MDedge Neurology

Joseph Berger, MD, Associate Chief of the Multiple Sclerosis Division at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, presents highlights in multiple sclerosis (MS) symptom management from the ACTRIMS Forum 2021.

A follow-up of participants in the self-management program called Fatigue: Take Control found that while patients did not report any significant improvement in fatigue 5-6 years later, they also did not have greater fatigue than at baseline, suggesting that fatigue may not be a progressive symptom.

Next, a literature review of efficacy studies in MS rodent models found a complementary pharmacology of CBD and other constituents of nabiximols that may add additional benefit and mitigate THC tolerability.

A small study looking at pain prevalence in patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) found that 76% of patients had a pain syndrome, and 48% had neuropathic pain. The study also found that gabapentin 900 mg per day for 30 days was effective in decreasing pain intensity and frequency.

A multi-site study of 282 patients with MS reporting fatigue between 2013 and 2014 found that 21% of patients reported using prescription opiates, 76% of whom reported regular daily use.

Lastly, participants in Spasticity: Take Control—an education and lower extremity stretching program—reported significantly decreased pain severity and interference at 6 months, compared with range-of-motion exercises.

--

Professor and Associate Chief, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis Division. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Received research grant from: Biogen; Roche/Genentech.

Received income in an amount ≥$250 from: Amgen; Biogen; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene; Encycle; Excision BioTherapeutics; Dr. Reddy; Genzyme; Inhibikase Therapeutics; Mapi-Pharma; Merck; Morphic Therapeutic; Novartis; Serono.

Joseph Berger, MD, Associate Chief of the Multiple Sclerosis Division at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, presents highlights in multiple sclerosis (MS) symptom management from the ACTRIMS Forum 2021.

A follow-up of participants in the self-management program called Fatigue: Take Control found that while patients did not report any significant improvement in fatigue 5-6 years later, they also did not have greater fatigue than at baseline, suggesting that fatigue may not be a progressive symptom.

Next, a literature review of efficacy studies in MS rodent models found a complementary pharmacology of CBD and other constituents of nabiximols that may add additional benefit and mitigate THC tolerability.

A small study looking at pain prevalence in patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) found that 76% of patients had a pain syndrome, and 48% had neuropathic pain. The study also found that gabapentin 900 mg per day for 30 days was effective in decreasing pain intensity and frequency.

A multi-site study of 282 patients with MS reporting fatigue between 2013 and 2014 found that 21% of patients reported using prescription opiates, 76% of whom reported regular daily use.

Lastly, participants in Spasticity: Take Control—an education and lower extremity stretching program—reported significantly decreased pain severity and interference at 6 months, compared with range-of-motion exercises.

--

Professor and Associate Chief, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis Division. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Received research grant from: Biogen; Roche/Genentech.

Received income in an amount ≥$250 from: Amgen; Biogen; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene; Encycle; Excision BioTherapeutics; Dr. Reddy; Genzyme; Inhibikase Therapeutics; Mapi-Pharma; Merck; Morphic Therapeutic; Novartis; Serono.

Joseph Berger, MD, Associate Chief of the Multiple Sclerosis Division at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, presents highlights in multiple sclerosis (MS) symptom management from the ACTRIMS Forum 2021.

A follow-up of participants in the self-management program called Fatigue: Take Control found that while patients did not report any significant improvement in fatigue 5-6 years later, they also did not have greater fatigue than at baseline, suggesting that fatigue may not be a progressive symptom.

Next, a literature review of efficacy studies in MS rodent models found a complementary pharmacology of CBD and other constituents of nabiximols that may add additional benefit and mitigate THC tolerability.

A small study looking at pain prevalence in patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) found that 76% of patients had a pain syndrome, and 48% had neuropathic pain. The study also found that gabapentin 900 mg per day for 30 days was effective in decreasing pain intensity and frequency.

A multi-site study of 282 patients with MS reporting fatigue between 2013 and 2014 found that 21% of patients reported using prescription opiates, 76% of whom reported regular daily use.

Lastly, participants in Spasticity: Take Control—an education and lower extremity stretching program—reported significantly decreased pain severity and interference at 6 months, compared with range-of-motion exercises.

--

Professor and Associate Chief, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis Division. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Joseph R. Berger, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Received research grant from: Biogen; Roche/Genentech.

Received income in an amount ≥$250 from: Amgen; Biogen; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene; Encycle; Excision BioTherapeutics; Dr. Reddy; Genzyme; Inhibikase Therapeutics; Mapi-Pharma; Merck; Morphic Therapeutic; Novartis; Serono.

It’s time for a large-scale phase 2 study into whether supplementary estrogen can relieve multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms in menopausal women with the disease, a neurologist told colleagues at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

This kind of research should explore the effects of aging, including in the brain, and “focus on what is preventable – this dramatic and abrupt loss of estrogen in women with MS,” said Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, of the Brain Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“This is a call to action. There’s a huge gap that needs to be filled,” she added in an interview. “Not enough attention has been paid to menopause and cognitive issues in MS and even in healthy women.”

Research has found that many women with MS experience a decline in function during menopause, she said. “They’re having a worsening of their preexisting disabilities,” she noted, due to neurodegeneration.

Dr. Voskuhl highlighted a 2016 study, for instance, that found postmenopausal women with MS on hormone replacement therapy reported better physical function and quality of life than did their counterparts after adjustment for covariates. She also pointed to a 2019 study that concluded that “natural menopause seems to be a turning point to a more progressive phase of MS.”

Estrogen appears to play a significant role. “It’s involved in synaptic plasticity,” she said. “That’s why the disabilities are worsening.”

Dr. Voskuhl supports a year-long, randomized and controlled study of estrogen supplementation in 150-200 participants. The goal, she said, is “not just to prevent loss and bad things from happening but also make improvements.”

In healthy patients, she said, outcomes should include cognitive decline in menopause, cognitive domain outcomes, and region-specific biomarkers in the frontal cortex and hippocampus instead of global cognition and global brain volume. In patients with MS, she said, the focus should be on worsening of disability with emphasis on specific disabilities such as walking and region-specific biomarkers for the motor cortex and spinal cord.

“We need to be looking at cortical gray matter, which we know is responsive to estrogen,” Dr. Voskuhl said. She led a 2018 placebo-controlled study that found women with MS who took estrogen supplements appeared to experience localized sparing of progressive gray matter, which the researchers linked to improved results in cognitive testing. The findings, the study authors wrote, suggest “a clinically relevant, disability-specific biomarker for clinical trials of candidate neuroprotective treatments in MS.”

What about men? Does hormone loss worsen their MS? Dr. Voskuhl said there seems to be a connection between lower levels of testosterone and more disability in men with MS. But their situation is different. Loss of testosterone in men is gradual and happens over decades instead of over the short period of menopause in women, she said.

Jennifer Graves, MD, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego, agreed that it’s time for further research into estrogen supplementation in MS. As she noted, “we don’t know the exact biological mechanism that might link perimenopause with developing a more progressive type of MS.”

She added: “An overall decrease in estrogen may be at play but there are other biological changes around menopause. We must also take care in studies to try to separate out what might be due to ovarian aging versus other types of aging processes that might be happening at the same time.”

Dr. Voskuhl disclosed that she is an inventor on university patents for use of estriol and estrogen receptor–beta ligands as treatments. Dr. Graves reports no relevant disclosures.

It’s time for a large-scale phase 2 study into whether supplementary estrogen can relieve multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms in menopausal women with the disease, a neurologist told colleagues at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

This kind of research should explore the effects of aging, including in the brain, and “focus on what is preventable – this dramatic and abrupt loss of estrogen in women with MS,” said Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, of the Brain Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“This is a call to action. There’s a huge gap that needs to be filled,” she added in an interview. “Not enough attention has been paid to menopause and cognitive issues in MS and even in healthy women.”

Research has found that many women with MS experience a decline in function during menopause, she said. “They’re having a worsening of their preexisting disabilities,” she noted, due to neurodegeneration.

Dr. Voskuhl highlighted a 2016 study, for instance, that found postmenopausal women with MS on hormone replacement therapy reported better physical function and quality of life than did their counterparts after adjustment for covariates. She also pointed to a 2019 study that concluded that “natural menopause seems to be a turning point to a more progressive phase of MS.”

Estrogen appears to play a significant role. “It’s involved in synaptic plasticity,” she said. “That’s why the disabilities are worsening.”

Dr. Voskuhl supports a year-long, randomized and controlled study of estrogen supplementation in 150-200 participants. The goal, she said, is “not just to prevent loss and bad things from happening but also make improvements.”

In healthy patients, she said, outcomes should include cognitive decline in menopause, cognitive domain outcomes, and region-specific biomarkers in the frontal cortex and hippocampus instead of global cognition and global brain volume. In patients with MS, she said, the focus should be on worsening of disability with emphasis on specific disabilities such as walking and region-specific biomarkers for the motor cortex and spinal cord.

“We need to be looking at cortical gray matter, which we know is responsive to estrogen,” Dr. Voskuhl said. She led a 2018 placebo-controlled study that found women with MS who took estrogen supplements appeared to experience localized sparing of progressive gray matter, which the researchers linked to improved results in cognitive testing. The findings, the study authors wrote, suggest “a clinically relevant, disability-specific biomarker for clinical trials of candidate neuroprotective treatments in MS.”

What about men? Does hormone loss worsen their MS? Dr. Voskuhl said there seems to be a connection between lower levels of testosterone and more disability in men with MS. But their situation is different. Loss of testosterone in men is gradual and happens over decades instead of over the short period of menopause in women, she said.

Jennifer Graves, MD, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego, agreed that it’s time for further research into estrogen supplementation in MS. As she noted, “we don’t know the exact biological mechanism that might link perimenopause with developing a more progressive type of MS.”

She added: “An overall decrease in estrogen may be at play but there are other biological changes around menopause. We must also take care in studies to try to separate out what might be due to ovarian aging versus other types of aging processes that might be happening at the same time.”

Dr. Voskuhl disclosed that she is an inventor on university patents for use of estriol and estrogen receptor–beta ligands as treatments. Dr. Graves reports no relevant disclosures.

It’s time for a large-scale phase 2 study into whether supplementary estrogen can relieve multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms in menopausal women with the disease, a neurologist told colleagues at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

This kind of research should explore the effects of aging, including in the brain, and “focus on what is preventable – this dramatic and abrupt loss of estrogen in women with MS,” said Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, of the Brain Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“This is a call to action. There’s a huge gap that needs to be filled,” she added in an interview. “Not enough attention has been paid to menopause and cognitive issues in MS and even in healthy women.”

Research has found that many women with MS experience a decline in function during menopause, she said. “They’re having a worsening of their preexisting disabilities,” she noted, due to neurodegeneration.

Dr. Voskuhl highlighted a 2016 study, for instance, that found postmenopausal women with MS on hormone replacement therapy reported better physical function and quality of life than did their counterparts after adjustment for covariates. She also pointed to a 2019 study that concluded that “natural menopause seems to be a turning point to a more progressive phase of MS.”

Estrogen appears to play a significant role. “It’s involved in synaptic plasticity,” she said. “That’s why the disabilities are worsening.”

Dr. Voskuhl supports a year-long, randomized and controlled study of estrogen supplementation in 150-200 participants. The goal, she said, is “not just to prevent loss and bad things from happening but also make improvements.”

In healthy patients, she said, outcomes should include cognitive decline in menopause, cognitive domain outcomes, and region-specific biomarkers in the frontal cortex and hippocampus instead of global cognition and global brain volume. In patients with MS, she said, the focus should be on worsening of disability with emphasis on specific disabilities such as walking and region-specific biomarkers for the motor cortex and spinal cord.

“We need to be looking at cortical gray matter, which we know is responsive to estrogen,” Dr. Voskuhl said. She led a 2018 placebo-controlled study that found women with MS who took estrogen supplements appeared to experience localized sparing of progressive gray matter, which the researchers linked to improved results in cognitive testing. The findings, the study authors wrote, suggest “a clinically relevant, disability-specific biomarker for clinical trials of candidate neuroprotective treatments in MS.”

What about men? Does hormone loss worsen their MS? Dr. Voskuhl said there seems to be a connection between lower levels of testosterone and more disability in men with MS. But their situation is different. Loss of testosterone in men is gradual and happens over decades instead of over the short period of menopause in women, she said.

Jennifer Graves, MD, a neurologist at the University of California, San Diego, agreed that it’s time for further research into estrogen supplementation in MS. As she noted, “we don’t know the exact biological mechanism that might link perimenopause with developing a more progressive type of MS.”

She added: “An overall decrease in estrogen may be at play but there are other biological changes around menopause. We must also take care in studies to try to separate out what might be due to ovarian aging versus other types of aging processes that might be happening at the same time.”

Dr. Voskuhl disclosed that she is an inventor on university patents for use of estriol and estrogen receptor–beta ligands as treatments. Dr. Graves reports no relevant disclosures.

New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.

“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.

The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.

Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.

“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.

The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.

They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.

“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.

“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added.  “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”

For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.

The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).

The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51). 

Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.  

For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.

Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.

On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.

In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.

Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.  

Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.  

Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.

“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.

This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.

Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.

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

New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.

“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.

The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.

Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.

“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.

The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.

They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.

“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.

“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added.  “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”

For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.

The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).

The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51). 

Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.  

For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.

Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.

On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.

In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.

Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.  

Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.  

Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.

“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.

This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.

Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.

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

New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.

“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.

The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.

Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.

“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.

The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.

They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.

“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.

“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added.  “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”

For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.

The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).

The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51). 

Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.  

For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.

Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.

On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.

In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.

Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.  

Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.  

Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.

“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.

This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.

Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.

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

Several weeks after getting his second dose of an mRNA vaccine, Aaron Goyang thinks his long bout with COVID-19 has finally come to an end.

Geber86/Getty Images

Mr. Goyang, who is 33 and is a radiology technician in Austin, Tex., thinks he got COVID-19 from some of the coughing, gasping patients he treated last spring.

At the time, testing was scarce, and by the time he was tested – several weeks into his illness – it came back negative. He fought off the initial symptoms but experienced relapse a week later.

Mr. Goyang says that, for the next 8 or 9 months, he was on a roller coaster with extreme shortness of breath and chest tightness that could be so severe it would send him to the emergency department. He had to use an inhaler to get through his workdays.

“Even if I was just sitting around, it would come and take me,” he says. “It almost felt like someone was bear-hugging me constantly, and I just couldn’t get in a good enough breath.”

On his best days, he would walk around his neighborhood, being careful not to overdo it. He tried running once, and it nearly sent him to the hospital.

“Very honestly, I didn’t know if I would ever be able to do it again,” he says.

But Mr. Goyang says that, several weeks after getting the Pfizer vaccine, he was able to run a mile again with no problems. “I was very thankful for that,” he says.

Mr. Goyang is not alone. Some social media groups are dedicated to patients who are living with a condition that’s been known as long COVID and that was recently termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). These patients are sometimes referred to as long haulers.

On social media, patients with PASC are eagerly and anxiously quizzing each other about the vaccines and their effects. Some report that they’ve finally seen their symptoms resolve, giving hope that long COVID might not be a lifelong condition.

Survivor Corps, which has a public Facebook group with 159,000 members, recently took a poll to see whether there was any substance to rumors that those with long COVID were feeling better after being vaccinated.

“Out of 400 people, 36% showed an improvement in symptoms, anywhere between a mild improvement to complete resolution of symptoms,” said Diana Berrent, a long-COVID patient who founded the group. Survivor Corps has become active in patient advocacy and is a resource for researchers studying the new condition.

Ms. Berrent has become such a trusted voice during the pandemic. She interviewed Anthony Fauci, MD, head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, last October.

“The implications are huge,” she says.

“Some of this damage is permanent damage. It’s not going to cure the scarring of your heart tissue, it’s not going to cure the irreparable damage to your lungs, but if it’s making people feel better, then that’s an indication there’s viral persistence going on,” says Ms. Berrent.

“I’ve been saying for months and months, we shouldn’t be calling this postacute anything,” she adds.
 

Patients report improvement

Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, is equally excited. He’s an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University, New York. He says about one in five patients he treated for COVID-19 last year never got better. Many of them, such as Mr. Goyang, were health care workers.

“I don’t know if people actually catch this, but a lot of our coworkers are either permanently disabled or died,” Dr. Griffin says.

Health care workers were also among the first to be vaccinated. Dr. Griffin says many of his patients began reaching out to him about a week or two after being vaccinated “and saying, ‘You know, I actually feel better.’ And some of them were saying, ‘I feel all better,’ after being sick – a lot of them – for a year.”

Then he was getting calls and texts from other doctors, asking, “Hey, are you seeing this?”

The benefits of vaccination for some long-haulers came as a surprise. Dr. Griffin says that, before the vaccines came out, many of his patients were worried that getting vaccinated might overstimulate their immune systems and cause symptoms to get worse.

Indeed, a small percentage of people – about 3%-5%, based on informal polls on social media – report that they do experience worsening of symptoms after getting the shot. It’s not clear why.

Dr. Griffin estimates that between 30% and 50% of patients’ symptoms improve after they receive the mRNA vaccines. “I’m seeing this chunk of people – they tell me their brain fog has improved, their fatigue is gone, the fevers that wouldn’t resolve have now gone,” he says. “I’m seeing that personally, and I’m hearing it from my colleagues.”

Dr. Griffin says the observation has launched several studies and that there are several theories about how the vaccines might be affecting long COVID.
 

An immune system boost?

One possibility is that the virus continues to stimulate the immune system, which continues to fight the virus for months. If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be giving the immune system the boost it needs to finally clear the virus away.

Donna Farber, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, has heard the stories, too.

“It is possible that the persisting virus in long COVID-19 may be at a low level – not enough to stimulate a potent immune response to clear the virus, but enough to cause symptoms. Activating the immune response therefore is therapeutic in directing viral clearance,” she says.

Dr. Farber explains that long COVID may be a bit like Lyme disease. Some patients with Lyme disease must take antibiotics for months before their symptoms disappear.

Dr. Griffin says there’s another possibility. Several studies have now shown that people with lingering COVID-19 symptoms develop autoantibodies. There’s a theory that SARS-CoV-2 may create an autoimmune condition that leads to long-term symptoms.

If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be helping the body to reset its tolerance to itself, “so maybe now you’re getting a healthy immune response.”

More studies are needed to know for sure.

Either way, the vaccines are a much-needed bit of hope for the long-COVID community, and Dr. Griffin tells his patients who are still worried that, at the very least, they’ll be protected from another SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

Several weeks after getting his second dose of an mRNA vaccine, Aaron Goyang thinks his long bout with COVID-19 has finally come to an end.

Geber86/Getty Images

Mr. Goyang, who is 33 and is a radiology technician in Austin, Tex., thinks he got COVID-19 from some of the coughing, gasping patients he treated last spring.

At the time, testing was scarce, and by the time he was tested – several weeks into his illness – it came back negative. He fought off the initial symptoms but experienced relapse a week later.

Mr. Goyang says that, for the next 8 or 9 months, he was on a roller coaster with extreme shortness of breath and chest tightness that could be so severe it would send him to the emergency department. He had to use an inhaler to get through his workdays.

“Even if I was just sitting around, it would come and take me,” he says. “It almost felt like someone was bear-hugging me constantly, and I just couldn’t get in a good enough breath.”

On his best days, he would walk around his neighborhood, being careful not to overdo it. He tried running once, and it nearly sent him to the hospital.

“Very honestly, I didn’t know if I would ever be able to do it again,” he says.

But Mr. Goyang says that, several weeks after getting the Pfizer vaccine, he was able to run a mile again with no problems. “I was very thankful for that,” he says.

Mr. Goyang is not alone. Some social media groups are dedicated to patients who are living with a condition that’s been known as long COVID and that was recently termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). These patients are sometimes referred to as long haulers.

On social media, patients with PASC are eagerly and anxiously quizzing each other about the vaccines and their effects. Some report that they’ve finally seen their symptoms resolve, giving hope that long COVID might not be a lifelong condition.

Survivor Corps, which has a public Facebook group with 159,000 members, recently took a poll to see whether there was any substance to rumors that those with long COVID were feeling better after being vaccinated.

“Out of 400 people, 36% showed an improvement in symptoms, anywhere between a mild improvement to complete resolution of symptoms,” said Diana Berrent, a long-COVID patient who founded the group. Survivor Corps has become active in patient advocacy and is a resource for researchers studying the new condition.

Ms. Berrent has become such a trusted voice during the pandemic. She interviewed Anthony Fauci, MD, head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, last October.

“The implications are huge,” she says.

“Some of this damage is permanent damage. It’s not going to cure the scarring of your heart tissue, it’s not going to cure the irreparable damage to your lungs, but if it’s making people feel better, then that’s an indication there’s viral persistence going on,” says Ms. Berrent.

“I’ve been saying for months and months, we shouldn’t be calling this postacute anything,” she adds.
 

Patients report improvement

Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, is equally excited. He’s an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University, New York. He says about one in five patients he treated for COVID-19 last year never got better. Many of them, such as Mr. Goyang, were health care workers.

“I don’t know if people actually catch this, but a lot of our coworkers are either permanently disabled or died,” Dr. Griffin says.

Health care workers were also among the first to be vaccinated. Dr. Griffin says many of his patients began reaching out to him about a week or two after being vaccinated “and saying, ‘You know, I actually feel better.’ And some of them were saying, ‘I feel all better,’ after being sick – a lot of them – for a year.”

Then he was getting calls and texts from other doctors, asking, “Hey, are you seeing this?”

The benefits of vaccination for some long-haulers came as a surprise. Dr. Griffin says that, before the vaccines came out, many of his patients were worried that getting vaccinated might overstimulate their immune systems and cause symptoms to get worse.

Indeed, a small percentage of people – about 3%-5%, based on informal polls on social media – report that they do experience worsening of symptoms after getting the shot. It’s not clear why.

Dr. Griffin estimates that between 30% and 50% of patients’ symptoms improve after they receive the mRNA vaccines. “I’m seeing this chunk of people – they tell me their brain fog has improved, their fatigue is gone, the fevers that wouldn’t resolve have now gone,” he says. “I’m seeing that personally, and I’m hearing it from my colleagues.”

Dr. Griffin says the observation has launched several studies and that there are several theories about how the vaccines might be affecting long COVID.
 

An immune system boost?

One possibility is that the virus continues to stimulate the immune system, which continues to fight the virus for months. If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be giving the immune system the boost it needs to finally clear the virus away.

Donna Farber, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, has heard the stories, too.

“It is possible that the persisting virus in long COVID-19 may be at a low level – not enough to stimulate a potent immune response to clear the virus, but enough to cause symptoms. Activating the immune response therefore is therapeutic in directing viral clearance,” she says.

Dr. Farber explains that long COVID may be a bit like Lyme disease. Some patients with Lyme disease must take antibiotics for months before their symptoms disappear.

Dr. Griffin says there’s another possibility. Several studies have now shown that people with lingering COVID-19 symptoms develop autoantibodies. There’s a theory that SARS-CoV-2 may create an autoimmune condition that leads to long-term symptoms.

If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be helping the body to reset its tolerance to itself, “so maybe now you’re getting a healthy immune response.”

More studies are needed to know for sure.

Either way, the vaccines are a much-needed bit of hope for the long-COVID community, and Dr. Griffin tells his patients who are still worried that, at the very least, they’ll be protected from another SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

Several weeks after getting his second dose of an mRNA vaccine, Aaron Goyang thinks his long bout with COVID-19 has finally come to an end.

Geber86/Getty Images

Mr. Goyang, who is 33 and is a radiology technician in Austin, Tex., thinks he got COVID-19 from some of the coughing, gasping patients he treated last spring.

At the time, testing was scarce, and by the time he was tested – several weeks into his illness – it came back negative. He fought off the initial symptoms but experienced relapse a week later.

Mr. Goyang says that, for the next 8 or 9 months, he was on a roller coaster with extreme shortness of breath and chest tightness that could be so severe it would send him to the emergency department. He had to use an inhaler to get through his workdays.

“Even if I was just sitting around, it would come and take me,” he says. “It almost felt like someone was bear-hugging me constantly, and I just couldn’t get in a good enough breath.”

On his best days, he would walk around his neighborhood, being careful not to overdo it. He tried running once, and it nearly sent him to the hospital.

“Very honestly, I didn’t know if I would ever be able to do it again,” he says.

But Mr. Goyang says that, several weeks after getting the Pfizer vaccine, he was able to run a mile again with no problems. “I was very thankful for that,” he says.

Mr. Goyang is not alone. Some social media groups are dedicated to patients who are living with a condition that’s been known as long COVID and that was recently termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). These patients are sometimes referred to as long haulers.

On social media, patients with PASC are eagerly and anxiously quizzing each other about the vaccines and their effects. Some report that they’ve finally seen their symptoms resolve, giving hope that long COVID might not be a lifelong condition.

Survivor Corps, which has a public Facebook group with 159,000 members, recently took a poll to see whether there was any substance to rumors that those with long COVID were feeling better after being vaccinated.

“Out of 400 people, 36% showed an improvement in symptoms, anywhere between a mild improvement to complete resolution of symptoms,” said Diana Berrent, a long-COVID patient who founded the group. Survivor Corps has become active in patient advocacy and is a resource for researchers studying the new condition.

Ms. Berrent has become such a trusted voice during the pandemic. She interviewed Anthony Fauci, MD, head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, last October.

“The implications are huge,” she says.

“Some of this damage is permanent damage. It’s not going to cure the scarring of your heart tissue, it’s not going to cure the irreparable damage to your lungs, but if it’s making people feel better, then that’s an indication there’s viral persistence going on,” says Ms. Berrent.

“I’ve been saying for months and months, we shouldn’t be calling this postacute anything,” she adds.
 

Patients report improvement

Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, is equally excited. He’s an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University, New York. He says about one in five patients he treated for COVID-19 last year never got better. Many of them, such as Mr. Goyang, were health care workers.

“I don’t know if people actually catch this, but a lot of our coworkers are either permanently disabled or died,” Dr. Griffin says.

Health care workers were also among the first to be vaccinated. Dr. Griffin says many of his patients began reaching out to him about a week or two after being vaccinated “and saying, ‘You know, I actually feel better.’ And some of them were saying, ‘I feel all better,’ after being sick – a lot of them – for a year.”

Then he was getting calls and texts from other doctors, asking, “Hey, are you seeing this?”

The benefits of vaccination for some long-haulers came as a surprise. Dr. Griffin says that, before the vaccines came out, many of his patients were worried that getting vaccinated might overstimulate their immune systems and cause symptoms to get worse.

Indeed, a small percentage of people – about 3%-5%, based on informal polls on social media – report that they do experience worsening of symptoms after getting the shot. It’s not clear why.

Dr. Griffin estimates that between 30% and 50% of patients’ symptoms improve after they receive the mRNA vaccines. “I’m seeing this chunk of people – they tell me their brain fog has improved, their fatigue is gone, the fevers that wouldn’t resolve have now gone,” he says. “I’m seeing that personally, and I’m hearing it from my colleagues.”

Dr. Griffin says the observation has launched several studies and that there are several theories about how the vaccines might be affecting long COVID.
 

An immune system boost?

One possibility is that the virus continues to stimulate the immune system, which continues to fight the virus for months. If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be giving the immune system the boost it needs to finally clear the virus away.

Donna Farber, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, has heard the stories, too.

“It is possible that the persisting virus in long COVID-19 may be at a low level – not enough to stimulate a potent immune response to clear the virus, but enough to cause symptoms. Activating the immune response therefore is therapeutic in directing viral clearance,” she says.

Dr. Farber explains that long COVID may be a bit like Lyme disease. Some patients with Lyme disease must take antibiotics for months before their symptoms disappear.

Dr. Griffin says there’s another possibility. Several studies have now shown that people with lingering COVID-19 symptoms develop autoantibodies. There’s a theory that SARS-CoV-2 may create an autoimmune condition that leads to long-term symptoms.

If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be helping the body to reset its tolerance to itself, “so maybe now you’re getting a healthy immune response.”

More studies are needed to know for sure.

Either way, the vaccines are a much-needed bit of hope for the long-COVID community, and Dr. Griffin tells his patients who are still worried that, at the very least, they’ll be protected from another SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

Medicare payments for branded neurologic drugs jumped 50% over a 5-year period, while claims for these medications increased by just 8%, new research shows. Results of the retrospective study also showed that most of the increased costs for these agents were due to rising costs for neuroimmunology drugs, mainly for those used to treat multiple sclerosis (MS).

“The same brand name medication in 2017 cost approximately 50% more than in 2013,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“An analogy would be if you bought an iPhone 5 in 2013 for $500, and then in 2017, you were asked to pay $750 for the exact same iPhone 5,” Dr. de Havenon added.

The study findings were published online March 10 in the journal Neurology.
 

$26 billion in payments

Both neurologists and patients are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs for neurologic diseases, and Medicare Part D data indicate that these drugs are the most expensive component of neurologic care, the researchers noted. In addition, out-of-pocket costs have increased significantly for patients with neurologic disease such as Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and MS.

To understand trends in payments for neurologic drugs, Dr. de Havenon and colleagues analyzed Medicare Part D claims filed from 2013 to 2017. The payments include costs paid by Medicare, the patient, government subsidies, and other third-party payers.

In addition to examining more current Medicare Part D data than previous studies, the current analysis examined all medications prescribed by neurologists that consistently remained branded or generic during the 5-year study period, said Dr. de Havenon. This approach resulted in a large number of claims and a large total cost.

To calculate the percentage change in annual payment claims, the researchers used 2013 prices as a reference point. They identified drugs named in 2013 claims and classified them as generic, brand-name only, or brand-name with generic equivalent. Researchers also divided the drugs by neurologic subspecialty.

The analysis included 520 drugs, all of which were available in each year of the study period. Of these drugs, 322 were generic, 61 were brand-name only, and 137 were brand-name with a generic equivalent. There were 90.7 million total claims.

Results showed total payments amounted to $26.65 billion. Yearly total payments increased from $4.05 billion in 2013 to $6.09 billion in 2017, representing a 50.4% increase, even after adjusting for inflation. Total claims increased by 7.6% – from 17.1 million in 2013 to 18.4 million in 2017.

From 2013 to 2017, claim payments increased by 0.6% for generic drugs, 42.4% for brand-name only drugs, and 45% for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents. The proportion of claims increased from 81.9% to 88% for generic drugs and from 4.9% to 6.2% for brand-name only drugs.

However, the proportion of claims for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents decreased from 13.3% to 5.8%.
 

Treatment barrier

Neuroimmunologic drugs, most of which were prescribed for MS, had exceptional cost, the researchers noted. These drugs accounted for more than 50% of payments but only 4.3% of claims. Claim payment for these drugs increased by 46.9% during the study period, from $3,337 to $4,902.

When neuroimmunologic drugs were removed from the analysis there was still significant increase in claim payments for brand-name only drugs (50.4%) and brand-name drugs with generic equivalents (45.6%).

Although neuroimmunologic medicines, including monoclonal antibodies, are more expensive to produce, this factor alone does not explain their exceptional cost, said Dr. de Havenon. “The high cost of brand-name drugs in this speciality is likely because the market bears it,” he added. “In other words, MS is a disabling disease and the medications work, so historically the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have been willing to tolerate the high cost of these primarily brand-name medications.”

Several countries have controlled drug costs by negotiating with pharmaceutical companies and through legislation, Dr. de Havenon noted.

“My intent with this article was to raise awareness on the topic, which I struggle with frequently as a clinician. I know I want my patients to have a medication, but the cost prevents it,” he said.
 

‘Unfettered’ price-setting

Commenting on the findings, Robert J. Fox, MD, vice chair for research at the Neurological Institute of the Cleveland Clinic, said the study “brings into clear light” what neurologists, particularly those who treat MS, have long suspected but did not really know. These neurologists “are typically distanced from the payment aspects of the medications they prescribe,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

Although a particular strength of the study was its comprehensiveness, the researchers excluded infusion claims – which account for a large portion of total patient care costs for many disorders, he noted.

Drugs for MS historically have been expensive, ostensibly because of their high cost of development. In addition, the large and continued price increase that occurs long after these drugs have been approved remains unexplained, said Dr. Fox.

He noted that the study findings might not directly affect clinical practice because neurologists will continue prescribing medications they think are best for their patients. “Instead, I think this is a lesson to lawmakers about the massive error in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, where the federal government was prohibited from negotiating drug prices. If the seller is unfettered in setting a price, then no one should be surprised when the price rises,” Dr. Fox said.

Because many new drugs and new generic formulations for treating MS have become available during the past year, “repeating these types of economic studies for the period 2020-2025 will help us understand if generic competition – as well as new laws if they are passed – alter price,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology, which publishes Neurology. Dr. de Havenon has received clinical research funding from AMAG Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Fox receives consulting fees from many pharmaceutical companies involved in the development of therapies for MS.

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

Medicare payments for branded neurologic drugs jumped 50% over a 5-year period, while claims for these medications increased by just 8%, new research shows. Results of the retrospective study also showed that most of the increased costs for these agents were due to rising costs for neuroimmunology drugs, mainly for those used to treat multiple sclerosis (MS).

“The same brand name medication in 2017 cost approximately 50% more than in 2013,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“An analogy would be if you bought an iPhone 5 in 2013 for $500, and then in 2017, you were asked to pay $750 for the exact same iPhone 5,” Dr. de Havenon added.

The study findings were published online March 10 in the journal Neurology.
 

$26 billion in payments

Both neurologists and patients are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs for neurologic diseases, and Medicare Part D data indicate that these drugs are the most expensive component of neurologic care, the researchers noted. In addition, out-of-pocket costs have increased significantly for patients with neurologic disease such as Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and MS.

To understand trends in payments for neurologic drugs, Dr. de Havenon and colleagues analyzed Medicare Part D claims filed from 2013 to 2017. The payments include costs paid by Medicare, the patient, government subsidies, and other third-party payers.

In addition to examining more current Medicare Part D data than previous studies, the current analysis examined all medications prescribed by neurologists that consistently remained branded or generic during the 5-year study period, said Dr. de Havenon. This approach resulted in a large number of claims and a large total cost.

To calculate the percentage change in annual payment claims, the researchers used 2013 prices as a reference point. They identified drugs named in 2013 claims and classified them as generic, brand-name only, or brand-name with generic equivalent. Researchers also divided the drugs by neurologic subspecialty.

The analysis included 520 drugs, all of which were available in each year of the study period. Of these drugs, 322 were generic, 61 were brand-name only, and 137 were brand-name with a generic equivalent. There were 90.7 million total claims.

Results showed total payments amounted to $26.65 billion. Yearly total payments increased from $4.05 billion in 2013 to $6.09 billion in 2017, representing a 50.4% increase, even after adjusting for inflation. Total claims increased by 7.6% – from 17.1 million in 2013 to 18.4 million in 2017.

From 2013 to 2017, claim payments increased by 0.6% for generic drugs, 42.4% for brand-name only drugs, and 45% for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents. The proportion of claims increased from 81.9% to 88% for generic drugs and from 4.9% to 6.2% for brand-name only drugs.

However, the proportion of claims for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents decreased from 13.3% to 5.8%.
 

Treatment barrier

Neuroimmunologic drugs, most of which were prescribed for MS, had exceptional cost, the researchers noted. These drugs accounted for more than 50% of payments but only 4.3% of claims. Claim payment for these drugs increased by 46.9% during the study period, from $3,337 to $4,902.

When neuroimmunologic drugs were removed from the analysis there was still significant increase in claim payments for brand-name only drugs (50.4%) and brand-name drugs with generic equivalents (45.6%).

Although neuroimmunologic medicines, including monoclonal antibodies, are more expensive to produce, this factor alone does not explain their exceptional cost, said Dr. de Havenon. “The high cost of brand-name drugs in this speciality is likely because the market bears it,” he added. “In other words, MS is a disabling disease and the medications work, so historically the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have been willing to tolerate the high cost of these primarily brand-name medications.”

Several countries have controlled drug costs by negotiating with pharmaceutical companies and through legislation, Dr. de Havenon noted.

“My intent with this article was to raise awareness on the topic, which I struggle with frequently as a clinician. I know I want my patients to have a medication, but the cost prevents it,” he said.
 

‘Unfettered’ price-setting

Commenting on the findings, Robert J. Fox, MD, vice chair for research at the Neurological Institute of the Cleveland Clinic, said the study “brings into clear light” what neurologists, particularly those who treat MS, have long suspected but did not really know. These neurologists “are typically distanced from the payment aspects of the medications they prescribe,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

Although a particular strength of the study was its comprehensiveness, the researchers excluded infusion claims – which account for a large portion of total patient care costs for many disorders, he noted.

Drugs for MS historically have been expensive, ostensibly because of their high cost of development. In addition, the large and continued price increase that occurs long after these drugs have been approved remains unexplained, said Dr. Fox.

He noted that the study findings might not directly affect clinical practice because neurologists will continue prescribing medications they think are best for their patients. “Instead, I think this is a lesson to lawmakers about the massive error in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, where the federal government was prohibited from negotiating drug prices. If the seller is unfettered in setting a price, then no one should be surprised when the price rises,” Dr. Fox said.

Because many new drugs and new generic formulations for treating MS have become available during the past year, “repeating these types of economic studies for the period 2020-2025 will help us understand if generic competition – as well as new laws if they are passed – alter price,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology, which publishes Neurology. Dr. de Havenon has received clinical research funding from AMAG Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Fox receives consulting fees from many pharmaceutical companies involved in the development of therapies for MS.

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

Medicare payments for branded neurologic drugs jumped 50% over a 5-year period, while claims for these medications increased by just 8%, new research shows. Results of the retrospective study also showed that most of the increased costs for these agents were due to rising costs for neuroimmunology drugs, mainly for those used to treat multiple sclerosis (MS).

“The same brand name medication in 2017 cost approximately 50% more than in 2013,” said Adam de Havenon, MD, assistant professor of neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“An analogy would be if you bought an iPhone 5 in 2013 for $500, and then in 2017, you were asked to pay $750 for the exact same iPhone 5,” Dr. de Havenon added.

The study findings were published online March 10 in the journal Neurology.
 

$26 billion in payments

Both neurologists and patients are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs for neurologic diseases, and Medicare Part D data indicate that these drugs are the most expensive component of neurologic care, the researchers noted. In addition, out-of-pocket costs have increased significantly for patients with neurologic disease such as Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and MS.

To understand trends in payments for neurologic drugs, Dr. de Havenon and colleagues analyzed Medicare Part D claims filed from 2013 to 2017. The payments include costs paid by Medicare, the patient, government subsidies, and other third-party payers.

In addition to examining more current Medicare Part D data than previous studies, the current analysis examined all medications prescribed by neurologists that consistently remained branded or generic during the 5-year study period, said Dr. de Havenon. This approach resulted in a large number of claims and a large total cost.

To calculate the percentage change in annual payment claims, the researchers used 2013 prices as a reference point. They identified drugs named in 2013 claims and classified them as generic, brand-name only, or brand-name with generic equivalent. Researchers also divided the drugs by neurologic subspecialty.

The analysis included 520 drugs, all of which were available in each year of the study period. Of these drugs, 322 were generic, 61 were brand-name only, and 137 were brand-name with a generic equivalent. There were 90.7 million total claims.

Results showed total payments amounted to $26.65 billion. Yearly total payments increased from $4.05 billion in 2013 to $6.09 billion in 2017, representing a 50.4% increase, even after adjusting for inflation. Total claims increased by 7.6% – from 17.1 million in 2013 to 18.4 million in 2017.

From 2013 to 2017, claim payments increased by 0.6% for generic drugs, 42.4% for brand-name only drugs, and 45% for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents. The proportion of claims increased from 81.9% to 88% for generic drugs and from 4.9% to 6.2% for brand-name only drugs.

However, the proportion of claims for brand-name drugs with generic equivalents decreased from 13.3% to 5.8%.
 

Treatment barrier

Neuroimmunologic drugs, most of which were prescribed for MS, had exceptional cost, the researchers noted. These drugs accounted for more than 50% of payments but only 4.3% of claims. Claim payment for these drugs increased by 46.9% during the study period, from $3,337 to $4,902.

When neuroimmunologic drugs were removed from the analysis there was still significant increase in claim payments for brand-name only drugs (50.4%) and brand-name drugs with generic equivalents (45.6%).

Although neuroimmunologic medicines, including monoclonal antibodies, are more expensive to produce, this factor alone does not explain their exceptional cost, said Dr. de Havenon. “The high cost of brand-name drugs in this speciality is likely because the market bears it,” he added. “In other words, MS is a disabling disease and the medications work, so historically the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have been willing to tolerate the high cost of these primarily brand-name medications.”

Several countries have controlled drug costs by negotiating with pharmaceutical companies and through legislation, Dr. de Havenon noted.

“My intent with this article was to raise awareness on the topic, which I struggle with frequently as a clinician. I know I want my patients to have a medication, but the cost prevents it,” he said.
 

‘Unfettered’ price-setting

Commenting on the findings, Robert J. Fox, MD, vice chair for research at the Neurological Institute of the Cleveland Clinic, said the study “brings into clear light” what neurologists, particularly those who treat MS, have long suspected but did not really know. These neurologists “are typically distanced from the payment aspects of the medications they prescribe,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the research.

Although a particular strength of the study was its comprehensiveness, the researchers excluded infusion claims – which account for a large portion of total patient care costs for many disorders, he noted.

Drugs for MS historically have been expensive, ostensibly because of their high cost of development. In addition, the large and continued price increase that occurs long after these drugs have been approved remains unexplained, said Dr. Fox.

He noted that the study findings might not directly affect clinical practice because neurologists will continue prescribing medications they think are best for their patients. “Instead, I think this is a lesson to lawmakers about the massive error in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, where the federal government was prohibited from negotiating drug prices. If the seller is unfettered in setting a price, then no one should be surprised when the price rises,” Dr. Fox said.

Because many new drugs and new generic formulations for treating MS have become available during the past year, “repeating these types of economic studies for the period 2020-2025 will help us understand if generic competition – as well as new laws if they are passed – alter price,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology, which publishes Neurology. Dr. de Havenon has received clinical research funding from AMAG Pharmaceuticals and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Fox receives consulting fees from many pharmaceutical companies involved in the development of therapies for MS.

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

A significant proportion of community-dwelling older adults with dementia take three or more central nervous system medications despite guidelines that say to avoid this dangerous practice, new research suggests.

Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.

“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
 

Serious risks

Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.

They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”

The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.

They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.

To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.

They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
 

Conservative approach warranted

Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.

There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.

Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.

The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.

Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.

“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.

Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.

In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
 

A major clinical challenge

Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”

Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.

“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.

Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A significant proportion of community-dwelling older adults with dementia take three or more central nervous system medications despite guidelines that say to avoid this dangerous practice, new research suggests.

Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.

“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
 

Serious risks

Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.

They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”

The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.

They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.

To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.

They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
 

Conservative approach warranted

Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.

There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.

Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.

The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.

Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.

“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.

Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.

In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
 

A major clinical challenge

Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”

Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.

“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.

Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A significant proportion of community-dwelling older adults with dementia take three or more central nervous system medications despite guidelines that say to avoid this dangerous practice, new research suggests.

Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.

“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
 

Serious risks

Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.

They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”

The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.

They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.

To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.

They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
 

Conservative approach warranted

Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.

There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.

Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.

The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.

Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.

“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.

Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.

In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
 

A major clinical challenge

Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”

Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.

“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.

Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A man I saw earlier this year called my office recently. He’d read my note, and after discussing it with his attorney, wanted me to make changes. He said that the way I’d described his symptoms would be damaging to a legal action he was involved in, and so he wanted it reworded.

Obviously, I said “no.” I’m not a fiction writer. My notes are what people tell me happened. I don’t make them up.

He wasn’t happy about this, and a few days later I got a request to send his records to another neurologist, which I gladly did.

In this business a large measure of what we do is based on the patient’s symptoms. what they report to us, and how they describe it. When I put their story into a written note, my goal is to be as accurate to what they told me as possible. I’m not here to embellish, disparage, or minimize their history.

A chart, as was drilled into me throughout training, is a legal document. Once I’ve signed off on a note it can’t be changed. To do so is to look bad at the very least and open yourself up to malpractice and legal charges at worst.

This isn’t to say errors can’t be modified. I’m far from perfect. Sometimes I might misunderstand something a patient tells me, or get information crossed up. When that happens there’s nothing wrong with writing an addendum, clarifying or correcting what my earlier note said – but not changing the original note.

I asked the unhappy patient to write down what he thought was incorrect, and I’d be willing to include that in his chart. He wasn’t willing to do that, and there was no way I would ever change a note. I tried to politely explain the reasons why, but he wasn’t listening.

So I lost him as a patient. After 23 years of practice, that doesn’t bother me. I learned a long time ago that I can’t please everyone, nor can I be everyone’s doctor. Saying “no” is just as important as saying “yes,” though at times more difficult.

This time, though, the answer was pretty obvious, and will be the same next time I get the same request from a patient.

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

A man I saw earlier this year called my office recently. He’d read my note, and after discussing it with his attorney, wanted me to make changes. He said that the way I’d described his symptoms would be damaging to a legal action he was involved in, and so he wanted it reworded.

Obviously, I said “no.” I’m not a fiction writer. My notes are what people tell me happened. I don’t make them up.

He wasn’t happy about this, and a few days later I got a request to send his records to another neurologist, which I gladly did.

In this business a large measure of what we do is based on the patient’s symptoms. what they report to us, and how they describe it. When I put their story into a written note, my goal is to be as accurate to what they told me as possible. I’m not here to embellish, disparage, or minimize their history.

A chart, as was drilled into me throughout training, is a legal document. Once I’ve signed off on a note it can’t be changed. To do so is to look bad at the very least and open yourself up to malpractice and legal charges at worst.

This isn’t to say errors can’t be modified. I’m far from perfect. Sometimes I might misunderstand something a patient tells me, or get information crossed up. When that happens there’s nothing wrong with writing an addendum, clarifying or correcting what my earlier note said – but not changing the original note.

I asked the unhappy patient to write down what he thought was incorrect, and I’d be willing to include that in his chart. He wasn’t willing to do that, and there was no way I would ever change a note. I tried to politely explain the reasons why, but he wasn’t listening.

So I lost him as a patient. After 23 years of practice, that doesn’t bother me. I learned a long time ago that I can’t please everyone, nor can I be everyone’s doctor. Saying “no” is just as important as saying “yes,” though at times more difficult.

This time, though, the answer was pretty obvious, and will be the same next time I get the same request from a patient.

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

A man I saw earlier this year called my office recently. He’d read my note, and after discussing it with his attorney, wanted me to make changes. He said that the way I’d described his symptoms would be damaging to a legal action he was involved in, and so he wanted it reworded.

Obviously, I said “no.” I’m not a fiction writer. My notes are what people tell me happened. I don’t make them up.

He wasn’t happy about this, and a few days later I got a request to send his records to another neurologist, which I gladly did.

In this business a large measure of what we do is based on the patient’s symptoms. what they report to us, and how they describe it. When I put their story into a written note, my goal is to be as accurate to what they told me as possible. I’m not here to embellish, disparage, or minimize their history.

A chart, as was drilled into me throughout training, is a legal document. Once I’ve signed off on a note it can’t be changed. To do so is to look bad at the very least and open yourself up to malpractice and legal charges at worst.

This isn’t to say errors can’t be modified. I’m far from perfect. Sometimes I might misunderstand something a patient tells me, or get information crossed up. When that happens there’s nothing wrong with writing an addendum, clarifying or correcting what my earlier note said – but not changing the original note.

I asked the unhappy patient to write down what he thought was incorrect, and I’d be willing to include that in his chart. He wasn’t willing to do that, and there was no way I would ever change a note. I tried to politely explain the reasons why, but he wasn’t listening.

So I lost him as a patient. After 23 years of practice, that doesn’t bother me. I learned a long time ago that I can’t please everyone, nor can I be everyone’s doctor. Saying “no” is just as important as saying “yes,” though at times more difficult.

This time, though, the answer was pretty obvious, and will be the same next time I get the same request from a patient.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

Older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who began using synthetic cannabinoids showed a 64% increase in all-cause mortality, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.

Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.

“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.

In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.

Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.

Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”


 

Dose makes a difference

All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
 

Potential limitations and implications

“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.

The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who began using synthetic cannabinoids showed a 64% increase in all-cause mortality, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.

Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.

“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.

In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.

Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.

Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”


 

Dose makes a difference

All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
 

Potential limitations and implications

“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.

The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who began using synthetic cannabinoids showed a 64% increase in all-cause mortality, compared with nonusers, findings from a large study have shown.

Synthetic cannabinoids drugs, such as nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. But their off-label use by adults with COPD to help manage chronic musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, and refractory dyspnea is on the rise, wrote Nicholas T. Vozoris, MD, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

Cannabinoids may actually contribute to negative respiratory outcomes among individuals with COPD through several possible mechanisms including causing sedation, inducing anxiety, and provoking respiratory muscle weakness, they said.

“Possible adverse respiratory effects of cannabinoids may occur with greater likelihood among older adults (in whom COPD is more prevalent), as this group is known to less efficiently metabolise drugs,” they noted.

In a retrospective, population-based cohort study published in Thorax the researchers identified 185,876 adults aged 66 years and older with COPD using health administrative database information from 2006 to 2016. New cannabinoid users (those starting nabilone or dronabinol) were matched with control nonusers (defined as new users of noncannabinoid drugs). Individuals receiving palliative care, or having a diagnosis of cancer or HIV, were excluded because these are settings where synthetic cannabinoids may be prescribed for nausea or vomiting, and these patients are more likely to be in a poorer state of health.

Overall, new cannabinoid users had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates, compared with nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.64). The effects was greater in high-dose users.

Daniel R. Ouellette, MD, associate professor of medicine at Wayne State University and a senior staff physician at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit, commented that this study has value for clinicians. “Many states are liberalizing cannabinoid use, and it is important to know the health effects of this type of drug on patients with chronic respiratory disease,” he noted. “The study is somewhat surprising. While one might have expected adverse consequences in patients with COPD who inhaled smoke from cannabinoids, it is somewhat unexpected that oral use would be associated with adverse consequences.” He added, “Pain in older adults is a complex problem. Cannabinoids are often recommended for pain in the general community, but pain per se is not a primary symptom for most patients with COPD from their respiratory problems. Physicians treating patients with COPD should diagnose the cause of the pain and provide appropriate treatment.”


 

Dose makes a difference

All-cause mortality increased by 231% and hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia increased by 178% among new users of higher-dose cannabinoids, compared with nonusers. Higher dose was defined in this study as more than 1.5mg/day of nabilone. No significant differences appeared in new users vs. nonusers in hospitalization for COPD or pneumonia at lower doses, and no significant differences appeared overall in outpatient respiratory exacerbations, emergency department visits for COPD or pneumonia, or COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality.
 

Potential limitations and implications

“The fact that COPD- or pneumonia-related mortality was not observed to occur with significantly greater rates among cannabinoid users with COPD may suggest that the increased all-cause mortality finding was not being driven by adverse respiratory-related drug effects, as we hypothesized, and instead was possibly a result of unresolved confounding,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causation in an observational study, and the potential for confounding based on unmeasured differences between cannabinoid users and nonusers, the researchers said. “Our findings may not be generalizable to all individuals with COPD, as our study included only those aged 66 years and older, and our COPD identification algorithm, while highly specific, had modest sensitivity,” they added. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and suggest that cannabinoids are not contraindicated for older adults with COPD, the researchers said. “There can be legitimate reasons for using cannabinoids in this population, such as to help treat chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, and possibly for end-of-life care,” they emphasized.

The study findings serve to inform clinicians of the significantly increased mortality risk when older adults with COPD initiate cannabinoids, and “this information should be discussed with patients and incorporated in prescribing decision-making and management plans,” along with consideration of using lower doses when possible to minimize adverse events, they concluded.

The study was supported by The Lung Association – Ontario Grant Review/Grant-In-Aid. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.