MDedge Neurology

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

When it comes to SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) seem to have varying effects on risk of worse outcomes, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.

Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.

The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.

The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.

Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.

The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.

The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.

To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).

Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).

Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

When it comes to SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) seem to have varying effects on risk of worse outcomes, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.

Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.

The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.

The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.

Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.

The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.

The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.

To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).

Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).

Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

When it comes to SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) seem to have varying effects on risk of worse outcomes, according to a new analysis of an Italian cohort of patients with MS. The study confirmed that steroid exposure in the month before COVID-19 symptom onset is tied to more severe disease, and anti-CD20 therapy poses similar risks. But the researchers noted that interferon and possibly teriflunomide were associated with a protective effect in the multivariate analysis.

Maria Pia Sormani, PhD, who is a professor of biostatistics at the University of Genoa, presented the study at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The results confirm some previous analyses, and add to the body of evidence clinicians rely on, according to Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, who moderated the session. “These data about the risk with the anti-CD20 therapies have been around for a while, but it seems that risk is pretty apparent, with this registry and other registries around the world. It affects counseling to patients on anti-CD20 therapies. We would counsel them to be cautious, obviously, follow public health precautions, but maybe be even more cautious. It affects our recommendations about the urgency of vaccination in these folks, how high priority they should be,” Dr. Oh said in an interview. She is the clinical director of the Barlo MS Center at St. Michael’s Unity Health in Toronto.

The analysis also hinted at complexities within demographics that might help explain some of the differing outcomes of infections. “We have learned that the course of the viral infection per se may not be the cause of severe outcomes, but the exaggerated inflammatory response to the virus is mainly responsible for intubations and deaths. The hypothesis we are investigating is whether anti-CD20 therapies can cause a more severe viral infection (that is something already known for other viral infections) but do not play a crucial role in causing the explosion of the inflammatory process,” said Dr. Sormani in an email.

The group plans to look at the risk of anti-CD20 therapies in different age groups, “to try to understand the underlying mechanism through which anti-CD20 increases the risk of more severe outcome,” she said.

Dr. Sormani presented an analysis of 3,274 patients with MS who contracted COVID-19 in Italy. The mean age was 44, the median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 2, Among the study cohort, 68.6% were female; 14% had progressive MS and 26 patients died. Patients who died had a mean age of 63, 48% were female, 73% had progressive MS, and 50% were not on any DMT.

The researchers used ordinal logistic regression that “orders” outcome on a severity scale of 0 (mild disease, no pneumonia or hospitalization), 1 (pneumonia or hospitalization, n = 184), or 2 (ICU admission or death, n = 36). They calculated the odds ratio of moving from 0 to 1, or 1 to 2, and carried the assumption that the risk is the same. For example, an odds ratio of 2 for males versus females would mean that males are twice as likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to go from being hospitalized to going to the ICU or dying.

The researchers found that older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes. Exposure to methylprednisolone 1 month before COVID-19 symptom onset carried an increased risk (OR, 2.33; P = .03). Compared with no therapy, receiving interferon was associated with lower risk (OR, 0.34; P = .009) and teriflunomide trended towards an association with better outcomes (OR, 0.49; P = .054). Anti-CD20 treatment (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was linked to worse outcomes (OR, 1.89; P = .012) overall, which held up when ocrelizumab (OR, 1.71; P = .04) and rituximab (OR, 2.77; P = .03) were considered separately.

To understand why the risk of ocrelizumab might be lower, the researchers examined risk by duration of anti-CD20 treatment, and found that risk increased with increased duration of treatment, with the lowest risk at treatment duration less than 6 months (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.65-3.77; not significant), followed by 6 months to 1 year (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 0.69-4.03; P < .001), 1-2 years (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.83-3.64; trend), and the highest risk at more than 2 years (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.28-5.88).

Dr. Sormani suggested that the greater risk associated with rituximab may be because of a tendency towards longer treatment length, since patients treated with rituximab were more often treated for greater lengths of time; 11% had been treated for 6 months or less (vs. 24% of ocrelizumab patients); 26%, 6-12 months (vs. 18% ocrelizumab); 19%, 1-2 years (vs. 37% ocrelizumab); and 44%, 2 years or longer (vs. 21% ocrelizumab).

Dr. Sormani has received consulting fees from Biogen, GeNeuro, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Immunic. The platform for data collection was donated by Merck. Dr. Oh has consulted for Roche, Celgene, Biogen-Idec, EMD-Serono, Sanofi-Genzyme, Novartis, Alexion. She has been on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Roche, Biogen-Idec, and Sanofi-Genzyme.

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired with intensive rehabilitation for moderate to severe arm weakness months or even years after stroke may lead to a greater improvement in arm function than rehabilitation alone, according to preliminary results of a randomized clinical trial at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“We believe that vagus nerve stimulation combined with rehabilitation is an acceptable and effective intervention for improving upper-limb impairment and function in people with moderate to severe arm weakness a long time VNS-REHAB pivotal study is a randomized, blinded, controlled trial of 108 people who had upper-extremity weakness after having a stroke at least 9 months before enrollment. The average for the group was 3 years post stroke after ischemic stroke,” said Jesse Dawson, MD, a professor at the University of Glasgow.

The Fifty-three patients were assigned active VNS followed by 6 weeks of in-clinic rehabilitation and then 90 days of home-based rehab. At in-clinic rehab, the therapist initiated a 5-second burst of VNS stimulation during each movement. In home-base treatment, the device was activated by a magnet.

Fifty-five patients were assigned sham VNS. After 90 days, the sham group crossed over to receive VNS for 6 weeks and then 90 days of home exercise. This crossover group was the focus of the data Dr. Dawson presented at AAN 2021. The overall trial results have been published in the Lancet.

“The hypothesis is based on the knowledge that the VNS stimulates the release of proneuroplastic neuromodulators norepinephrine and acetylcholine,” Dr. Dawson said. “By pairing VNS with task-specific movement, we hypothesize that we will increase task-specific neuroplasticity.”

The main study showed “a statistically significant difference across all primary and secondary endpoints at all time points in favor of rehabilitation paired with VNS,” Dr. Dawson said. The primary outcome was improvement in Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) outcome, with the active VNS group having a significantly higher percentage of responders. For example, 47% of the active VNS patients had a greater than 6-point response on FMA-UE improvement versus 27% of the sham group (P = .010).

When the sham group crossed over to active VNS, the improvement in arm function matched that of the treatment group in the main study, Dr. Dawson said. “If you look at specifically what happened after they completed the control phase, there was a further small increase in Fugl-Meyer score, but, more importantly between 20% and 35% achieved a clinically important response on the Fugl-Meyer assessment or the Wolf Motor Function Test, giving a number need to treat ranging from three to five,” he said.

Dr. Dawson said that data on adverse events was presented in the Lancet publication. “These were observed at expected frequencies,” he said.

In an interview, he explained the significance of reporting the number to treat. “The number needed to treat helps give an idea of how many times you need to do something to achieve the desired outcome. So for VNS paired with rehab versus rehab alone, you need to treat four people to get one extra clinically important response, compared with just doing therapy.”

The next steps for his group’s research, he said, “will be to try and explore whether we can predict who responds best, and we would like to see if people with other types of stroke benefit.”

In providing comment on the study, Andreas Luft, MD, a professor at the University Hospital Zürich, noted that the FME-UE score improvements reported “are significant and meaningful. ... However, they may also be achieved by increasing the intensity of training. Many medical systems offer their patients high rehabilitation intensities and achieve similar improvements. Whether VNS can further boost higher-intensity training ‘beyond its limits’ is probable but remains to be demonstrated.”

Dr. Luft noted the study advances the knowledge of combining a therapeutic approach with training. “More such approaches are necessary to increase the therapeutic instrumentation of neurorehabilitation,” he said.

Dr. Dawson reported a financial relationship with MicroTransponder. His coauthors reported relationships with MicroTransponder, SanBio, Fujifilm Toyoma Chemical, Medtronic, TRCare, SAEBO, Allergan/AbbVie, Ipsen, Merz, Ottobock/Hangar Orthopedics, Parker Hannifin, Revance Therapeutics, ReWallk, and Sword Health. Three coauthors are employees of MicroTransponder. Dr. Luft has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired with intensive rehabilitation for moderate to severe arm weakness months or even years after stroke may lead to a greater improvement in arm function than rehabilitation alone, according to preliminary results of a randomized clinical trial at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“We believe that vagus nerve stimulation combined with rehabilitation is an acceptable and effective intervention for improving upper-limb impairment and function in people with moderate to severe arm weakness a long time VNS-REHAB pivotal study is a randomized, blinded, controlled trial of 108 people who had upper-extremity weakness after having a stroke at least 9 months before enrollment. The average for the group was 3 years post stroke after ischemic stroke,” said Jesse Dawson, MD, a professor at the University of Glasgow.

The Fifty-three patients were assigned active VNS followed by 6 weeks of in-clinic rehabilitation and then 90 days of home-based rehab. At in-clinic rehab, the therapist initiated a 5-second burst of VNS stimulation during each movement. In home-base treatment, the device was activated by a magnet.

Fifty-five patients were assigned sham VNS. After 90 days, the sham group crossed over to receive VNS for 6 weeks and then 90 days of home exercise. This crossover group was the focus of the data Dr. Dawson presented at AAN 2021. The overall trial results have been published in the Lancet.

“The hypothesis is based on the knowledge that the VNS stimulates the release of proneuroplastic neuromodulators norepinephrine and acetylcholine,” Dr. Dawson said. “By pairing VNS with task-specific movement, we hypothesize that we will increase task-specific neuroplasticity.”

The main study showed “a statistically significant difference across all primary and secondary endpoints at all time points in favor of rehabilitation paired with VNS,” Dr. Dawson said. The primary outcome was improvement in Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) outcome, with the active VNS group having a significantly higher percentage of responders. For example, 47% of the active VNS patients had a greater than 6-point response on FMA-UE improvement versus 27% of the sham group (P = .010).

When the sham group crossed over to active VNS, the improvement in arm function matched that of the treatment group in the main study, Dr. Dawson said. “If you look at specifically what happened after they completed the control phase, there was a further small increase in Fugl-Meyer score, but, more importantly between 20% and 35% achieved a clinically important response on the Fugl-Meyer assessment or the Wolf Motor Function Test, giving a number need to treat ranging from three to five,” he said.

Dr. Dawson said that data on adverse events was presented in the Lancet publication. “These were observed at expected frequencies,” he said.

In an interview, he explained the significance of reporting the number to treat. “The number needed to treat helps give an idea of how many times you need to do something to achieve the desired outcome. So for VNS paired with rehab versus rehab alone, you need to treat four people to get one extra clinically important response, compared with just doing therapy.”

The next steps for his group’s research, he said, “will be to try and explore whether we can predict who responds best, and we would like to see if people with other types of stroke benefit.”

In providing comment on the study, Andreas Luft, MD, a professor at the University Hospital Zürich, noted that the FME-UE score improvements reported “are significant and meaningful. ... However, they may also be achieved by increasing the intensity of training. Many medical systems offer their patients high rehabilitation intensities and achieve similar improvements. Whether VNS can further boost higher-intensity training ‘beyond its limits’ is probable but remains to be demonstrated.”

Dr. Luft noted the study advances the knowledge of combining a therapeutic approach with training. “More such approaches are necessary to increase the therapeutic instrumentation of neurorehabilitation,” he said.

Dr. Dawson reported a financial relationship with MicroTransponder. His coauthors reported relationships with MicroTransponder, SanBio, Fujifilm Toyoma Chemical, Medtronic, TRCare, SAEBO, Allergan/AbbVie, Ipsen, Merz, Ottobock/Hangar Orthopedics, Parker Hannifin, Revance Therapeutics, ReWallk, and Sword Health. Three coauthors are employees of MicroTransponder. Dr. Luft has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired with intensive rehabilitation for moderate to severe arm weakness months or even years after stroke may lead to a greater improvement in arm function than rehabilitation alone, according to preliminary results of a randomized clinical trial at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“We believe that vagus nerve stimulation combined with rehabilitation is an acceptable and effective intervention for improving upper-limb impairment and function in people with moderate to severe arm weakness a long time VNS-REHAB pivotal study is a randomized, blinded, controlled trial of 108 people who had upper-extremity weakness after having a stroke at least 9 months before enrollment. The average for the group was 3 years post stroke after ischemic stroke,” said Jesse Dawson, MD, a professor at the University of Glasgow.

The Fifty-three patients were assigned active VNS followed by 6 weeks of in-clinic rehabilitation and then 90 days of home-based rehab. At in-clinic rehab, the therapist initiated a 5-second burst of VNS stimulation during each movement. In home-base treatment, the device was activated by a magnet.

Fifty-five patients were assigned sham VNS. After 90 days, the sham group crossed over to receive VNS for 6 weeks and then 90 days of home exercise. This crossover group was the focus of the data Dr. Dawson presented at AAN 2021. The overall trial results have been published in the Lancet.

“The hypothesis is based on the knowledge that the VNS stimulates the release of proneuroplastic neuromodulators norepinephrine and acetylcholine,” Dr. Dawson said. “By pairing VNS with task-specific movement, we hypothesize that we will increase task-specific neuroplasticity.”

The main study showed “a statistically significant difference across all primary and secondary endpoints at all time points in favor of rehabilitation paired with VNS,” Dr. Dawson said. The primary outcome was improvement in Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) outcome, with the active VNS group having a significantly higher percentage of responders. For example, 47% of the active VNS patients had a greater than 6-point response on FMA-UE improvement versus 27% of the sham group (P = .010).

When the sham group crossed over to active VNS, the improvement in arm function matched that of the treatment group in the main study, Dr. Dawson said. “If you look at specifically what happened after they completed the control phase, there was a further small increase in Fugl-Meyer score, but, more importantly between 20% and 35% achieved a clinically important response on the Fugl-Meyer assessment or the Wolf Motor Function Test, giving a number need to treat ranging from three to five,” he said.

Dr. Dawson said that data on adverse events was presented in the Lancet publication. “These were observed at expected frequencies,” he said.

In an interview, he explained the significance of reporting the number to treat. “The number needed to treat helps give an idea of how many times you need to do something to achieve the desired outcome. So for VNS paired with rehab versus rehab alone, you need to treat four people to get one extra clinically important response, compared with just doing therapy.”

The next steps for his group’s research, he said, “will be to try and explore whether we can predict who responds best, and we would like to see if people with other types of stroke benefit.”

In providing comment on the study, Andreas Luft, MD, a professor at the University Hospital Zürich, noted that the FME-UE score improvements reported “are significant and meaningful. ... However, they may also be achieved by increasing the intensity of training. Many medical systems offer their patients high rehabilitation intensities and achieve similar improvements. Whether VNS can further boost higher-intensity training ‘beyond its limits’ is probable but remains to be demonstrated.”

Dr. Luft noted the study advances the knowledge of combining a therapeutic approach with training. “More such approaches are necessary to increase the therapeutic instrumentation of neurorehabilitation,” he said.

Dr. Dawson reported a financial relationship with MicroTransponder. His coauthors reported relationships with MicroTransponder, SanBio, Fujifilm Toyoma Chemical, Medtronic, TRCare, SAEBO, Allergan/AbbVie, Ipsen, Merz, Ottobock/Hangar Orthopedics, Parker Hannifin, Revance Therapeutics, ReWallk, and Sword Health. Three coauthors are employees of MicroTransponder. Dr. Luft has no relevant relationships to disclose.

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

One consequence of the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States may be an increase in the number of hemorrhagic strokes caused by infective endocarditis, research suggests.

Intravenous drug use (IVDU) can cause this bacterial infection of the heart. In a single-center study, infective endocarditis was associated with an increase in the risk for hemorrhagic stroke as well as an increase in health care use and costs.

“Patients who are known IV drug users who have endocarditis should be more carefully screened for symptoms of cardiovascular disease,” Shahid M. Nimjee, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery and surgical director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in a press release.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

In the United States, 47,000 patients are treated in the hospital for endocarditis each year. Endocarditis increases the risk for stroke, which can entail significant morbidity and mortality, the authors noted.

IVDU is a risk factor for endocarditis. In the context of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Nimjee and colleagues sought to compare the risk for stroke among patients with endocarditis from IVDU with the risk among patients with endocarditis from other causes.

They retrospectively studied patients who had undergone treatment for infective endocarditis at Wexner Medical Center between Jan. 1, 2014, and July 1, 2018. They examined patients’ concomitant intravenous drug abuse and evaluated demographics, risk factors, and associated costs.
 

Dramatic increase

In all, 351 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria, and 170 (48%) had a history of IVDU-associated endocarditis. The incidence of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis increased 630% from 2014 to 2018.

The prevalence of overall intracranial hemorrhage was increased among patients with IVDU, compared with those without (25.9% vs. 13.9%; P = .005).

This increase in prevalence included increases in intraparenchymal hemorrhage (12.4% vs. 5.1%; P = .012), subarachnoid hemorrhage (17.6% vs. 4.4%; P = .0001), and cerebral microbleeds (14.1% vs. 7.2%; P = .022).

IVDU also was associated with an increase in prevalence of infectious intracranial aneurysm (10.6% vs. 1.8%; P = .0001) and brain abscess (4.7% vs. 1.1%; P = .025).

Compared with patients with endocarditis from other causes, significantly higher numbers of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis were homeless (5.9% vs. 1.1%; P = .014), uninsured (10.0% vs. 2.8%; P = .005), and unemployed (75.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .0001).

Medical costs were more than twice as high among patients with endocarditis from IVDU than among those with endocarditis from other causes. The difference in health care costs during admission per patient was more than $100,000.

“The wider societal impact of the opioid epidemic is not well understood,” Dr. Nimjee said in the press release. “Our research suggests that the impact of the opioid epidemic is far-reaching and contributes to increased costs in the criminal justice, health care systems, and the workplace. The increased costs can be particularly substantial for stroke care.”
 

Nationwide data desirable

“Past publications from the U.S. have shown an increase in incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, and the current publication emphasizes this worrying trend,” Manuel Bolognese, MD, head of the stroke center at the Lucerne (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital, said in an interview. “The higher degree of hemorrhagic strokes and brain abscesses as further complications is alarming as well and shows that IVDU-related endocarditis is becoming a more and more relevant medical problem in the U.S., with high morbidity and mortality.”

The study period is long enough to show a clear trend of increasing incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, Dr. Bolognese said. The study’s biggest weaknesses are its retrospective design and restriction to a single center.

“Without knowing the prevalence of drug abuse and the socioeconomical situation in Columbus, it is difficult to generalize these findings to other regions in the U.S.A. or even abroad,” he said.

Also, the abstract does not provide some essential information, said Dr. Bolognese. It would be important to know which valve was affected in each patient, which bacteria were identified, whether patients also used nonopioid drugs, and what each patient’s immune status was.

A lack of sterile material such as syringes could explain the apparent association between IVDU-associated endocarditis and low socioeconomic status, said Dr. Bolognese. Delayed presentation to medical institutions because of a lack of insurance could have led to a more complicated course.

“It would be interesting to see numbers from a broader spectrum in a nationwide registry,” said Dr. Bolognese. “It might be worth studying interventions to improve the hygienic aspects (like supply of sterile material, especially in the most vulnerable groups, like homeless people) or to provide easier access to emergency health care despite lack of insurance, which could decrease the incidence of IVDU.”

Dr. Nimjee and Dr. Bolognese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One consequence of the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States may be an increase in the number of hemorrhagic strokes caused by infective endocarditis, research suggests.

Intravenous drug use (IVDU) can cause this bacterial infection of the heart. In a single-center study, infective endocarditis was associated with an increase in the risk for hemorrhagic stroke as well as an increase in health care use and costs.

“Patients who are known IV drug users who have endocarditis should be more carefully screened for symptoms of cardiovascular disease,” Shahid M. Nimjee, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery and surgical director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in a press release.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

In the United States, 47,000 patients are treated in the hospital for endocarditis each year. Endocarditis increases the risk for stroke, which can entail significant morbidity and mortality, the authors noted.

IVDU is a risk factor for endocarditis. In the context of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Nimjee and colleagues sought to compare the risk for stroke among patients with endocarditis from IVDU with the risk among patients with endocarditis from other causes.

They retrospectively studied patients who had undergone treatment for infective endocarditis at Wexner Medical Center between Jan. 1, 2014, and July 1, 2018. They examined patients’ concomitant intravenous drug abuse and evaluated demographics, risk factors, and associated costs.
 

Dramatic increase

In all, 351 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria, and 170 (48%) had a history of IVDU-associated endocarditis. The incidence of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis increased 630% from 2014 to 2018.

The prevalence of overall intracranial hemorrhage was increased among patients with IVDU, compared with those without (25.9% vs. 13.9%; P = .005).

This increase in prevalence included increases in intraparenchymal hemorrhage (12.4% vs. 5.1%; P = .012), subarachnoid hemorrhage (17.6% vs. 4.4%; P = .0001), and cerebral microbleeds (14.1% vs. 7.2%; P = .022).

IVDU also was associated with an increase in prevalence of infectious intracranial aneurysm (10.6% vs. 1.8%; P = .0001) and brain abscess (4.7% vs. 1.1%; P = .025).

Compared with patients with endocarditis from other causes, significantly higher numbers of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis were homeless (5.9% vs. 1.1%; P = .014), uninsured (10.0% vs. 2.8%; P = .005), and unemployed (75.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .0001).

Medical costs were more than twice as high among patients with endocarditis from IVDU than among those with endocarditis from other causes. The difference in health care costs during admission per patient was more than $100,000.

“The wider societal impact of the opioid epidemic is not well understood,” Dr. Nimjee said in the press release. “Our research suggests that the impact of the opioid epidemic is far-reaching and contributes to increased costs in the criminal justice, health care systems, and the workplace. The increased costs can be particularly substantial for stroke care.”
 

Nationwide data desirable

“Past publications from the U.S. have shown an increase in incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, and the current publication emphasizes this worrying trend,” Manuel Bolognese, MD, head of the stroke center at the Lucerne (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital, said in an interview. “The higher degree of hemorrhagic strokes and brain abscesses as further complications is alarming as well and shows that IVDU-related endocarditis is becoming a more and more relevant medical problem in the U.S., with high morbidity and mortality.”

The study period is long enough to show a clear trend of increasing incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, Dr. Bolognese said. The study’s biggest weaknesses are its retrospective design and restriction to a single center.

“Without knowing the prevalence of drug abuse and the socioeconomical situation in Columbus, it is difficult to generalize these findings to other regions in the U.S.A. or even abroad,” he said.

Also, the abstract does not provide some essential information, said Dr. Bolognese. It would be important to know which valve was affected in each patient, which bacteria were identified, whether patients also used nonopioid drugs, and what each patient’s immune status was.

A lack of sterile material such as syringes could explain the apparent association between IVDU-associated endocarditis and low socioeconomic status, said Dr. Bolognese. Delayed presentation to medical institutions because of a lack of insurance could have led to a more complicated course.

“It would be interesting to see numbers from a broader spectrum in a nationwide registry,” said Dr. Bolognese. “It might be worth studying interventions to improve the hygienic aspects (like supply of sterile material, especially in the most vulnerable groups, like homeless people) or to provide easier access to emergency health care despite lack of insurance, which could decrease the incidence of IVDU.”

Dr. Nimjee and Dr. Bolognese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One consequence of the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States may be an increase in the number of hemorrhagic strokes caused by infective endocarditis, research suggests.

Intravenous drug use (IVDU) can cause this bacterial infection of the heart. In a single-center study, infective endocarditis was associated with an increase in the risk for hemorrhagic stroke as well as an increase in health care use and costs.

“Patients who are known IV drug users who have endocarditis should be more carefully screened for symptoms of cardiovascular disease,” Shahid M. Nimjee, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurosurgery and surgical director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in a press release.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

In the United States, 47,000 patients are treated in the hospital for endocarditis each year. Endocarditis increases the risk for stroke, which can entail significant morbidity and mortality, the authors noted.

IVDU is a risk factor for endocarditis. In the context of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Nimjee and colleagues sought to compare the risk for stroke among patients with endocarditis from IVDU with the risk among patients with endocarditis from other causes.

They retrospectively studied patients who had undergone treatment for infective endocarditis at Wexner Medical Center between Jan. 1, 2014, and July 1, 2018. They examined patients’ concomitant intravenous drug abuse and evaluated demographics, risk factors, and associated costs.
 

Dramatic increase

In all, 351 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria, and 170 (48%) had a history of IVDU-associated endocarditis. The incidence of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis increased 630% from 2014 to 2018.

The prevalence of overall intracranial hemorrhage was increased among patients with IVDU, compared with those without (25.9% vs. 13.9%; P = .005).

This increase in prevalence included increases in intraparenchymal hemorrhage (12.4% vs. 5.1%; P = .012), subarachnoid hemorrhage (17.6% vs. 4.4%; P = .0001), and cerebral microbleeds (14.1% vs. 7.2%; P = .022).

IVDU also was associated with an increase in prevalence of infectious intracranial aneurysm (10.6% vs. 1.8%; P = .0001) and brain abscess (4.7% vs. 1.1%; P = .025).

Compared with patients with endocarditis from other causes, significantly higher numbers of patients with IVDU-associated endocarditis were homeless (5.9% vs. 1.1%; P = .014), uninsured (10.0% vs. 2.8%; P = .005), and unemployed (75.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .0001).

Medical costs were more than twice as high among patients with endocarditis from IVDU than among those with endocarditis from other causes. The difference in health care costs during admission per patient was more than $100,000.

“The wider societal impact of the opioid epidemic is not well understood,” Dr. Nimjee said in the press release. “Our research suggests that the impact of the opioid epidemic is far-reaching and contributes to increased costs in the criminal justice, health care systems, and the workplace. The increased costs can be particularly substantial for stroke care.”
 

Nationwide data desirable

“Past publications from the U.S. have shown an increase in incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, and the current publication emphasizes this worrying trend,” Manuel Bolognese, MD, head of the stroke center at the Lucerne (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital, said in an interview. “The higher degree of hemorrhagic strokes and brain abscesses as further complications is alarming as well and shows that IVDU-related endocarditis is becoming a more and more relevant medical problem in the U.S., with high morbidity and mortality.”

The study period is long enough to show a clear trend of increasing incidence of IVDU-related endocarditis, Dr. Bolognese said. The study’s biggest weaknesses are its retrospective design and restriction to a single center.

“Without knowing the prevalence of drug abuse and the socioeconomical situation in Columbus, it is difficult to generalize these findings to other regions in the U.S.A. or even abroad,” he said.

Also, the abstract does not provide some essential information, said Dr. Bolognese. It would be important to know which valve was affected in each patient, which bacteria were identified, whether patients also used nonopioid drugs, and what each patient’s immune status was.

A lack of sterile material such as syringes could explain the apparent association between IVDU-associated endocarditis and low socioeconomic status, said Dr. Bolognese. Delayed presentation to medical institutions because of a lack of insurance could have led to a more complicated course.

“It would be interesting to see numbers from a broader spectrum in a nationwide registry,” said Dr. Bolognese. “It might be worth studying interventions to improve the hygienic aspects (like supply of sterile material, especially in the most vulnerable groups, like homeless people) or to provide easier access to emergency health care despite lack of insurance, which could decrease the incidence of IVDU.”

Dr. Nimjee and Dr. Bolognese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Further evidence supporting the safety of two antiseizure medications in pregnancy has come from a new study. The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study found no difference in neurobehavioral development in children at age 3 born to women with epilepsy compared with children of healthy women without epilepsy. Most of the women with epilepsy in the study took either lamotrigine or levetiracetam, or a combination of the two, during their pregnancy.

However, a secondary analysis suggested a possible signal of exposure-dependent effects on child outcomes – worse outcomes with higher exposure levels – with levetiracetam.

The results were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Additional reassurance

“Our new study adds confidence to the use of lamotrigine and levetiracetam during pregnancy, adding larger numbers with a new cohort. In addition, it provides some preliminary data on some of the other new antiseizure medications, and it is the first study to address the effects of clearance in pregnancy to better assess exposure,” said lead investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD. “Overall, I am reassured by this data, but there is still a lot that is unknown,” he added.

“Our main results show no difference in verbal index or general conceptual ability scores in children born to women with epilepsy compared to children born to healthy women. This is a big positive message,” Dr. Meador said.   

In terms of secondary analysis focusing on exposure levels (dose and blood levels of antiseizure medications), there was no overall signal of harm when looking at the whole group, but when the researchers analyzed the data on individual drugs, they found a “slight signal” toward reduced verbal index scores with increasing exposure levels with levetiracetam. No differences were seen on general conceptual ability. 

“In the secondary analysis, there was a marginal signal for exposure levels with levetiracetam, with increased blood levels of the drug associated with reduced verbal index scores,” reported Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We saw some signal in the children when they were 2 years old, and this was still there but not as striking at 3 years old.” 

He said these secondary results should be interpreted with extreme caution. “We don’t want to overemphasize these secondary findings, as the primary outcome showed no difference, and there was no effect on exposure levels when looking at all the drugs together. I don’t want to oversimplify this, as I am still not sure whether this is a real association or not,” Dr. Meador commented.

He explained that conducting neurobehavioral tests on 2- and 3-year-olds was very difficult. “It is more of an art form than science, and as the children get older these signals often dissipate. We will know more by the time they are 6, when these tests become easier to conduct,” he said. He also noted that the results would need to be replicated in a different cohort.

“I don’t think these results would change how we manage women during pregnancy in terms of using levetiracetam. It is still a safe drug during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said.

He pointed out that data on safety in pregnancy is only available for very few antiseizure drugs. “There are over 30 antiseizure medications, but we have adequate data in pregnancy on only a handful. We have data suggesting lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine appear to be relatively safe, and evidence showing phenobarbital and valproate are not safe.”

Antiseizure medications as a class are among the most commonly prescribed teratogenic drugs given to women of childbearing age, Dr. Meador noted. They are used not only for epilepsy but also for many other psychiatric and pain indications, so these results are applicable to quite a broad population, he added.

He pointed out that previous studies did not assess exposure using blood levels, which is important, as clearance of drug increases during pregnancy but varies across antiseizure medications and across individuals on the same drug. “Thus, it is unclear if these changes could obscure exposure-dependent effects. Our present studies assessed blood levels to better measure fetal exposure.”
 

Advice for pregnant patients with epilepsy

Dr. Meador explained that risk for adverse effects with antiseizure medication always needs to be balanced with risk for seizures if the medication was not used.

“In women planning a pregnancy, we recommend that they plan ahead with their physician to try and use the safest antiseizure medication and gain good control beforehand and then maintain the same blood levels of whichever drug is being used during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said. “At present, lamotrigine and levetiracetam are the two safest drugs to use in pregnancy. They both look generally very safe compared with some other epilepsy drugs – such as valproate, which poses a serious risk to cognitive and behavioral development.” 

He also advised that women should be taking folic acid regularly, as this has been shown to be related to improved cognitive and behavioral outcomes. “Since half of pregnancies are not planned, it is important to take these actions before pregnancy,” he added.

The current study involved 289 women with epilepsy and 89 women without epilepsy, all of whom enrolled in the study during pregnancy. Use of antiseizure medications was recorded. Of the women with epilepsy, 74% were on monotherapy, with 43% on lamotrigine and 37% on levetiracetam. There were 4% who took no drug and 22% took more than one drug. Of those who took more than one drug, close to half took a combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. Levels of medications in the blood of the women with epilepsy were measured in the third trimester.
 

Assessment of neurobehavioral development

For the current analysis, the children were evaluated at age 3 with a series of cognitive and developmental tests that measured vocabulary, listening comprehension, number recall, and pattern recognition, and results were adjusted for mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, postbirth average BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory score), and child’s ethnicity, sex, and breastfeeding status.

The primary outcome showed that verbal Index scores at age 3 did not differ for children of women with epilepsy versus those for children of women without epilepsy (LS mean 102.7 vs. 102.1).

Antiseizure medication exposure as evident by the maximum third trimester blood levels was not related to verbal index scores (n = 265; adjusted parameter estimate, -1.9; 95% confidence interval, -6.8 to 3.1).

General conceptual ability scores also did not differ between the two groups: 105.1 for children of women with epilepsy versus 103.5 for children of healthy women.

In terms of exposure levels, the third trimester maximum observed ratio of antiseizure medication blood levels was not significantly associated with adjusted general conceptual ability scores for children of women with epilepsy; neither were monotherapies or polytherapies evaluated separately, Dr. Meador reported.

However, when the verbal index scores for the main antiepileptic drug groups were analyzed separately, exposure level to levetiracetam was the only one that was significant, with a P value of .028. But Dr. Meador again stressed that this finding should be interpreted with caution given that it is a secondary exploratory analysis without control for multiple comparisons.

The researchers plan to assess these children at older ages where evaluations are more sensitive to ultimate outcomes.

“Information on use in pregnancy for most antiseizure medications is still unknown, so further studies to assess risks for the newer antiseizure medications are needed,” Dr. Meador added. “Further, additional research is needed on the underlying mechanisms including genetic predispositions, since teratogens act on a susceptible genotype.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

Further evidence supporting the safety of two antiseizure medications in pregnancy has come from a new study. The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study found no difference in neurobehavioral development in children at age 3 born to women with epilepsy compared with children of healthy women without epilepsy. Most of the women with epilepsy in the study took either lamotrigine or levetiracetam, or a combination of the two, during their pregnancy.

However, a secondary analysis suggested a possible signal of exposure-dependent effects on child outcomes – worse outcomes with higher exposure levels – with levetiracetam.

The results were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Additional reassurance

“Our new study adds confidence to the use of lamotrigine and levetiracetam during pregnancy, adding larger numbers with a new cohort. In addition, it provides some preliminary data on some of the other new antiseizure medications, and it is the first study to address the effects of clearance in pregnancy to better assess exposure,” said lead investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD. “Overall, I am reassured by this data, but there is still a lot that is unknown,” he added.

“Our main results show no difference in verbal index or general conceptual ability scores in children born to women with epilepsy compared to children born to healthy women. This is a big positive message,” Dr. Meador said.   

In terms of secondary analysis focusing on exposure levels (dose and blood levels of antiseizure medications), there was no overall signal of harm when looking at the whole group, but when the researchers analyzed the data on individual drugs, they found a “slight signal” toward reduced verbal index scores with increasing exposure levels with levetiracetam. No differences were seen on general conceptual ability. 

“In the secondary analysis, there was a marginal signal for exposure levels with levetiracetam, with increased blood levels of the drug associated with reduced verbal index scores,” reported Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We saw some signal in the children when they were 2 years old, and this was still there but not as striking at 3 years old.” 

He said these secondary results should be interpreted with extreme caution. “We don’t want to overemphasize these secondary findings, as the primary outcome showed no difference, and there was no effect on exposure levels when looking at all the drugs together. I don’t want to oversimplify this, as I am still not sure whether this is a real association or not,” Dr. Meador commented.

He explained that conducting neurobehavioral tests on 2- and 3-year-olds was very difficult. “It is more of an art form than science, and as the children get older these signals often dissipate. We will know more by the time they are 6, when these tests become easier to conduct,” he said. He also noted that the results would need to be replicated in a different cohort.

“I don’t think these results would change how we manage women during pregnancy in terms of using levetiracetam. It is still a safe drug during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said.

He pointed out that data on safety in pregnancy is only available for very few antiseizure drugs. “There are over 30 antiseizure medications, but we have adequate data in pregnancy on only a handful. We have data suggesting lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine appear to be relatively safe, and evidence showing phenobarbital and valproate are not safe.”

Antiseizure medications as a class are among the most commonly prescribed teratogenic drugs given to women of childbearing age, Dr. Meador noted. They are used not only for epilepsy but also for many other psychiatric and pain indications, so these results are applicable to quite a broad population, he added.

He pointed out that previous studies did not assess exposure using blood levels, which is important, as clearance of drug increases during pregnancy but varies across antiseizure medications and across individuals on the same drug. “Thus, it is unclear if these changes could obscure exposure-dependent effects. Our present studies assessed blood levels to better measure fetal exposure.”
 

Advice for pregnant patients with epilepsy

Dr. Meador explained that risk for adverse effects with antiseizure medication always needs to be balanced with risk for seizures if the medication was not used.

“In women planning a pregnancy, we recommend that they plan ahead with their physician to try and use the safest antiseizure medication and gain good control beforehand and then maintain the same blood levels of whichever drug is being used during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said. “At present, lamotrigine and levetiracetam are the two safest drugs to use in pregnancy. They both look generally very safe compared with some other epilepsy drugs – such as valproate, which poses a serious risk to cognitive and behavioral development.” 

He also advised that women should be taking folic acid regularly, as this has been shown to be related to improved cognitive and behavioral outcomes. “Since half of pregnancies are not planned, it is important to take these actions before pregnancy,” he added.

The current study involved 289 women with epilepsy and 89 women without epilepsy, all of whom enrolled in the study during pregnancy. Use of antiseizure medications was recorded. Of the women with epilepsy, 74% were on monotherapy, with 43% on lamotrigine and 37% on levetiracetam. There were 4% who took no drug and 22% took more than one drug. Of those who took more than one drug, close to half took a combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. Levels of medications in the blood of the women with epilepsy were measured in the third trimester.
 

Assessment of neurobehavioral development

For the current analysis, the children were evaluated at age 3 with a series of cognitive and developmental tests that measured vocabulary, listening comprehension, number recall, and pattern recognition, and results were adjusted for mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, postbirth average BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory score), and child’s ethnicity, sex, and breastfeeding status.

The primary outcome showed that verbal Index scores at age 3 did not differ for children of women with epilepsy versus those for children of women without epilepsy (LS mean 102.7 vs. 102.1).

Antiseizure medication exposure as evident by the maximum third trimester blood levels was not related to verbal index scores (n = 265; adjusted parameter estimate, -1.9; 95% confidence interval, -6.8 to 3.1).

General conceptual ability scores also did not differ between the two groups: 105.1 for children of women with epilepsy versus 103.5 for children of healthy women.

In terms of exposure levels, the third trimester maximum observed ratio of antiseizure medication blood levels was not significantly associated with adjusted general conceptual ability scores for children of women with epilepsy; neither were monotherapies or polytherapies evaluated separately, Dr. Meador reported.

However, when the verbal index scores for the main antiepileptic drug groups were analyzed separately, exposure level to levetiracetam was the only one that was significant, with a P value of .028. But Dr. Meador again stressed that this finding should be interpreted with caution given that it is a secondary exploratory analysis without control for multiple comparisons.

The researchers plan to assess these children at older ages where evaluations are more sensitive to ultimate outcomes.

“Information on use in pregnancy for most antiseizure medications is still unknown, so further studies to assess risks for the newer antiseizure medications are needed,” Dr. Meador added. “Further, additional research is needed on the underlying mechanisms including genetic predispositions, since teratogens act on a susceptible genotype.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

Further evidence supporting the safety of two antiseizure medications in pregnancy has come from a new study. The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study found no difference in neurobehavioral development in children at age 3 born to women with epilepsy compared with children of healthy women without epilepsy. Most of the women with epilepsy in the study took either lamotrigine or levetiracetam, or a combination of the two, during their pregnancy.

However, a secondary analysis suggested a possible signal of exposure-dependent effects on child outcomes – worse outcomes with higher exposure levels – with levetiracetam.

The results were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Additional reassurance

“Our new study adds confidence to the use of lamotrigine and levetiracetam during pregnancy, adding larger numbers with a new cohort. In addition, it provides some preliminary data on some of the other new antiseizure medications, and it is the first study to address the effects of clearance in pregnancy to better assess exposure,” said lead investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD. “Overall, I am reassured by this data, but there is still a lot that is unknown,” he added.

“Our main results show no difference in verbal index or general conceptual ability scores in children born to women with epilepsy compared to children born to healthy women. This is a big positive message,” Dr. Meador said.   

In terms of secondary analysis focusing on exposure levels (dose and blood levels of antiseizure medications), there was no overall signal of harm when looking at the whole group, but when the researchers analyzed the data on individual drugs, they found a “slight signal” toward reduced verbal index scores with increasing exposure levels with levetiracetam. No differences were seen on general conceptual ability. 

“In the secondary analysis, there was a marginal signal for exposure levels with levetiracetam, with increased blood levels of the drug associated with reduced verbal index scores,” reported Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We saw some signal in the children when they were 2 years old, and this was still there but not as striking at 3 years old.” 

He said these secondary results should be interpreted with extreme caution. “We don’t want to overemphasize these secondary findings, as the primary outcome showed no difference, and there was no effect on exposure levels when looking at all the drugs together. I don’t want to oversimplify this, as I am still not sure whether this is a real association or not,” Dr. Meador commented.

He explained that conducting neurobehavioral tests on 2- and 3-year-olds was very difficult. “It is more of an art form than science, and as the children get older these signals often dissipate. We will know more by the time they are 6, when these tests become easier to conduct,” he said. He also noted that the results would need to be replicated in a different cohort.

“I don’t think these results would change how we manage women during pregnancy in terms of using levetiracetam. It is still a safe drug during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said.

He pointed out that data on safety in pregnancy is only available for very few antiseizure drugs. “There are over 30 antiseizure medications, but we have adequate data in pregnancy on only a handful. We have data suggesting lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine appear to be relatively safe, and evidence showing phenobarbital and valproate are not safe.”

Antiseizure medications as a class are among the most commonly prescribed teratogenic drugs given to women of childbearing age, Dr. Meador noted. They are used not only for epilepsy but also for many other psychiatric and pain indications, so these results are applicable to quite a broad population, he added.

He pointed out that previous studies did not assess exposure using blood levels, which is important, as clearance of drug increases during pregnancy but varies across antiseizure medications and across individuals on the same drug. “Thus, it is unclear if these changes could obscure exposure-dependent effects. Our present studies assessed blood levels to better measure fetal exposure.”
 

Advice for pregnant patients with epilepsy

Dr. Meador explained that risk for adverse effects with antiseizure medication always needs to be balanced with risk for seizures if the medication was not used.

“In women planning a pregnancy, we recommend that they plan ahead with their physician to try and use the safest antiseizure medication and gain good control beforehand and then maintain the same blood levels of whichever drug is being used during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said. “At present, lamotrigine and levetiracetam are the two safest drugs to use in pregnancy. They both look generally very safe compared with some other epilepsy drugs – such as valproate, which poses a serious risk to cognitive and behavioral development.” 

He also advised that women should be taking folic acid regularly, as this has been shown to be related to improved cognitive and behavioral outcomes. “Since half of pregnancies are not planned, it is important to take these actions before pregnancy,” he added.

The current study involved 289 women with epilepsy and 89 women without epilepsy, all of whom enrolled in the study during pregnancy. Use of antiseizure medications was recorded. Of the women with epilepsy, 74% were on monotherapy, with 43% on lamotrigine and 37% on levetiracetam. There were 4% who took no drug and 22% took more than one drug. Of those who took more than one drug, close to half took a combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. Levels of medications in the blood of the women with epilepsy were measured in the third trimester.
 

Assessment of neurobehavioral development

For the current analysis, the children were evaluated at age 3 with a series of cognitive and developmental tests that measured vocabulary, listening comprehension, number recall, and pattern recognition, and results were adjusted for mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, postbirth average BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory score), and child’s ethnicity, sex, and breastfeeding status.

The primary outcome showed that verbal Index scores at age 3 did not differ for children of women with epilepsy versus those for children of women without epilepsy (LS mean 102.7 vs. 102.1).

Antiseizure medication exposure as evident by the maximum third trimester blood levels was not related to verbal index scores (n = 265; adjusted parameter estimate, -1.9; 95% confidence interval, -6.8 to 3.1).

General conceptual ability scores also did not differ between the two groups: 105.1 for children of women with epilepsy versus 103.5 for children of healthy women.

In terms of exposure levels, the third trimester maximum observed ratio of antiseizure medication blood levels was not significantly associated with adjusted general conceptual ability scores for children of women with epilepsy; neither were monotherapies or polytherapies evaluated separately, Dr. Meador reported.

However, when the verbal index scores for the main antiepileptic drug groups were analyzed separately, exposure level to levetiracetam was the only one that was significant, with a P value of .028. But Dr. Meador again stressed that this finding should be interpreted with caution given that it is a secondary exploratory analysis without control for multiple comparisons.

The researchers plan to assess these children at older ages where evaluations are more sensitive to ultimate outcomes.

“Information on use in pregnancy for most antiseizure medications is still unknown, so further studies to assess risks for the newer antiseizure medications are needed,” Dr. Meador added. “Further, additional research is needed on the underlying mechanisms including genetic predispositions, since teratogens act on a susceptible genotype.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

People with clinically diagnosed depression and anxiety may be prone to developing Alzheimer’s disease at a younger age than other people, and those with a history of posttraumatic stress disorder may be prone to Alzheimer’s disease onset even earlier in life, according to findings from a review of 1,500 patients with Alzheimer’s disease from a single-center population.

“Could psychosis symptoms be the proverbial canary in a coal mine?” Emily Eijansantos, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in reporting results of the chart review at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. “Previously in this cohort it was found that neurodevelopmental factors as well as chronic insults such as autoimmunity and seizure were also associated with an early age of onset in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The link between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure “beg more questions about underlying pathophysiology,” she said. The study included 750 patients with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and a similar number of late-onset patients from the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.
 

An inverse correlation between psychiatric disorders and age of Alzheimer’s onset

In the total study population, 43.5% (n = 652) had a previous diagnosis of depression and 32.3% (n = 485) had been diagnosed with anxiety. That, Ms. Eijansantos said, falls into similar ranges that other studies have reported.

“When we look at individual psychiatric disorders, we find that those with depression, anxiety, or PTSD are younger on average,” she said. “Patients with depression and anxiety are more [likely] female and have less vascular risk factors, and we observed an association between depression and autoimmunity, anxiety, and seizures.”

Specifically, patients with a history of depression were 2.2 years younger, on average, at the age of onset than patients without such history (P = .01); those with anxiety were 3 years younger on average (P = .01); and those with PTSD were 6.8 years younger on average, although only 1% (n = 15) of study subjects had PTSD, making for a small sample to study. These age-of-onset disparities didn’t appear among patients with previously diagnosed bipolar disorder (BPD) or schizophrenia.

Ms. Eijansantos noted that there were no differences in education attained or apolipoprotein-E gene status between the patients with and without a history of psychosis, and, within the subgroups of individual psychiatric disorders, there were no differences between patients with past and current or formal and informal diagnoses.

“When we split the cohort into quintiles based on age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, we find an inverse correlation between the amount of depression, anxiety, and PTSD endorsed and their ages of onset,” Ms. Eijansantos said. For example, the youngest quintile had a greater than 50% rate of depression while the oldest quintile had a depression rate around 36%. A similar spread was found with anxiety: a rate around 46% in the youngest quantile versus around 25% in the oldest, whereas rates of PTSD, BPD, and schizophrenia were similar across the five age-of-onset groups.

Patients with a history of multiple psychiatric disorders had an even younger age of onset. “We see that those with two psychiatric disorder are younger than those with one, and those with three psychiatric disorders are younger still,” Ms. Eijansantos said. “And we find that the Alzheimer’s disease age-at-onset reduction doubles with each additional psychiatric disorder.” Multiple disorders also adversely impacted survival, she said.

Because they found no difference between patients with past versus active symptoms and informal versus formal diagnosis, Ms. Eijansantos explained that they further studied the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center cohort of 8,267 patients with Alzheimer’s disease and found a similar relationship between psychiatric history and age of onset among patients with depression or anxiety or both. This cohort also documented symptom severity, she noted. “So when we look at depression and anxiety we find similar reductions in the Alzheimer’s disease age of onset with each increasing degree of symptom severity,” she said.

“Does this mean that psychiatric disease is a risk factor for Alzheimr’s disease?” Ms. Eijansantos said. “We can’t answer that with this study because it was only designed to see if the psychiatric factors modulate the age of onset in those that have Alzheimer’s disease, but taken together we believe that these results fit the framework that there are pathophysiological and profound differences between earlier and later presentations of Alzheimer’s disease.”

She pointed to reports that early-onset Alzheimer’s disease is associated with more aggressive tau pathology and that depression is associated with tau. However, the evidence supporting a link between amyloid and psychiatric disease is less certain, she said.
 

Preliminary and speculative findings

Senior study author Zachary Miller, MD, an assistant professor in the UCSF Memory and Aging Center, explained the significance of the study findings of potential links between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure. “There may be distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanisms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease who have symptoms of depression versus anxiety,” he said, acknowledging the findings “are quite preliminary and our interpretations quite speculative.”

The findings raise the question that the symptomatic presentation of greater amounts of depression in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease may be moderated by an underlying neuroinflammatory insult, he said. “If so, depression symptomatology could then be seen as a possible clinical marker of this inflammatory response and possibly be used in testing clinical endpoints for future intervention trials,” Dr. Miller said. “Similarly, if neuronal hyperexcitability in Alzheimer’s disease manifests itself as either seizure and/or anxiety, this would have significant impact for therapeutic monitoring and treatment.”

He said a multicenter study of Alzheimer’s disease cohorts would validate the findings. “At the same time, we are also interested in looking deeper into these findings, investigating the potential cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates associated with these conditions,” Dr. Miller said.

Clinical phenotyping may provide more insight into the relationship between psychosis and age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, said Vijay K. Ramanan, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

People with clinically diagnosed depression and anxiety may be prone to developing Alzheimer’s disease at a younger age than other people, and those with a history of posttraumatic stress disorder may be prone to Alzheimer’s disease onset even earlier in life, according to findings from a review of 1,500 patients with Alzheimer’s disease from a single-center population.

“Could psychosis symptoms be the proverbial canary in a coal mine?” Emily Eijansantos, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in reporting results of the chart review at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. “Previously in this cohort it was found that neurodevelopmental factors as well as chronic insults such as autoimmunity and seizure were also associated with an early age of onset in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The link between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure “beg more questions about underlying pathophysiology,” she said. The study included 750 patients with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and a similar number of late-onset patients from the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.
 

An inverse correlation between psychiatric disorders and age of Alzheimer’s onset

In the total study population, 43.5% (n = 652) had a previous diagnosis of depression and 32.3% (n = 485) had been diagnosed with anxiety. That, Ms. Eijansantos said, falls into similar ranges that other studies have reported.

“When we look at individual psychiatric disorders, we find that those with depression, anxiety, or PTSD are younger on average,” she said. “Patients with depression and anxiety are more [likely] female and have less vascular risk factors, and we observed an association between depression and autoimmunity, anxiety, and seizures.”

Specifically, patients with a history of depression were 2.2 years younger, on average, at the age of onset than patients without such history (P = .01); those with anxiety were 3 years younger on average (P = .01); and those with PTSD were 6.8 years younger on average, although only 1% (n = 15) of study subjects had PTSD, making for a small sample to study. These age-of-onset disparities didn’t appear among patients with previously diagnosed bipolar disorder (BPD) or schizophrenia.

Ms. Eijansantos noted that there were no differences in education attained or apolipoprotein-E gene status between the patients with and without a history of psychosis, and, within the subgroups of individual psychiatric disorders, there were no differences between patients with past and current or formal and informal diagnoses.

“When we split the cohort into quintiles based on age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, we find an inverse correlation between the amount of depression, anxiety, and PTSD endorsed and their ages of onset,” Ms. Eijansantos said. For example, the youngest quintile had a greater than 50% rate of depression while the oldest quintile had a depression rate around 36%. A similar spread was found with anxiety: a rate around 46% in the youngest quantile versus around 25% in the oldest, whereas rates of PTSD, BPD, and schizophrenia were similar across the five age-of-onset groups.

Patients with a history of multiple psychiatric disorders had an even younger age of onset. “We see that those with two psychiatric disorder are younger than those with one, and those with three psychiatric disorders are younger still,” Ms. Eijansantos said. “And we find that the Alzheimer’s disease age-at-onset reduction doubles with each additional psychiatric disorder.” Multiple disorders also adversely impacted survival, she said.

Because they found no difference between patients with past versus active symptoms and informal versus formal diagnosis, Ms. Eijansantos explained that they further studied the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center cohort of 8,267 patients with Alzheimer’s disease and found a similar relationship between psychiatric history and age of onset among patients with depression or anxiety or both. This cohort also documented symptom severity, she noted. “So when we look at depression and anxiety we find similar reductions in the Alzheimer’s disease age of onset with each increasing degree of symptom severity,” she said.

“Does this mean that psychiatric disease is a risk factor for Alzheimr’s disease?” Ms. Eijansantos said. “We can’t answer that with this study because it was only designed to see if the psychiatric factors modulate the age of onset in those that have Alzheimer’s disease, but taken together we believe that these results fit the framework that there are pathophysiological and profound differences between earlier and later presentations of Alzheimer’s disease.”

She pointed to reports that early-onset Alzheimer’s disease is associated with more aggressive tau pathology and that depression is associated with tau. However, the evidence supporting a link between amyloid and psychiatric disease is less certain, she said.
 

Preliminary and speculative findings

Senior study author Zachary Miller, MD, an assistant professor in the UCSF Memory and Aging Center, explained the significance of the study findings of potential links between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure. “There may be distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanisms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease who have symptoms of depression versus anxiety,” he said, acknowledging the findings “are quite preliminary and our interpretations quite speculative.”

The findings raise the question that the symptomatic presentation of greater amounts of depression in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease may be moderated by an underlying neuroinflammatory insult, he said. “If so, depression symptomatology could then be seen as a possible clinical marker of this inflammatory response and possibly be used in testing clinical endpoints for future intervention trials,” Dr. Miller said. “Similarly, if neuronal hyperexcitability in Alzheimer’s disease manifests itself as either seizure and/or anxiety, this would have significant impact for therapeutic monitoring and treatment.”

He said a multicenter study of Alzheimer’s disease cohorts would validate the findings. “At the same time, we are also interested in looking deeper into these findings, investigating the potential cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates associated with these conditions,” Dr. Miller said.

Clinical phenotyping may provide more insight into the relationship between psychosis and age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, said Vijay K. Ramanan, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

People with clinically diagnosed depression and anxiety may be prone to developing Alzheimer’s disease at a younger age than other people, and those with a history of posttraumatic stress disorder may be prone to Alzheimer’s disease onset even earlier in life, according to findings from a review of 1,500 patients with Alzheimer’s disease from a single-center population.

“Could psychosis symptoms be the proverbial canary in a coal mine?” Emily Eijansantos, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in reporting results of the chart review at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. “Previously in this cohort it was found that neurodevelopmental factors as well as chronic insults such as autoimmunity and seizure were also associated with an early age of onset in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The link between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure “beg more questions about underlying pathophysiology,” she said. The study included 750 patients with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and a similar number of late-onset patients from the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.
 

An inverse correlation between psychiatric disorders and age of Alzheimer’s onset

In the total study population, 43.5% (n = 652) had a previous diagnosis of depression and 32.3% (n = 485) had been diagnosed with anxiety. That, Ms. Eijansantos said, falls into similar ranges that other studies have reported.

“When we look at individual psychiatric disorders, we find that those with depression, anxiety, or PTSD are younger on average,” she said. “Patients with depression and anxiety are more [likely] female and have less vascular risk factors, and we observed an association between depression and autoimmunity, anxiety, and seizures.”

Specifically, patients with a history of depression were 2.2 years younger, on average, at the age of onset than patients without such history (P = .01); those with anxiety were 3 years younger on average (P = .01); and those with PTSD were 6.8 years younger on average, although only 1% (n = 15) of study subjects had PTSD, making for a small sample to study. These age-of-onset disparities didn’t appear among patients with previously diagnosed bipolar disorder (BPD) or schizophrenia.

Ms. Eijansantos noted that there were no differences in education attained or apolipoprotein-E gene status between the patients with and without a history of psychosis, and, within the subgroups of individual psychiatric disorders, there were no differences between patients with past and current or formal and informal diagnoses.

“When we split the cohort into quintiles based on age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, we find an inverse correlation between the amount of depression, anxiety, and PTSD endorsed and their ages of onset,” Ms. Eijansantos said. For example, the youngest quintile had a greater than 50% rate of depression while the oldest quintile had a depression rate around 36%. A similar spread was found with anxiety: a rate around 46% in the youngest quantile versus around 25% in the oldest, whereas rates of PTSD, BPD, and schizophrenia were similar across the five age-of-onset groups.

Patients with a history of multiple psychiatric disorders had an even younger age of onset. “We see that those with two psychiatric disorder are younger than those with one, and those with three psychiatric disorders are younger still,” Ms. Eijansantos said. “And we find that the Alzheimer’s disease age-at-onset reduction doubles with each additional psychiatric disorder.” Multiple disorders also adversely impacted survival, she said.

Because they found no difference between patients with past versus active symptoms and informal versus formal diagnosis, Ms. Eijansantos explained that they further studied the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center cohort of 8,267 patients with Alzheimer’s disease and found a similar relationship between psychiatric history and age of onset among patients with depression or anxiety or both. This cohort also documented symptom severity, she noted. “So when we look at depression and anxiety we find similar reductions in the Alzheimer’s disease age of onset with each increasing degree of symptom severity,” she said.

“Does this mean that psychiatric disease is a risk factor for Alzheimr’s disease?” Ms. Eijansantos said. “We can’t answer that with this study because it was only designed to see if the psychiatric factors modulate the age of onset in those that have Alzheimer’s disease, but taken together we believe that these results fit the framework that there are pathophysiological and profound differences between earlier and later presentations of Alzheimer’s disease.”

She pointed to reports that early-onset Alzheimer’s disease is associated with more aggressive tau pathology and that depression is associated with tau. However, the evidence supporting a link between amyloid and psychiatric disease is less certain, she said.
 

Preliminary and speculative findings

Senior study author Zachary Miller, MD, an assistant professor in the UCSF Memory and Aging Center, explained the significance of the study findings of potential links between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure. “There may be distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanisms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease who have symptoms of depression versus anxiety,” he said, acknowledging the findings “are quite preliminary and our interpretations quite speculative.”

The findings raise the question that the symptomatic presentation of greater amounts of depression in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease may be moderated by an underlying neuroinflammatory insult, he said. “If so, depression symptomatology could then be seen as a possible clinical marker of this inflammatory response and possibly be used in testing clinical endpoints for future intervention trials,” Dr. Miller said. “Similarly, if neuronal hyperexcitability in Alzheimer’s disease manifests itself as either seizure and/or anxiety, this would have significant impact for therapeutic monitoring and treatment.”

He said a multicenter study of Alzheimer’s disease cohorts would validate the findings. “At the same time, we are also interested in looking deeper into these findings, investigating the potential cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates associated with these conditions,” Dr. Miller said.

Clinical phenotyping may provide more insight into the relationship between psychosis and age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, said Vijay K. Ramanan, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) significantly improves motor function in patients with Parkinson’s disease over the long term, regardless of the therapeutic target, new research shows. In the longest follow-up study comparing the subthalamic nucleus (STN) or the globus pallidus (GPi) as treatment targets for Parkinson’s disease, investigators found DBS was effective at 10 years regardless of which of these two brain regions were treated.

“Both STN and GPi DBS maintained motor benefit out to 10 years, with improvements seen in tremor and rigidity, greater than bradykinesia,” said study author Jill L. Ostrem, MD, medical director and division chief at the University of California, San Francisco Movement Disorders and Neuromodulation Center.

“Less medication was required, and patients had fewer motor fluctuations and less dyskinesia,” she added. But nonmotor symptoms and other symptoms that are less responsive to DBS progress led to worsening disability over time.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Advanced patients  

Many studies have examined the GPi and STN as targets for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Some research has compared outcomes between the two targets, but no prospective, randomized trials have evaluated outcomes beyond 3 years of treatment.

For the study, investigators examined data from Study 468, a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted by the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Study Program and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). In this study, a subset of patients who had been randomly assigned to deep brain stimulation of the GPi or STN were followed for up to 10 years.

Participants were examined at 2 years, 7 years, and 10 years. Eighty-five participants assigned to GPi and 70 assigned to STN completed the visit at 2 years. At 7 years, 68 GPi patients and 49 STN patients completed the visit. Forty-nine patients assigned to GPi and 28 assigned to STN completed the visit at 10 years.

The study’s primary outcome was change in the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor subscale score while off medication and on stimulation between targets. Secondary outcomes included tremor, rigidity, and bradykinesia.

The two groups of patients had comparable baseline characteristics. Mean age was approximately 59 years in both groups. The proportion of male patients was 87% in the GPi group and 83% in the STN group. White patients predominated in the GPi (98%) and STN (94%) groups.

Average disease duration was approximately 11 years, and more than 10% of patients in each group were older than 70 years, indicating a “somewhat more advanced patient cohort,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Although the study’s dropout rate was high, the researchers found no difference in baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not complete the study.
 

Consistent motor improvement

Motor function improved at all timepoints for patients in both study arms. Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score was 43.2 for patients assigned to GPi stimulation. This score changed to 25.8 at 2 years (P < .001), 35.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 34.0 at 10 years (P = .10).

Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score also was 43.2 for patients assigned to STN stimulation. This score changed to 27.7 at 2 years (P < .001), 34.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 28.3 at 10 years (P < .001). Improvements were similar between groups but tended to be greater in the STN group.

Among the study’s secondary outcomes, tremor subscales showed the greatest improvement over time, followed by rigidity subscores. Compared with GPi DBS, STN DBS was associated with greater improvement in bradykinesia subscores at 7 and 10 years (P = .03).

In addition, UPDRS I, II, and IV scores, as recorded in motor diaries, showed significant long-term improvement in both study groups. Part I (which reflects mentation and mood) and part II (which reflects activities of daily living) tended to worsen at 7 and 10 years. There were no differences between groups.

Total score on the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39), which measures function in daily living, no longer showed improvement at 7 or 10 years for either target. Rather, it showed worsening, compared with baseline.

“Cognitive impairment and gait and balance issues result in more issues with quality of life and independence,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Stimulation of both targets reduced medication use significantly. There was no difference between targets for this outcome.

The rate of device-related complications in this cohort was comparatively low, said Dr. Ostrem. In the overall study complication, the rate of DBS malfunction was 7.7%, and the rate of DBS infection was 5.8%.

The finding that both targets had similar long-term sustainability of motor benefit provides reassurance that either target is a reasonable choice, said Dr. Ostrem. “I would suggest target choice be determined by a multidisciplinary team, where individual patient signs and symptoms and goals can be considered.”

Other large DBS trials with shorter follow-up durations have suggested differences between the targets. These data can guide the choice of target, said Dr. Ostrem.

“The field of DBS research has never been more exciting,” she added. Newer systems that include improved hardware and software and can record neurophysiologic data from the implanted brain leads could provide improved outcomes of DBS treatment. 

“With modern DBS methods and approaches, we are learning more about Parkinson’s disease and other brain diseases, which I believe will help us to find more treatments and other interventions to slow the progression or minimize symptoms,” Dr. Ostrem concluded.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the study, Alfonso Fasano, MD, PhD, chair in neuromodulation and multidisciplinary care at University of Toronto, noted that “these are the first long-term findings resulting from a randomized trial, overall supporting the early notion that STN DBS is superior to GPi DBS in terms of bradykinesia improvement, especially in the long-run.”

The findings reflect the clinical practice of considering STN deep brain stimulation for young patients who face a longer disease duration. Younger patients might tolerate the procedure better than older patients. They also may achieve medication reduction, better motor control, and the possibility of increasing medication when side effects make increased stimulation undesirable.

“It’s interesting to note that even GPi DBS maintained an overall good outcome over time,” said Dr. Fasano. This finding contrasts with that of previous studies, but the latter were limited by selection bias, he added. “Older and frail patients were more likely to be treated with GPi DBS.”

Two factors limit the study’s findings, said Dr. Fasano. During the long study duration, many patients dropped out or were lost to follow-up. “Thus, it is conceivable that the study only enrolled the best responders in each group,” said Dr. Fasano.

In addition, the results of the trial that the current investigators analyzed are not necessarily generalizable, as those who conducted it soon recognized. The study by the VA and NINDS did not detect differences between targets, mainly because of a surprisingly low effect of STN deep brain stimulation. The researchers determined that this finding was related to the study’s inclusion criteria.

“The lack of improvement [on the PDQ-39] clearly indicates that simply treating the motor problems of Parkinson’s disease patients is not enough,” said Dr. Fasano. It also emphasizes that DBS is a symptomatic therapy with little or no effect on the disease’s natural history.

“It will be also important to see how the new data reported by Dr. Ostrem compare to the long-term outcome of the other major STN versus GPi trial from Europe,” said Dr. Fasano, referring to the NSTAPS trial.

He added that it will also be interesting to follow these cohorts for at least 5 more years in order to identify possible differences in terms of disease milestones such as dementia and survival. Previous studies have shown a reduction in survival with targets other than STN, but this finding likely reflects selection bias, he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ostrem previously has accepted consulting funds from Medtronic and Abbott. She receives grant support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific for fellowship training and clinical trial support. These companies were not involved in the study. Dr. Fasano received honoraria and research support and honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Brainlab, Ceregate, Inbrain, and Medtronic.

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

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) significantly improves motor function in patients with Parkinson’s disease over the long term, regardless of the therapeutic target, new research shows. In the longest follow-up study comparing the subthalamic nucleus (STN) or the globus pallidus (GPi) as treatment targets for Parkinson’s disease, investigators found DBS was effective at 10 years regardless of which of these two brain regions were treated.

“Both STN and GPi DBS maintained motor benefit out to 10 years, with improvements seen in tremor and rigidity, greater than bradykinesia,” said study author Jill L. Ostrem, MD, medical director and division chief at the University of California, San Francisco Movement Disorders and Neuromodulation Center.

“Less medication was required, and patients had fewer motor fluctuations and less dyskinesia,” she added. But nonmotor symptoms and other symptoms that are less responsive to DBS progress led to worsening disability over time.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Advanced patients  

Many studies have examined the GPi and STN as targets for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Some research has compared outcomes between the two targets, but no prospective, randomized trials have evaluated outcomes beyond 3 years of treatment.

For the study, investigators examined data from Study 468, a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted by the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Study Program and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). In this study, a subset of patients who had been randomly assigned to deep brain stimulation of the GPi or STN were followed for up to 10 years.

Participants were examined at 2 years, 7 years, and 10 years. Eighty-five participants assigned to GPi and 70 assigned to STN completed the visit at 2 years. At 7 years, 68 GPi patients and 49 STN patients completed the visit. Forty-nine patients assigned to GPi and 28 assigned to STN completed the visit at 10 years.

The study’s primary outcome was change in the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor subscale score while off medication and on stimulation between targets. Secondary outcomes included tremor, rigidity, and bradykinesia.

The two groups of patients had comparable baseline characteristics. Mean age was approximately 59 years in both groups. The proportion of male patients was 87% in the GPi group and 83% in the STN group. White patients predominated in the GPi (98%) and STN (94%) groups.

Average disease duration was approximately 11 years, and more than 10% of patients in each group were older than 70 years, indicating a “somewhat more advanced patient cohort,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Although the study’s dropout rate was high, the researchers found no difference in baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not complete the study.
 

Consistent motor improvement

Motor function improved at all timepoints for patients in both study arms. Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score was 43.2 for patients assigned to GPi stimulation. This score changed to 25.8 at 2 years (P < .001), 35.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 34.0 at 10 years (P = .10).

Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score also was 43.2 for patients assigned to STN stimulation. This score changed to 27.7 at 2 years (P < .001), 34.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 28.3 at 10 years (P < .001). Improvements were similar between groups but tended to be greater in the STN group.

Among the study’s secondary outcomes, tremor subscales showed the greatest improvement over time, followed by rigidity subscores. Compared with GPi DBS, STN DBS was associated with greater improvement in bradykinesia subscores at 7 and 10 years (P = .03).

In addition, UPDRS I, II, and IV scores, as recorded in motor diaries, showed significant long-term improvement in both study groups. Part I (which reflects mentation and mood) and part II (which reflects activities of daily living) tended to worsen at 7 and 10 years. There were no differences between groups.

Total score on the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39), which measures function in daily living, no longer showed improvement at 7 or 10 years for either target. Rather, it showed worsening, compared with baseline.

“Cognitive impairment and gait and balance issues result in more issues with quality of life and independence,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Stimulation of both targets reduced medication use significantly. There was no difference between targets for this outcome.

The rate of device-related complications in this cohort was comparatively low, said Dr. Ostrem. In the overall study complication, the rate of DBS malfunction was 7.7%, and the rate of DBS infection was 5.8%.

The finding that both targets had similar long-term sustainability of motor benefit provides reassurance that either target is a reasonable choice, said Dr. Ostrem. “I would suggest target choice be determined by a multidisciplinary team, where individual patient signs and symptoms and goals can be considered.”

Other large DBS trials with shorter follow-up durations have suggested differences between the targets. These data can guide the choice of target, said Dr. Ostrem.

“The field of DBS research has never been more exciting,” she added. Newer systems that include improved hardware and software and can record neurophysiologic data from the implanted brain leads could provide improved outcomes of DBS treatment. 

“With modern DBS methods and approaches, we are learning more about Parkinson’s disease and other brain diseases, which I believe will help us to find more treatments and other interventions to slow the progression or minimize symptoms,” Dr. Ostrem concluded.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the study, Alfonso Fasano, MD, PhD, chair in neuromodulation and multidisciplinary care at University of Toronto, noted that “these are the first long-term findings resulting from a randomized trial, overall supporting the early notion that STN DBS is superior to GPi DBS in terms of bradykinesia improvement, especially in the long-run.”

The findings reflect the clinical practice of considering STN deep brain stimulation for young patients who face a longer disease duration. Younger patients might tolerate the procedure better than older patients. They also may achieve medication reduction, better motor control, and the possibility of increasing medication when side effects make increased stimulation undesirable.

“It’s interesting to note that even GPi DBS maintained an overall good outcome over time,” said Dr. Fasano. This finding contrasts with that of previous studies, but the latter were limited by selection bias, he added. “Older and frail patients were more likely to be treated with GPi DBS.”

Two factors limit the study’s findings, said Dr. Fasano. During the long study duration, many patients dropped out or were lost to follow-up. “Thus, it is conceivable that the study only enrolled the best responders in each group,” said Dr. Fasano.

In addition, the results of the trial that the current investigators analyzed are not necessarily generalizable, as those who conducted it soon recognized. The study by the VA and NINDS did not detect differences between targets, mainly because of a surprisingly low effect of STN deep brain stimulation. The researchers determined that this finding was related to the study’s inclusion criteria.

“The lack of improvement [on the PDQ-39] clearly indicates that simply treating the motor problems of Parkinson’s disease patients is not enough,” said Dr. Fasano. It also emphasizes that DBS is a symptomatic therapy with little or no effect on the disease’s natural history.

“It will be also important to see how the new data reported by Dr. Ostrem compare to the long-term outcome of the other major STN versus GPi trial from Europe,” said Dr. Fasano, referring to the NSTAPS trial.

He added that it will also be interesting to follow these cohorts for at least 5 more years in order to identify possible differences in terms of disease milestones such as dementia and survival. Previous studies have shown a reduction in survival with targets other than STN, but this finding likely reflects selection bias, he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ostrem previously has accepted consulting funds from Medtronic and Abbott. She receives grant support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific for fellowship training and clinical trial support. These companies were not involved in the study. Dr. Fasano received honoraria and research support and honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Brainlab, Ceregate, Inbrain, and Medtronic.

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

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) significantly improves motor function in patients with Parkinson’s disease over the long term, regardless of the therapeutic target, new research shows. In the longest follow-up study comparing the subthalamic nucleus (STN) or the globus pallidus (GPi) as treatment targets for Parkinson’s disease, investigators found DBS was effective at 10 years regardless of which of these two brain regions were treated.

“Both STN and GPi DBS maintained motor benefit out to 10 years, with improvements seen in tremor and rigidity, greater than bradykinesia,” said study author Jill L. Ostrem, MD, medical director and division chief at the University of California, San Francisco Movement Disorders and Neuromodulation Center.

“Less medication was required, and patients had fewer motor fluctuations and less dyskinesia,” she added. But nonmotor symptoms and other symptoms that are less responsive to DBS progress led to worsening disability over time.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Advanced patients  

Many studies have examined the GPi and STN as targets for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Some research has compared outcomes between the two targets, but no prospective, randomized trials have evaluated outcomes beyond 3 years of treatment.

For the study, investigators examined data from Study 468, a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted by the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Study Program and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). In this study, a subset of patients who had been randomly assigned to deep brain stimulation of the GPi or STN were followed for up to 10 years.

Participants were examined at 2 years, 7 years, and 10 years. Eighty-five participants assigned to GPi and 70 assigned to STN completed the visit at 2 years. At 7 years, 68 GPi patients and 49 STN patients completed the visit. Forty-nine patients assigned to GPi and 28 assigned to STN completed the visit at 10 years.

The study’s primary outcome was change in the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor subscale score while off medication and on stimulation between targets. Secondary outcomes included tremor, rigidity, and bradykinesia.

The two groups of patients had comparable baseline characteristics. Mean age was approximately 59 years in both groups. The proportion of male patients was 87% in the GPi group and 83% in the STN group. White patients predominated in the GPi (98%) and STN (94%) groups.

Average disease duration was approximately 11 years, and more than 10% of patients in each group were older than 70 years, indicating a “somewhat more advanced patient cohort,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Although the study’s dropout rate was high, the researchers found no difference in baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not complete the study.
 

Consistent motor improvement

Motor function improved at all timepoints for patients in both study arms. Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score was 43.2 for patients assigned to GPi stimulation. This score changed to 25.8 at 2 years (P < .001), 35.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 34.0 at 10 years (P = .10).

Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score also was 43.2 for patients assigned to STN stimulation. This score changed to 27.7 at 2 years (P < .001), 34.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 28.3 at 10 years (P < .001). Improvements were similar between groups but tended to be greater in the STN group.

Among the study’s secondary outcomes, tremor subscales showed the greatest improvement over time, followed by rigidity subscores. Compared with GPi DBS, STN DBS was associated with greater improvement in bradykinesia subscores at 7 and 10 years (P = .03).

In addition, UPDRS I, II, and IV scores, as recorded in motor diaries, showed significant long-term improvement in both study groups. Part I (which reflects mentation and mood) and part II (which reflects activities of daily living) tended to worsen at 7 and 10 years. There were no differences between groups.

Total score on the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39), which measures function in daily living, no longer showed improvement at 7 or 10 years for either target. Rather, it showed worsening, compared with baseline.

“Cognitive impairment and gait and balance issues result in more issues with quality of life and independence,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Stimulation of both targets reduced medication use significantly. There was no difference between targets for this outcome.

The rate of device-related complications in this cohort was comparatively low, said Dr. Ostrem. In the overall study complication, the rate of DBS malfunction was 7.7%, and the rate of DBS infection was 5.8%.

The finding that both targets had similar long-term sustainability of motor benefit provides reassurance that either target is a reasonable choice, said Dr. Ostrem. “I would suggest target choice be determined by a multidisciplinary team, where individual patient signs and symptoms and goals can be considered.”

Other large DBS trials with shorter follow-up durations have suggested differences between the targets. These data can guide the choice of target, said Dr. Ostrem.

“The field of DBS research has never been more exciting,” she added. Newer systems that include improved hardware and software and can record neurophysiologic data from the implanted brain leads could provide improved outcomes of DBS treatment. 

“With modern DBS methods and approaches, we are learning more about Parkinson’s disease and other brain diseases, which I believe will help us to find more treatments and other interventions to slow the progression or minimize symptoms,” Dr. Ostrem concluded.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the study, Alfonso Fasano, MD, PhD, chair in neuromodulation and multidisciplinary care at University of Toronto, noted that “these are the first long-term findings resulting from a randomized trial, overall supporting the early notion that STN DBS is superior to GPi DBS in terms of bradykinesia improvement, especially in the long-run.”

The findings reflect the clinical practice of considering STN deep brain stimulation for young patients who face a longer disease duration. Younger patients might tolerate the procedure better than older patients. They also may achieve medication reduction, better motor control, and the possibility of increasing medication when side effects make increased stimulation undesirable.

“It’s interesting to note that even GPi DBS maintained an overall good outcome over time,” said Dr. Fasano. This finding contrasts with that of previous studies, but the latter were limited by selection bias, he added. “Older and frail patients were more likely to be treated with GPi DBS.”

Two factors limit the study’s findings, said Dr. Fasano. During the long study duration, many patients dropped out or were lost to follow-up. “Thus, it is conceivable that the study only enrolled the best responders in each group,” said Dr. Fasano.

In addition, the results of the trial that the current investigators analyzed are not necessarily generalizable, as those who conducted it soon recognized. The study by the VA and NINDS did not detect differences between targets, mainly because of a surprisingly low effect of STN deep brain stimulation. The researchers determined that this finding was related to the study’s inclusion criteria.

“The lack of improvement [on the PDQ-39] clearly indicates that simply treating the motor problems of Parkinson’s disease patients is not enough,” said Dr. Fasano. It also emphasizes that DBS is a symptomatic therapy with little or no effect on the disease’s natural history.

“It will be also important to see how the new data reported by Dr. Ostrem compare to the long-term outcome of the other major STN versus GPi trial from Europe,” said Dr. Fasano, referring to the NSTAPS trial.

He added that it will also be interesting to follow these cohorts for at least 5 more years in order to identify possible differences in terms of disease milestones such as dementia and survival. Previous studies have shown a reduction in survival with targets other than STN, but this finding likely reflects selection bias, he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ostrem previously has accepted consulting funds from Medtronic and Abbott. She receives grant support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific for fellowship training and clinical trial support. These companies were not involved in the study. Dr. Fasano received honoraria and research support and honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Brainlab, Ceregate, Inbrain, and Medtronic.

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

COVID-19 is linked to novel seizures and subsequent adverse outcomes, including death, in patients without a previous history of epilepsy, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 900 patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, those without a known history of epilepsy had three times greater odds of experiencing novel seizures than those with a known history of epilepsy.

In addition, among patients with new-onset seizures, hospital stays were about 15 days longer – and mortality rates were significantly higher.

“We’re finding that there are many neurological consequences that can happen with COVID-19 infections, and it’s important for clinicians to keep that in mind as they monitor people long term,” said study investigator Neeraj Singh, MD, neurologist and epileptologist with Northwell Health System, Great Neck, New York.

Dr. Singh noted that although seizures “might not be the most common thing we see in people with COVID-19, they seem to be new seizures and not just a seizure we knew would happen in someone with epilepsy.”

“So there’s definitely a need now for more prospective research and following people over time to fully understand all the different things that might be newly a problem for them in the long term,” he added.

Dr. Singh and Hardik Bhaskar, an undergraduate student at Hunter College, New York, presented the study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Largest sample to date

“This study explores the relationship between the incidences of COVID-19 infections and [novel] epileptic seizures in the largest sample to date in a single New York–based hospital system,” the investigators noted. Novel seizures included both new-onset and breakthrough seizures.

Dr. Singh told meeting attendees that the “early epicenter” of the COVID pandemic was in New York and occurred from Feb. 29, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients with COVID-19 “had multiple neurological sequelae, including seizures, strokes, and encephalopathy,” he said.

However, the effects of COVID-19 on individuals with epilepsy “remain unclear,” Dr. Singh said.

For their study, the researchers assessed 917 patients in 13 New York City metropolitan hospitals. All participants had received a confirmed positive test result on PCR for COVID and had received an antiepileptic medication upon admission. The patients were admitted between Feb. 14 and June 14, 2020.

For the study, the patients were first divided into two groups: those with a history of epilepsy (n = 451), and those without such a history (n = 466).

The first group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with breakthrough seizures and those who presented without them. The second group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with new-onset seizures and those who presented without them.
 

Significant adverse outcomes

Results showed that 27% of the patients without a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/new-onset seizure and that 11% of the patients with a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/breakthrough seizure (odds ratio, 3.15; P < .0001).

In addition, participants with new-onset seizures had a longer stay in the hospital (mean, 26.9 days) than the subgroup with a history of epilepsy and no breakthrough seizures (10.9 days) and the subgroup with a history of epilepsy who did experience breakthrough seizures (12.8 days; P < .0001 for both comparisons).

In the group of patients with a history of epilepsy, there were no significant differences in lengths of stay between those with and those without breakthrough seizures (P = .68).

Although mortality rates did not differ significantly between the full group with a history of epilepsy versus the full group without epilepsy (23% vs. 25%; OR, 0.9), the mortality rate was significantly higher among patients who experienced novel seizures than among those who did not experience such seizures (29% vs. 23%; OR, 1.4; P = .045).

Mr. Bhaskar noted that there are “many hypotheses for the mechanism by which COVID-19 might cause seizures.” Those mechanisms include proinflammatory cytokine storms, which may increase the rate of apoptosis, neuronal necrosis, and glutamate concentrations and may disrupt the blood-brain barrier. Another hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to hypoxia and abnormal coagulation, resulting in stroke and a subsequent increase in the risk for seizures.

Interestingly, “the presence of antiepileptic medications in patients with epilepsy may confer a protective effect against breakthrough seizures,” Dr. Singh said. “However, some subclinical seizures may be misdiagnosed as encephalopathy when patients present with COVID-19 infections.”

He added that further research is needed into the mechanisms linking these infections and new-onset seizures and to “identify subclinical seizures in encephalopathic patients.”

Asked during the question-and-answer session whether the investigators had assessed differences by demographics, such as age or sex, Dr. Singh said, “We have not subdivided them that way yet,” but he said he would like to do so in the future. He also plans to look further into which specific medications were used by the participants.

The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 is linked to novel seizures and subsequent adverse outcomes, including death, in patients without a previous history of epilepsy, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 900 patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, those without a known history of epilepsy had three times greater odds of experiencing novel seizures than those with a known history of epilepsy.

In addition, among patients with new-onset seizures, hospital stays were about 15 days longer – and mortality rates were significantly higher.

“We’re finding that there are many neurological consequences that can happen with COVID-19 infections, and it’s important for clinicians to keep that in mind as they monitor people long term,” said study investigator Neeraj Singh, MD, neurologist and epileptologist with Northwell Health System, Great Neck, New York.

Dr. Singh noted that although seizures “might not be the most common thing we see in people with COVID-19, they seem to be new seizures and not just a seizure we knew would happen in someone with epilepsy.”

“So there’s definitely a need now for more prospective research and following people over time to fully understand all the different things that might be newly a problem for them in the long term,” he added.

Dr. Singh and Hardik Bhaskar, an undergraduate student at Hunter College, New York, presented the study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Largest sample to date

“This study explores the relationship between the incidences of COVID-19 infections and [novel] epileptic seizures in the largest sample to date in a single New York–based hospital system,” the investigators noted. Novel seizures included both new-onset and breakthrough seizures.

Dr. Singh told meeting attendees that the “early epicenter” of the COVID pandemic was in New York and occurred from Feb. 29, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients with COVID-19 “had multiple neurological sequelae, including seizures, strokes, and encephalopathy,” he said.

However, the effects of COVID-19 on individuals with epilepsy “remain unclear,” Dr. Singh said.

For their study, the researchers assessed 917 patients in 13 New York City metropolitan hospitals. All participants had received a confirmed positive test result on PCR for COVID and had received an antiepileptic medication upon admission. The patients were admitted between Feb. 14 and June 14, 2020.

For the study, the patients were first divided into two groups: those with a history of epilepsy (n = 451), and those without such a history (n = 466).

The first group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with breakthrough seizures and those who presented without them. The second group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with new-onset seizures and those who presented without them.
 

Significant adverse outcomes

Results showed that 27% of the patients without a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/new-onset seizure and that 11% of the patients with a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/breakthrough seizure (odds ratio, 3.15; P < .0001).

In addition, participants with new-onset seizures had a longer stay in the hospital (mean, 26.9 days) than the subgroup with a history of epilepsy and no breakthrough seizures (10.9 days) and the subgroup with a history of epilepsy who did experience breakthrough seizures (12.8 days; P < .0001 for both comparisons).

In the group of patients with a history of epilepsy, there were no significant differences in lengths of stay between those with and those without breakthrough seizures (P = .68).

Although mortality rates did not differ significantly between the full group with a history of epilepsy versus the full group without epilepsy (23% vs. 25%; OR, 0.9), the mortality rate was significantly higher among patients who experienced novel seizures than among those who did not experience such seizures (29% vs. 23%; OR, 1.4; P = .045).

Mr. Bhaskar noted that there are “many hypotheses for the mechanism by which COVID-19 might cause seizures.” Those mechanisms include proinflammatory cytokine storms, which may increase the rate of apoptosis, neuronal necrosis, and glutamate concentrations and may disrupt the blood-brain barrier. Another hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to hypoxia and abnormal coagulation, resulting in stroke and a subsequent increase in the risk for seizures.

Interestingly, “the presence of antiepileptic medications in patients with epilepsy may confer a protective effect against breakthrough seizures,” Dr. Singh said. “However, some subclinical seizures may be misdiagnosed as encephalopathy when patients present with COVID-19 infections.”

He added that further research is needed into the mechanisms linking these infections and new-onset seizures and to “identify subclinical seizures in encephalopathic patients.”

Asked during the question-and-answer session whether the investigators had assessed differences by demographics, such as age or sex, Dr. Singh said, “We have not subdivided them that way yet,” but he said he would like to do so in the future. He also plans to look further into which specific medications were used by the participants.

The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 is linked to novel seizures and subsequent adverse outcomes, including death, in patients without a previous history of epilepsy, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 900 patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, those without a known history of epilepsy had three times greater odds of experiencing novel seizures than those with a known history of epilepsy.

In addition, among patients with new-onset seizures, hospital stays were about 15 days longer – and mortality rates were significantly higher.

“We’re finding that there are many neurological consequences that can happen with COVID-19 infections, and it’s important for clinicians to keep that in mind as they monitor people long term,” said study investigator Neeraj Singh, MD, neurologist and epileptologist with Northwell Health System, Great Neck, New York.

Dr. Singh noted that although seizures “might not be the most common thing we see in people with COVID-19, they seem to be new seizures and not just a seizure we knew would happen in someone with epilepsy.”

“So there’s definitely a need now for more prospective research and following people over time to fully understand all the different things that might be newly a problem for them in the long term,” he added.

Dr. Singh and Hardik Bhaskar, an undergraduate student at Hunter College, New York, presented the study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Largest sample to date

“This study explores the relationship between the incidences of COVID-19 infections and [novel] epileptic seizures in the largest sample to date in a single New York–based hospital system,” the investigators noted. Novel seizures included both new-onset and breakthrough seizures.

Dr. Singh told meeting attendees that the “early epicenter” of the COVID pandemic was in New York and occurred from Feb. 29, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients with COVID-19 “had multiple neurological sequelae, including seizures, strokes, and encephalopathy,” he said.

However, the effects of COVID-19 on individuals with epilepsy “remain unclear,” Dr. Singh said.

For their study, the researchers assessed 917 patients in 13 New York City metropolitan hospitals. All participants had received a confirmed positive test result on PCR for COVID and had received an antiepileptic medication upon admission. The patients were admitted between Feb. 14 and June 14, 2020.

For the study, the patients were first divided into two groups: those with a history of epilepsy (n = 451), and those without such a history (n = 466).

The first group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with breakthrough seizures and those who presented without them. The second group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with new-onset seizures and those who presented without them.
 

Significant adverse outcomes

Results showed that 27% of the patients without a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/new-onset seizure and that 11% of the patients with a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/breakthrough seizure (odds ratio, 3.15; P < .0001).

In addition, participants with new-onset seizures had a longer stay in the hospital (mean, 26.9 days) than the subgroup with a history of epilepsy and no breakthrough seizures (10.9 days) and the subgroup with a history of epilepsy who did experience breakthrough seizures (12.8 days; P < .0001 for both comparisons).

In the group of patients with a history of epilepsy, there were no significant differences in lengths of stay between those with and those without breakthrough seizures (P = .68).

Although mortality rates did not differ significantly between the full group with a history of epilepsy versus the full group without epilepsy (23% vs. 25%; OR, 0.9), the mortality rate was significantly higher among patients who experienced novel seizures than among those who did not experience such seizures (29% vs. 23%; OR, 1.4; P = .045).

Mr. Bhaskar noted that there are “many hypotheses for the mechanism by which COVID-19 might cause seizures.” Those mechanisms include proinflammatory cytokine storms, which may increase the rate of apoptosis, neuronal necrosis, and glutamate concentrations and may disrupt the blood-brain barrier. Another hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to hypoxia and abnormal coagulation, resulting in stroke and a subsequent increase in the risk for seizures.

Interestingly, “the presence of antiepileptic medications in patients with epilepsy may confer a protective effect against breakthrough seizures,” Dr. Singh said. “However, some subclinical seizures may be misdiagnosed as encephalopathy when patients present with COVID-19 infections.”

He added that further research is needed into the mechanisms linking these infections and new-onset seizures and to “identify subclinical seizures in encephalopathic patients.”

Asked during the question-and-answer session whether the investigators had assessed differences by demographics, such as age or sex, Dr. Singh said, “We have not subdivided them that way yet,” but he said he would like to do so in the future. He also plans to look further into which specific medications were used by the participants.

The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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