom inventories, and standardized patient inventories to identify the type and severity of impairment after concussion.

“The platform generates customizable and interpretive reports that support clinical decision making and offers visual and vestibular therapies to remedy deficits and monitor improvement over time,” the company said.

In support of the application for use in concussion, SyncThink enrolled 1,655 children and adults into a clinical study that collected comprehensive patient and concussion-related data for over 12 months.

The company used these data to develop proprietary algorithms and deep learning models to identify a positive or negative indication of concussion.

The study showed that Eye-Sinc had sensitivity greater than 82% and specificity greater than 93%, “thereby providing clinicians with significant and actionable data when evaluating individuals with concussion,” the company said in a news release.

“The outcome of this study very clearly shows the effectiveness of our technology at detecting concussion and definitively demonstrates the clinical utility of Eye-Sinc,” SyncThink Chief Clinical Officer Scott Anderson said in the release.

“It also shows that the future of concussion diagnosis is no longer purely symptom-based but that of a technology driven multi-modal approach,” Mr. Anderson said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared SyncThink’s Eye-Sync technology to aid in the diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury, the company has announced.

Eye-Sync is a virtual reality eye-tracking platform that provides objective measurements to aid in the assessment of concussion. It’s the first mobile, rapid test for concussion that has been cleared by the FDA, the company said.

As reported by this news organization, Eye-Sync received breakthrough designation from the FDA for this indication in March 2019.

The FDA initially cleared the Eye-Sync platform for recording, viewing, and analyzing eye movements to help clinicians identify visual tracking impairment.

The Eye-Sync technology uses a series of 60-second eye tracking assessments, neurocognitive batteries, symptom inventories, and standardized patient inventories to identify the type and severity of impairment after concussion.

“The platform generates customizable and interpretive reports that support clinical decision making and offers visual and vestibular therapies to remedy deficits and monitor improvement over time,” the company said.

In support of the application for use in concussion, SyncThink enrolled 1,655 children and adults into a clinical study that collected comprehensive patient and concussion-related data for over 12 months.

The company used these data to develop proprietary algorithms and deep learning models to identify a positive or negative indication of concussion.

The study showed that Eye-Sinc had sensitivity greater than 82% and specificity greater than 93%, “thereby providing clinicians with significant and actionable data when evaluating individuals with concussion,” the company said in a news release.

“The outcome of this study very clearly shows the effectiveness of our technology at detecting concussion and definitively demonstrates the clinical utility of Eye-Sinc,” SyncThink Chief Clinical Officer Scott Anderson said in the release.

“It also shows that the future of concussion diagnosis is no longer purely symptom-based but that of a technology driven multi-modal approach,” Mr. Anderson said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared SyncThink’s Eye-Sync technology to aid in the diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury, the company has announced.

Eye-Sync is a virtual reality eye-tracking platform that provides objective measurements to aid in the assessment of concussion. It’s the first mobile, rapid test for concussion that has been cleared by the FDA, the company said.

As reported by this news organization, Eye-Sync received breakthrough designation from the FDA for this indication in March 2019.

The FDA initially cleared the Eye-Sync platform for recording, viewing, and analyzing eye movements to help clinicians identify visual tracking impairment.

The Eye-Sync technology uses a series of 60-second eye tracking assessments, neurocognitive batteries, symptom inventories, and standardized patient inventories to identify the type and severity of impairment after concussion.

“The platform generates customizable and interpretive reports that support clinical decision making and offers visual and vestibular therapies to remedy deficits and monitor improvement over time,” the company said.

In support of the application for use in concussion, SyncThink enrolled 1,655 children and adults into a clinical study that collected comprehensive patient and concussion-related data for over 12 months.

The company used these data to develop proprietary algorithms and deep learning models to identify a positive or negative indication of concussion.

The study showed that Eye-Sinc had sensitivity greater than 82% and specificity greater than 93%, “thereby providing clinicians with significant and actionable data when evaluating individuals with concussion,” the company said in a news release.

“The outcome of this study very clearly shows the effectiveness of our technology at detecting concussion and definitively demonstrates the clinical utility of Eye-Sinc,” SyncThink Chief Clinical Officer Scott Anderson said in the release.

“It also shows that the future of concussion diagnosis is no longer purely symptom-based but that of a technology driven multi-modal approach,” Mr. Anderson said.

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

Discovery of substantial atrial fibrillation (AFib) is usually an indication to start oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention, but it’s far from settled whether such AFib is actually a direct cause of thromboembolic stroke. And that has implications for whether patients with occasional bouts of the arrhythmia need to be on continuous OAC.  

It’s possible that some with infrequent paroxysmal AFib can get away with OAC maintained only about as long as the arrhythmia persists, and then go off the drugs, say researchers based on their study, which, they caution, would need the support of prospective trials before such a strategy could be considered.

But importantly, in their patients who had been continuously monitored by their cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) prior to experiencing a stroke, the 30-day risk of that stroke more than tripled if their AFib burden on 1 day reached at least 5-6 hours. The risk jumped especially high within the first few days after accumulating that amount of AFib in a day, but then fell off sharply over the next few days.

Based on the study, “Your risk of stroke goes up acutely when you have an episode of AFib, and it decreases rapidly, back to baseline – certainly by 30 days and it looked like in our data by 5 days,” Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Increasingly, he noted, “there’s a widespread belief that AFib is a risk marker, not a causal risk factor.” In that scenario, most embolic strokes are caused by thrombi formed as a result of an atrial myopathy, characterized by fibrosis and inflammation, that also happens to trigger AFib.

But the current findings are, “from a mechanistic point of view, very much in favor of AFib being a causal risk factor, acutely raising the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Singer, who is lead author on the analysis published online Sept. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.

Some studies have “shown that anticoagulants seem to lower stroke risk even in patients without atrial fib, and even from sources not likely to be coming from the atrium,” Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, Palo Alto, said in an interview. Collectively they point to “atrial fibrillation as a cause of and a noncausal marker for stroke.”

For example, Dr. Turakhia pointed out in an editorial accompanying the current report that stroke in patients with CIEDs “may occur during prolonged periods of sinus rhythm.”

The current study, he said in an interview, doesn’t preclude atrial myopathy as one direct cause of stroke-associated thrombus, because probably both the myopathy and AFib can be culprits. Still, AFib itself it may bear more responsibility for strokes in patients with fewer competing risks for stroke.

In such patients at lower vascular risk, who may have a CHA2DS2-VASc score of only 1 or 2, for example, “AFib can become a more important cause” of ischemic stroke, Dr. Turakhia said. That’s when AFib is more likely to be temporally related to stroke as the likely culprit, the mechanism addressed by Dr. Singer and associates.

“I think we’re all trying to grapple with what the truth is,” Dr. Singer observed. Still, the current study was unusual for primarily looking at the temporal relationship between AFib and stroke, rather than stroke risk. “And once again, as we found in our earlier study, but now a much larger study, it’s a tight relationship.”

Based on the current results, he said, the risk is “high when you have AFib, and it decreases very rapidly after the AFib is over.” And, “it takes multiple hours of AFib to raise stroke risk.” Inclusion in the analysis required accumulation of at least 5.5 hours of AFib on at least 1 day in a month, the cut point at which stroke risk started to climb significantly in an earlier trial.  

In the current analysis, however, the 30-day odds ratio for stroke was a nonsignificant 2.75 for an AFib burden of 6-23 hours in a day and jumped to a significant 5.0 for a burden in excess of 23 hours in a day. “That’s a lot of AFib” before the risk actually goes up, and supports AFib as causative, Dr. Singer said. If it were the myopathy itself triggering stroke in these particular patients, the risk would be ongoing and not subject to a threshold of AFib burden.
 

Implications for noncontinuous OAC

“The hope is that there are people who have very little AFib: They may have several hours, and then they have nothing for 6 months. Do they have to be anticoagulated or not?” Dr. Singer asked.

“If you believe the risk-marker story, you might say they have to be anticoagulated. But if you believe our results, you would certainly think there’s a good chance they don’t have to be anticoagulated,” he said.

“So it is logical to think, if you have the right people and continuous monitoring, that you could have time-delimited anticoagulation.” That is, patients might start right away on a direct OAC once reaching the AFib threshold in a day, Dr. Singer said, “going on and off anticoagulants in parallel with their episodes of AFib.”

The strategy wouldn’t be feasible in patients who often experience AFib, Dr. Singer noted, “but it might work for people who have infrequent paroxysmal AFib.” It certainly would first have to be tested in prospective trials, he said. Such trials would be more practical than ever to carry out given the growing availability of continuous AFib monitoring by wearables.

“We need a trial to make the case whether it’s safe or not,” Dr. Turakhia said of such a rhythm-guided approach to OAC for AFib. The population to start with, he said, would be patients with paroxysmal AFib and low CHA2DS2-VASc scores. “If you think CHA2DS2-VASc as an integrated score of vascular risk, such patients would have a lot fewer reasons to have strokes. And if they do have a stroke, it’s more reasonable to assume that it’s likely caused by atrial fib and not just a marker.”

Importantly, such a strategy could well be safer than continuous OAC for some patients – those at the lowest vascular risk and with the most occasional AFib and lowest AFib burden “who are otherwise doing fine,” Dr. Turakhia said. In such patients on continuous OAC, he proposed, the risks of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage could potentially exceed the expected degree of protection from ischemic events.
 

Discordant periods of AFib burden

Dr. Singer and his colleagues linked a national electronic health record database with Medtronic CareLink records covering 10 years to identify 891 patients who experienced an ischemic stroke preceded by at least 120 days of continuous heart-rhythm monitoring.

The patients were then categorized by their pattern of AFib, if any, within each of two prestroke periods: the most recent 30 days, which was the test period, and the preceding 91-120 days, the control period.

The analysis then excluded any patients who reached an AFib-burden threshold of at least 5.5 hours on any day during both the test and control periods, and those who did not attain that threshold in either period.

“The ones who had AFib in both periods mostly had permanent AFib, and ones that didn’t have AFib in either period mostly were in sinus rhythm,” Dr. Singer said. It was “close to 100%” in both cases.

Those exclusions left 66 patients, 7.4% of the total, who reached the AFib-burden threshold on at least 1 day during either the test or control periods, but not both. They included 52 and 14 patients, respectively, with “discordant” periods, that is, at least that burden of AFib in a day during either the test or control period, but not both.

Comparing AFib burden at test versus control periods among patients for whom the two periods were discordant yielded an OR for stroke of 3.71 (95% confidence interval, 2.06-6.70).

Stroke risk levels were not evenly spread throughout the 24-hour periods that met the AFib-burden threshold or the 30 days preceding the patients’ strokes. The OR for stroke was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.62-9.55) during days 1-5 following the day in which the AFib-burden threshold was met. And it was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.08-12.01) over 30 days if the AFib burden exceeded 23 hours on any day of the test period.

The study’s case-crossover design, in which each patient served as their own control, is one of its advantages, Dr. Singer observed. Most patient features, including CHA2DS2-VASc score and comorbidities, did not change appreciably from earliest to the latest 30-day period, which strengthens the comparison of the two because “you don’t have to worry about long-term confounding.”

Dr. Singer was supported by the Eliot B. and Edith C. Shoolman fund of the Massachusetts General Hospital. He discloses receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer; and royalties from UpToDate.

Dr. Turakhia discloses personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Sanofi, Pfizer, Myokardia, Johnson & Johnson, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, InCarda Therapeutics, 100Plus, Forward Pharma, and AliveCor; and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the American Heart Association, Apple, and Bayer.

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

Discovery of substantial atrial fibrillation (AFib) is usually an indication to start oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention, but it’s far from settled whether such AFib is actually a direct cause of thromboembolic stroke. And that has implications for whether patients with occasional bouts of the arrhythmia need to be on continuous OAC.  

It’s possible that some with infrequent paroxysmal AFib can get away with OAC maintained only about as long as the arrhythmia persists, and then go off the drugs, say researchers based on their study, which, they caution, would need the support of prospective trials before such a strategy could be considered.

But importantly, in their patients who had been continuously monitored by their cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) prior to experiencing a stroke, the 30-day risk of that stroke more than tripled if their AFib burden on 1 day reached at least 5-6 hours. The risk jumped especially high within the first few days after accumulating that amount of AFib in a day, but then fell off sharply over the next few days.

Based on the study, “Your risk of stroke goes up acutely when you have an episode of AFib, and it decreases rapidly, back to baseline – certainly by 30 days and it looked like in our data by 5 days,” Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Increasingly, he noted, “there’s a widespread belief that AFib is a risk marker, not a causal risk factor.” In that scenario, most embolic strokes are caused by thrombi formed as a result of an atrial myopathy, characterized by fibrosis and inflammation, that also happens to trigger AFib.

But the current findings are, “from a mechanistic point of view, very much in favor of AFib being a causal risk factor, acutely raising the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Singer, who is lead author on the analysis published online Sept. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.

Some studies have “shown that anticoagulants seem to lower stroke risk even in patients without atrial fib, and even from sources not likely to be coming from the atrium,” Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, Palo Alto, said in an interview. Collectively they point to “atrial fibrillation as a cause of and a noncausal marker for stroke.”

For example, Dr. Turakhia pointed out in an editorial accompanying the current report that stroke in patients with CIEDs “may occur during prolonged periods of sinus rhythm.”

The current study, he said in an interview, doesn’t preclude atrial myopathy as one direct cause of stroke-associated thrombus, because probably both the myopathy and AFib can be culprits. Still, AFib itself it may bear more responsibility for strokes in patients with fewer competing risks for stroke.

In such patients at lower vascular risk, who may have a CHA2DS2-VASc score of only 1 or 2, for example, “AFib can become a more important cause” of ischemic stroke, Dr. Turakhia said. That’s when AFib is more likely to be temporally related to stroke as the likely culprit, the mechanism addressed by Dr. Singer and associates.

“I think we’re all trying to grapple with what the truth is,” Dr. Singer observed. Still, the current study was unusual for primarily looking at the temporal relationship between AFib and stroke, rather than stroke risk. “And once again, as we found in our earlier study, but now a much larger study, it’s a tight relationship.”

Based on the current results, he said, the risk is “high when you have AFib, and it decreases very rapidly after the AFib is over.” And, “it takes multiple hours of AFib to raise stroke risk.” Inclusion in the analysis required accumulation of at least 5.5 hours of AFib on at least 1 day in a month, the cut point at which stroke risk started to climb significantly in an earlier trial.  

In the current analysis, however, the 30-day odds ratio for stroke was a nonsignificant 2.75 for an AFib burden of 6-23 hours in a day and jumped to a significant 5.0 for a burden in excess of 23 hours in a day. “That’s a lot of AFib” before the risk actually goes up, and supports AFib as causative, Dr. Singer said. If it were the myopathy itself triggering stroke in these particular patients, the risk would be ongoing and not subject to a threshold of AFib burden.
 

Implications for noncontinuous OAC

“The hope is that there are people who have very little AFib: They may have several hours, and then they have nothing for 6 months. Do they have to be anticoagulated or not?” Dr. Singer asked.

“If you believe the risk-marker story, you might say they have to be anticoagulated. But if you believe our results, you would certainly think there’s a good chance they don’t have to be anticoagulated,” he said.

“So it is logical to think, if you have the right people and continuous monitoring, that you could have time-delimited anticoagulation.” That is, patients might start right away on a direct OAC once reaching the AFib threshold in a day, Dr. Singer said, “going on and off anticoagulants in parallel with their episodes of AFib.”

The strategy wouldn’t be feasible in patients who often experience AFib, Dr. Singer noted, “but it might work for people who have infrequent paroxysmal AFib.” It certainly would first have to be tested in prospective trials, he said. Such trials would be more practical than ever to carry out given the growing availability of continuous AFib monitoring by wearables.

“We need a trial to make the case whether it’s safe or not,” Dr. Turakhia said of such a rhythm-guided approach to OAC for AFib. The population to start with, he said, would be patients with paroxysmal AFib and low CHA2DS2-VASc scores. “If you think CHA2DS2-VASc as an integrated score of vascular risk, such patients would have a lot fewer reasons to have strokes. And if they do have a stroke, it’s more reasonable to assume that it’s likely caused by atrial fib and not just a marker.”

Importantly, such a strategy could well be safer than continuous OAC for some patients – those at the lowest vascular risk and with the most occasional AFib and lowest AFib burden “who are otherwise doing fine,” Dr. Turakhia said. In such patients on continuous OAC, he proposed, the risks of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage could potentially exceed the expected degree of protection from ischemic events.
 

Discordant periods of AFib burden

Dr. Singer and his colleagues linked a national electronic health record database with Medtronic CareLink records covering 10 years to identify 891 patients who experienced an ischemic stroke preceded by at least 120 days of continuous heart-rhythm monitoring.

The patients were then categorized by their pattern of AFib, if any, within each of two prestroke periods: the most recent 30 days, which was the test period, and the preceding 91-120 days, the control period.

The analysis then excluded any patients who reached an AFib-burden threshold of at least 5.5 hours on any day during both the test and control periods, and those who did not attain that threshold in either period.

“The ones who had AFib in both periods mostly had permanent AFib, and ones that didn’t have AFib in either period mostly were in sinus rhythm,” Dr. Singer said. It was “close to 100%” in both cases.

Those exclusions left 66 patients, 7.4% of the total, who reached the AFib-burden threshold on at least 1 day during either the test or control periods, but not both. They included 52 and 14 patients, respectively, with “discordant” periods, that is, at least that burden of AFib in a day during either the test or control period, but not both.

Comparing AFib burden at test versus control periods among patients for whom the two periods were discordant yielded an OR for stroke of 3.71 (95% confidence interval, 2.06-6.70).

Stroke risk levels were not evenly spread throughout the 24-hour periods that met the AFib-burden threshold or the 30 days preceding the patients’ strokes. The OR for stroke was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.62-9.55) during days 1-5 following the day in which the AFib-burden threshold was met. And it was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.08-12.01) over 30 days if the AFib burden exceeded 23 hours on any day of the test period.

The study’s case-crossover design, in which each patient served as their own control, is one of its advantages, Dr. Singer observed. Most patient features, including CHA2DS2-VASc score and comorbidities, did not change appreciably from earliest to the latest 30-day period, which strengthens the comparison of the two because “you don’t have to worry about long-term confounding.”

Dr. Singer was supported by the Eliot B. and Edith C. Shoolman fund of the Massachusetts General Hospital. He discloses receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer; and royalties from UpToDate.

Dr. Turakhia discloses personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Sanofi, Pfizer, Myokardia, Johnson & Johnson, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, InCarda Therapeutics, 100Plus, Forward Pharma, and AliveCor; and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the American Heart Association, Apple, and Bayer.

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

Discovery of substantial atrial fibrillation (AFib) is usually an indication to start oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention, but it’s far from settled whether such AFib is actually a direct cause of thromboembolic stroke. And that has implications for whether patients with occasional bouts of the arrhythmia need to be on continuous OAC.  

It’s possible that some with infrequent paroxysmal AFib can get away with OAC maintained only about as long as the arrhythmia persists, and then go off the drugs, say researchers based on their study, which, they caution, would need the support of prospective trials before such a strategy could be considered.

But importantly, in their patients who had been continuously monitored by their cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) prior to experiencing a stroke, the 30-day risk of that stroke more than tripled if their AFib burden on 1 day reached at least 5-6 hours. The risk jumped especially high within the first few days after accumulating that amount of AFib in a day, but then fell off sharply over the next few days.

Based on the study, “Your risk of stroke goes up acutely when you have an episode of AFib, and it decreases rapidly, back to baseline – certainly by 30 days and it looked like in our data by 5 days,” Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Increasingly, he noted, “there’s a widespread belief that AFib is a risk marker, not a causal risk factor.” In that scenario, most embolic strokes are caused by thrombi formed as a result of an atrial myopathy, characterized by fibrosis and inflammation, that also happens to trigger AFib.

But the current findings are, “from a mechanistic point of view, very much in favor of AFib being a causal risk factor, acutely raising the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Singer, who is lead author on the analysis published online Sept. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.

Some studies have “shown that anticoagulants seem to lower stroke risk even in patients without atrial fib, and even from sources not likely to be coming from the atrium,” Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, Palo Alto, said in an interview. Collectively they point to “atrial fibrillation as a cause of and a noncausal marker for stroke.”

For example, Dr. Turakhia pointed out in an editorial accompanying the current report that stroke in patients with CIEDs “may occur during prolonged periods of sinus rhythm.”

The current study, he said in an interview, doesn’t preclude atrial myopathy as one direct cause of stroke-associated thrombus, because probably both the myopathy and AFib can be culprits. Still, AFib itself it may bear more responsibility for strokes in patients with fewer competing risks for stroke.

In such patients at lower vascular risk, who may have a CHA2DS2-VASc score of only 1 or 2, for example, “AFib can become a more important cause” of ischemic stroke, Dr. Turakhia said. That’s when AFib is more likely to be temporally related to stroke as the likely culprit, the mechanism addressed by Dr. Singer and associates.

“I think we’re all trying to grapple with what the truth is,” Dr. Singer observed. Still, the current study was unusual for primarily looking at the temporal relationship between AFib and stroke, rather than stroke risk. “And once again, as we found in our earlier study, but now a much larger study, it’s a tight relationship.”

Based on the current results, he said, the risk is “high when you have AFib, and it decreases very rapidly after the AFib is over.” And, “it takes multiple hours of AFib to raise stroke risk.” Inclusion in the analysis required accumulation of at least 5.5 hours of AFib on at least 1 day in a month, the cut point at which stroke risk started to climb significantly in an earlier trial.  

In the current analysis, however, the 30-day odds ratio for stroke was a nonsignificant 2.75 for an AFib burden of 6-23 hours in a day and jumped to a significant 5.0 for a burden in excess of 23 hours in a day. “That’s a lot of AFib” before the risk actually goes up, and supports AFib as causative, Dr. Singer said. If it were the myopathy itself triggering stroke in these particular patients, the risk would be ongoing and not subject to a threshold of AFib burden.
 

Implications for noncontinuous OAC

“The hope is that there are people who have very little AFib: They may have several hours, and then they have nothing for 6 months. Do they have to be anticoagulated or not?” Dr. Singer asked.

“If you believe the risk-marker story, you might say they have to be anticoagulated. But if you believe our results, you would certainly think there’s a good chance they don’t have to be anticoagulated,” he said.

“So it is logical to think, if you have the right people and continuous monitoring, that you could have time-delimited anticoagulation.” That is, patients might start right away on a direct OAC once reaching the AFib threshold in a day, Dr. Singer said, “going on and off anticoagulants in parallel with their episodes of AFib.”

The strategy wouldn’t be feasible in patients who often experience AFib, Dr. Singer noted, “but it might work for people who have infrequent paroxysmal AFib.” It certainly would first have to be tested in prospective trials, he said. Such trials would be more practical than ever to carry out given the growing availability of continuous AFib monitoring by wearables.

“We need a trial to make the case whether it’s safe or not,” Dr. Turakhia said of such a rhythm-guided approach to OAC for AFib. The population to start with, he said, would be patients with paroxysmal AFib and low CHA2DS2-VASc scores. “If you think CHA2DS2-VASc as an integrated score of vascular risk, such patients would have a lot fewer reasons to have strokes. And if they do have a stroke, it’s more reasonable to assume that it’s likely caused by atrial fib and not just a marker.”

Importantly, such a strategy could well be safer than continuous OAC for some patients – those at the lowest vascular risk and with the most occasional AFib and lowest AFib burden “who are otherwise doing fine,” Dr. Turakhia said. In such patients on continuous OAC, he proposed, the risks of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage could potentially exceed the expected degree of protection from ischemic events.
 

Discordant periods of AFib burden

Dr. Singer and his colleagues linked a national electronic health record database with Medtronic CareLink records covering 10 years to identify 891 patients who experienced an ischemic stroke preceded by at least 120 days of continuous heart-rhythm monitoring.

The patients were then categorized by their pattern of AFib, if any, within each of two prestroke periods: the most recent 30 days, which was the test period, and the preceding 91-120 days, the control period.

The analysis then excluded any patients who reached an AFib-burden threshold of at least 5.5 hours on any day during both the test and control periods, and those who did not attain that threshold in either period.

“The ones who had AFib in both periods mostly had permanent AFib, and ones that didn’t have AFib in either period mostly were in sinus rhythm,” Dr. Singer said. It was “close to 100%” in both cases.

Those exclusions left 66 patients, 7.4% of the total, who reached the AFib-burden threshold on at least 1 day during either the test or control periods, but not both. They included 52 and 14 patients, respectively, with “discordant” periods, that is, at least that burden of AFib in a day during either the test or control period, but not both.

Comparing AFib burden at test versus control periods among patients for whom the two periods were discordant yielded an OR for stroke of 3.71 (95% confidence interval, 2.06-6.70).

Stroke risk levels were not evenly spread throughout the 24-hour periods that met the AFib-burden threshold or the 30 days preceding the patients’ strokes. The OR for stroke was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.62-9.55) during days 1-5 following the day in which the AFib-burden threshold was met. And it was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.08-12.01) over 30 days if the AFib burden exceeded 23 hours on any day of the test period.

The study’s case-crossover design, in which each patient served as their own control, is one of its advantages, Dr. Singer observed. Most patient features, including CHA2DS2-VASc score and comorbidities, did not change appreciably from earliest to the latest 30-day period, which strengthens the comparison of the two because “you don’t have to worry about long-term confounding.”

Dr. Singer was supported by the Eliot B. and Edith C. Shoolman fund of the Massachusetts General Hospital. He discloses receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer; and royalties from UpToDate.

Dr. Turakhia discloses personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Sanofi, Pfizer, Myokardia, Johnson & Johnson, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, InCarda Therapeutics, 100Plus, Forward Pharma, and AliveCor; and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the American Heart Association, Apple, and Bayer.

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

Methylphenidate is safe and effective for treating apathy in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Dundanim/shutterstock.com

Results from a phase 3 randomized trial showed that, after 6 months of treatment, mean score on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) apathy subscale decreased by 4.5 points for patients who received methylphenidate vs. a decrease of 3.1 points for those who received placebo.

In addition, the safety profile showed no significant between-group differences.

“Methylphenidate offers a treatment approach providing a modest but potentially clinically significant benefit for patients and caregivers,” said the investigators, led by Jacobo E. Mintzer, MD, MBA, professor of health studies at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.

The findings were published online Sept. 27 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Common problem

Apathy, which is common among patients with AD, is associated with increased risk for mortality, financial burden, and caregiver burden. No treatment has proved effective for apathy in this population.

Two trials of methylphenidate, a catecholaminergic agent, have provided preliminary evidence of efficacy. Findings from the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate trial (ADMET) suggested the drug was associated with improved cognition and few adverse events. However, both trials had small patient populations and short durations.

The current investigators conducted ADMET 2, a 6-month, phase 3 trial, to investigate methylphenidate further. They recruited 200 patients (mean age, 76 years; 66% men; 90% White) at nine clinical centers that specialized in dementia care in the United States and one in Canada.

Eligible patients had a diagnosis of possible or probable AD and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 10 and 28. They also had clinically significant apathy for at least 4 weeks and an available caregiver who spent more than 10 hours a week with the patient.

The researchers randomly assigned patients to receive methylphenidate (n = 99) or placebo (n = 101). For 3 days, participants in the active group received 10 mg/day of methylphenidate. After that point, they received 20 mg/day of methylphenidate for the rest of the study.

Patients in both treatment groups were given the same number of identical-appearing capsules each day.

In-person follow-up visits took place monthly for 6 months. Participants also were contacted by telephone at days 15, 45, and 75 after treatment assignment.

Participants underwent cognitive testing at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The battery of tests included the MMSE, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised Digit Span.

The trial’s two primary outcomes were mean change in NPI apathy score from baseline to 6 months and the odds of an improved rating on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) between baseline and 6 months.

Significant change on either outcome was to be considered a signal of effective treatment.
 

Treatment-specific benefit

Ten patients in the methylphenidate group and seven in the placebo group withdrew during the study.

Mean MMSE score at baseline was 19.2 in the methylphenidate group vs. 18.5 in the placebo group, indicating moderately severe dementia. Mean baseline score on the NPI apathy subscale was 8.0 vs. 7.6, respectively.

In an adjusted, longitudinal model, mean between-group difference in change in NPI apathy score at 6 months was –1.25 (P = .002). The mean NPI apathy score decreased by 4.5 points in the methylphenidate group vs. 3.1 points in the placebo group.

The largest change in apathy score occurred during the first 2 months of treatment. At 6 months, 27% of the methylphenidate group vs. 14% of the placebo group had an NPI apathy score of 0.

In addition, 43.8% of the methylphenidate group had improvement on the ADCS-CGIC compared with 35.2% of the placebo group. The odds ratio (OR) for improvement on ADCS-CGIC for methylphenidate vs. placebo was 1.90 (P = .07).

There was also a strong association between score improvement on the NPI apathy subscale and improvement on the ADCS-CGIC subscale (OR, 2.95; P = .002).

“It is important to note that there were no group differences in any of the cognitive measures, suggesting that the effect of the treatment is specific to the treatment of apathy and not a secondary effect of improvement in cognition,” the researchers wrote.

In all, 17 serious adverse events occurred in the methylphenidate group and 10 occurred in the placebo group. However, all events were found to be hospitalizations for events not related to treatment.
 

‘Enduring effect’

Commenting on the findings, Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, professor of brain sciences at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, noted that the reduction in NPI apathy subscale score of more than 50% was clinically meaningful.

A more robust outcome on the ADCS-CGIC would have been desirable, he added, although that instrument is not designed specifically for apathy.

Methylphenidate’s effect on apathy observed at 2 months and remaining stable throughout the study makes it appear to be “an enduring effect, and not something that the patient accommodates to,” said Dr. Cummings, who was not involved with the research. Such a change may manifest itself in a patient’s greater willingness to help voluntarily with housework or to suggest going for a walk, he noted.

“These are not dramatic changes in cognition, of course, but they are changes in initiative and that is very important,” Dr. Cummings said. Decreased apathy also may improve quality of life for the patient’s caregiver, he added.

Overall, the findings raise the question of whether the Food and Drug Administration should recognize apathy as an indication for which drugs can be approved, said Dr. Cummings.

“For me, that would be the next major step in this line of investigation,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Mintzer has served as an adviser to Praxis Bioresearch and Cerevel Therapeutics on matters unrelated to this study. Dr. Cummings is the author of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory but does not receive payments for it from academic trials such as ADMET 2.
 

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

Methylphenidate is safe and effective for treating apathy in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Dundanim/shutterstock.com

Results from a phase 3 randomized trial showed that, after 6 months of treatment, mean score on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) apathy subscale decreased by 4.5 points for patients who received methylphenidate vs. a decrease of 3.1 points for those who received placebo.

In addition, the safety profile showed no significant between-group differences.

“Methylphenidate offers a treatment approach providing a modest but potentially clinically significant benefit for patients and caregivers,” said the investigators, led by Jacobo E. Mintzer, MD, MBA, professor of health studies at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.

The findings were published online Sept. 27 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Common problem

Apathy, which is common among patients with AD, is associated with increased risk for mortality, financial burden, and caregiver burden. No treatment has proved effective for apathy in this population.

Two trials of methylphenidate, a catecholaminergic agent, have provided preliminary evidence of efficacy. Findings from the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate trial (ADMET) suggested the drug was associated with improved cognition and few adverse events. However, both trials had small patient populations and short durations.

The current investigators conducted ADMET 2, a 6-month, phase 3 trial, to investigate methylphenidate further. They recruited 200 patients (mean age, 76 years; 66% men; 90% White) at nine clinical centers that specialized in dementia care in the United States and one in Canada.

Eligible patients had a diagnosis of possible or probable AD and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 10 and 28. They also had clinically significant apathy for at least 4 weeks and an available caregiver who spent more than 10 hours a week with the patient.

The researchers randomly assigned patients to receive methylphenidate (n = 99) or placebo (n = 101). For 3 days, participants in the active group received 10 mg/day of methylphenidate. After that point, they received 20 mg/day of methylphenidate for the rest of the study.

Patients in both treatment groups were given the same number of identical-appearing capsules each day.

In-person follow-up visits took place monthly for 6 months. Participants also were contacted by telephone at days 15, 45, and 75 after treatment assignment.

Participants underwent cognitive testing at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The battery of tests included the MMSE, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised Digit Span.

The trial’s two primary outcomes were mean change in NPI apathy score from baseline to 6 months and the odds of an improved rating on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) between baseline and 6 months.

Significant change on either outcome was to be considered a signal of effective treatment.
 

Treatment-specific benefit

Ten patients in the methylphenidate group and seven in the placebo group withdrew during the study.

Mean MMSE score at baseline was 19.2 in the methylphenidate group vs. 18.5 in the placebo group, indicating moderately severe dementia. Mean baseline score on the NPI apathy subscale was 8.0 vs. 7.6, respectively.

In an adjusted, longitudinal model, mean between-group difference in change in NPI apathy score at 6 months was –1.25 (P = .002). The mean NPI apathy score decreased by 4.5 points in the methylphenidate group vs. 3.1 points in the placebo group.

The largest change in apathy score occurred during the first 2 months of treatment. At 6 months, 27% of the methylphenidate group vs. 14% of the placebo group had an NPI apathy score of 0.

In addition, 43.8% of the methylphenidate group had improvement on the ADCS-CGIC compared with 35.2% of the placebo group. The odds ratio (OR) for improvement on ADCS-CGIC for methylphenidate vs. placebo was 1.90 (P = .07).

There was also a strong association between score improvement on the NPI apathy subscale and improvement on the ADCS-CGIC subscale (OR, 2.95; P = .002).

“It is important to note that there were no group differences in any of the cognitive measures, suggesting that the effect of the treatment is specific to the treatment of apathy and not a secondary effect of improvement in cognition,” the researchers wrote.

In all, 17 serious adverse events occurred in the methylphenidate group and 10 occurred in the placebo group. However, all events were found to be hospitalizations for events not related to treatment.
 

‘Enduring effect’

Commenting on the findings, Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, professor of brain sciences at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, noted that the reduction in NPI apathy subscale score of more than 50% was clinically meaningful.

A more robust outcome on the ADCS-CGIC would have been desirable, he added, although that instrument is not designed specifically for apathy.

Methylphenidate’s effect on apathy observed at 2 months and remaining stable throughout the study makes it appear to be “an enduring effect, and not something that the patient accommodates to,” said Dr. Cummings, who was not involved with the research. Such a change may manifest itself in a patient’s greater willingness to help voluntarily with housework or to suggest going for a walk, he noted.

“These are not dramatic changes in cognition, of course, but they are changes in initiative and that is very important,” Dr. Cummings said. Decreased apathy also may improve quality of life for the patient’s caregiver, he added.

Overall, the findings raise the question of whether the Food and Drug Administration should recognize apathy as an indication for which drugs can be approved, said Dr. Cummings.

“For me, that would be the next major step in this line of investigation,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Mintzer has served as an adviser to Praxis Bioresearch and Cerevel Therapeutics on matters unrelated to this study. Dr. Cummings is the author of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory but does not receive payments for it from academic trials such as ADMET 2.
 

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

Methylphenidate is safe and effective for treating apathy in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Dundanim/shutterstock.com

Results from a phase 3 randomized trial showed that, after 6 months of treatment, mean score on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) apathy subscale decreased by 4.5 points for patients who received methylphenidate vs. a decrease of 3.1 points for those who received placebo.

In addition, the safety profile showed no significant between-group differences.

“Methylphenidate offers a treatment approach providing a modest but potentially clinically significant benefit for patients and caregivers,” said the investigators, led by Jacobo E. Mintzer, MD, MBA, professor of health studies at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.

The findings were published online Sept. 27 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Common problem

Apathy, which is common among patients with AD, is associated with increased risk for mortality, financial burden, and caregiver burden. No treatment has proved effective for apathy in this population.

Two trials of methylphenidate, a catecholaminergic agent, have provided preliminary evidence of efficacy. Findings from the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate trial (ADMET) suggested the drug was associated with improved cognition and few adverse events. However, both trials had small patient populations and short durations.

The current investigators conducted ADMET 2, a 6-month, phase 3 trial, to investigate methylphenidate further. They recruited 200 patients (mean age, 76 years; 66% men; 90% White) at nine clinical centers that specialized in dementia care in the United States and one in Canada.

Eligible patients had a diagnosis of possible or probable AD and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 10 and 28. They also had clinically significant apathy for at least 4 weeks and an available caregiver who spent more than 10 hours a week with the patient.

The researchers randomly assigned patients to receive methylphenidate (n = 99) or placebo (n = 101). For 3 days, participants in the active group received 10 mg/day of methylphenidate. After that point, they received 20 mg/day of methylphenidate for the rest of the study.

Patients in both treatment groups were given the same number of identical-appearing capsules each day.

In-person follow-up visits took place monthly for 6 months. Participants also were contacted by telephone at days 15, 45, and 75 after treatment assignment.

Participants underwent cognitive testing at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The battery of tests included the MMSE, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised Digit Span.

The trial’s two primary outcomes were mean change in NPI apathy score from baseline to 6 months and the odds of an improved rating on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) between baseline and 6 months.

Significant change on either outcome was to be considered a signal of effective treatment.
 

Treatment-specific benefit

Ten patients in the methylphenidate group and seven in the placebo group withdrew during the study.

Mean MMSE score at baseline was 19.2 in the methylphenidate group vs. 18.5 in the placebo group, indicating moderately severe dementia. Mean baseline score on the NPI apathy subscale was 8.0 vs. 7.6, respectively.

In an adjusted, longitudinal model, mean between-group difference in change in NPI apathy score at 6 months was –1.25 (P = .002). The mean NPI apathy score decreased by 4.5 points in the methylphenidate group vs. 3.1 points in the placebo group.

The largest change in apathy score occurred during the first 2 months of treatment. At 6 months, 27% of the methylphenidate group vs. 14% of the placebo group had an NPI apathy score of 0.

In addition, 43.8% of the methylphenidate group had improvement on the ADCS-CGIC compared with 35.2% of the placebo group. The odds ratio (OR) for improvement on ADCS-CGIC for methylphenidate vs. placebo was 1.90 (P = .07).

There was also a strong association between score improvement on the NPI apathy subscale and improvement on the ADCS-CGIC subscale (OR, 2.95; P = .002).

“It is important to note that there were no group differences in any of the cognitive measures, suggesting that the effect of the treatment is specific to the treatment of apathy and not a secondary effect of improvement in cognition,” the researchers wrote.

In all, 17 serious adverse events occurred in the methylphenidate group and 10 occurred in the placebo group. However, all events were found to be hospitalizations for events not related to treatment.
 

‘Enduring effect’

Commenting on the findings, Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, professor of brain sciences at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, noted that the reduction in NPI apathy subscale score of more than 50% was clinically meaningful.

A more robust outcome on the ADCS-CGIC would have been desirable, he added, although that instrument is not designed specifically for apathy.

Methylphenidate’s effect on apathy observed at 2 months and remaining stable throughout the study makes it appear to be “an enduring effect, and not something that the patient accommodates to,” said Dr. Cummings, who was not involved with the research. Such a change may manifest itself in a patient’s greater willingness to help voluntarily with housework or to suggest going for a walk, he noted.

“These are not dramatic changes in cognition, of course, but they are changes in initiative and that is very important,” Dr. Cummings said. Decreased apathy also may improve quality of life for the patient’s caregiver, he added.

Overall, the findings raise the question of whether the Food and Drug Administration should recognize apathy as an indication for which drugs can be approved, said Dr. Cummings.

“For me, that would be the next major step in this line of investigation,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Mintzer has served as an adviser to Praxis Bioresearch and Cerevel Therapeutics on matters unrelated to this study. Dr. Cummings is the author of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory but does not receive payments for it from academic trials such as ADMET 2.
 

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

In the fall of 1980, my parents made me take a high school class that I was REALLY angry over. It was a waste of time. It was beneath my dignity. It was something I never was going to use. It was embarrassing.

It was ... typing.

And I was completely wrong.

Looking back from 2021, I have to say that, of all the things I learned in high school, it’s probably the skill I depend on the most every day. It’s probably been at least 25 years since I had a day when I didn’t type something.

Some of it is the rise of the Internet and computers, but a lot of it is also the way I run my practice. My schedule isn’t as busy as those of my colleagues in general practice, and I don’t use one of those new-fangled EMRs (my charts are on computer, but not in a specialized program per se).

I’ve always been my own transcriptionist. I type roughly 40 words a minute; certainly not blazing speed, but enough to get the job done. For a few years I used voice dictation, but the only speech program I really liked folded up years ago (yes, ViaVoice, I still miss you).

So now I just type, and proofread, all my own notes. Old-school maybe, certainly not efficient as far as time goes, but it works for me. My thoughts go through my fingers directly into the chart, occasionally pausing to think something through before I put it in or hitting backspace if I think of a better way to phrase it. Typing my own notes lets me turn the case over as I’m hitting the keys, working my way through the differential and what needs to be done.

Writing the notes myself allows me to tell the patient’s story, and think about it in the process. It allows me to work through it again the next time I open the chart, months, or even years, later. Hopefully it shows my thought process and why I did things the way I did for myself, the colleague I’m sending the note to, and any physicians down the line.

I could probably save time with a system that lets me just check boxes or circle pertinent positives and negatives in a template, but that’s not how my thought process works. I feel like I’d be missing something if I did.

And, 41 years later, it’s still a reminder of how much of my parents’ advice was correct. Because at the time, I was pretty sure they were wrong.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In the fall of 1980, my parents made me take a high school class that I was REALLY angry over. It was a waste of time. It was beneath my dignity. It was something I never was going to use. It was embarrassing.

It was ... typing.

And I was completely wrong.

Looking back from 2021, I have to say that, of all the things I learned in high school, it’s probably the skill I depend on the most every day. It’s probably been at least 25 years since I had a day when I didn’t type something.

Some of it is the rise of the Internet and computers, but a lot of it is also the way I run my practice. My schedule isn’t as busy as those of my colleagues in general practice, and I don’t use one of those new-fangled EMRs (my charts are on computer, but not in a specialized program per se).

I’ve always been my own transcriptionist. I type roughly 40 words a minute; certainly not blazing speed, but enough to get the job done. For a few years I used voice dictation, but the only speech program I really liked folded up years ago (yes, ViaVoice, I still miss you).

So now I just type, and proofread, all my own notes. Old-school maybe, certainly not efficient as far as time goes, but it works for me. My thoughts go through my fingers directly into the chart, occasionally pausing to think something through before I put it in or hitting backspace if I think of a better way to phrase it. Typing my own notes lets me turn the case over as I’m hitting the keys, working my way through the differential and what needs to be done.

Writing the notes myself allows me to tell the patient’s story, and think about it in the process. It allows me to work through it again the next time I open the chart, months, or even years, later. Hopefully it shows my thought process and why I did things the way I did for myself, the colleague I’m sending the note to, and any physicians down the line.

I could probably save time with a system that lets me just check boxes or circle pertinent positives and negatives in a template, but that’s not how my thought process works. I feel like I’d be missing something if I did.

And, 41 years later, it’s still a reminder of how much of my parents’ advice was correct. Because at the time, I was pretty sure they were wrong.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In the fall of 1980, my parents made me take a high school class that I was REALLY angry over. It was a waste of time. It was beneath my dignity. It was something I never was going to use. It was embarrassing.

It was ... typing.

And I was completely wrong.

Looking back from 2021, I have to say that, of all the things I learned in high school, it’s probably the skill I depend on the most every day. It’s probably been at least 25 years since I had a day when I didn’t type something.

Some of it is the rise of the Internet and computers, but a lot of it is also the way I run my practice. My schedule isn’t as busy as those of my colleagues in general practice, and I don’t use one of those new-fangled EMRs (my charts are on computer, but not in a specialized program per se).

I’ve always been my own transcriptionist. I type roughly 40 words a minute; certainly not blazing speed, but enough to get the job done. For a few years I used voice dictation, but the only speech program I really liked folded up years ago (yes, ViaVoice, I still miss you).

So now I just type, and proofread, all my own notes. Old-school maybe, certainly not efficient as far as time goes, but it works for me. My thoughts go through my fingers directly into the chart, occasionally pausing to think something through before I put it in or hitting backspace if I think of a better way to phrase it. Typing my own notes lets me turn the case over as I’m hitting the keys, working my way through the differential and what needs to be done.

Writing the notes myself allows me to tell the patient’s story, and think about it in the process. It allows me to work through it again the next time I open the chart, months, or even years, later. Hopefully it shows my thought process and why I did things the way I did for myself, the colleague I’m sending the note to, and any physicians down the line.

I could probably save time with a system that lets me just check boxes or circle pertinent positives and negatives in a template, but that’s not how my thought process works. I feel like I’d be missing something if I did.

And, 41 years later, it’s still a reminder of how much of my parents’ advice was correct. Because at the time, I was pretty sure they were wrong.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.