MDedge Neurology

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA – The investigational monoclonal antibody nipocalimab (Johnson & Johnson) is associated with significant improvement in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) over a 24-week period, according to topline results from the phase 3 VIVACITY-MG3 study.

The VIVACITY-MG3 trial is the first registrational study of a neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) blocker to show sustained efficacy through 6 months of fixed schedule dosing.

Lead investigator Tuan Vu, MD, professor of neurology at the University of South Florida in Tampa, presented the findings at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. 
 

Autoantibody Depletion

FcRN plays a crucial role in the transport of immunoglobulin G. Blocking it can reduce circulating immunoglobulin G antibodies, including pathogenic gMG autoantibodies. 

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 196 adults with a broad range of seropositive gMG – who account for approximately 95% of the gMG patient population – and 42 seronegative patients.

The mean age was 52 years, 92% were female, and 63% were White. The mean disease duration was about 8 years. Among seropositive patients, 87.6% were acetylcholine receptor autoantibody-positive (AChR+), 10.5% were muscle-specific kinase autoantibody-positive (MuSK+), and 2% were low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 antibody positive.

They were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either nipocalimab IV plus standard of care, or placebo plus standard of care for 24 weeks. A total of 87 patients in the nipocalimab arm and 82 in the placebo arm completed the study.

The primary efficacy endpoint was the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score. Participants treated with nipocalimab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement of 4.70 points from baseline, compared to the 3.25-point improvement in those treated with placebo (P =.002). 
 

Clinically Meaningful Changes?

“For someone living with gMG, a 1 to 2-point improvement on MG-ADL may be the difference between normal eating and frequent choking on food, or shortness of breath at rest and being on a ventilator,” the drug’s manufacturer noted in a release. 

Secondary endpoints were also better in the nipocalimab group, compared with participants on placebo. Specifically, on the 13-item clinician assessed Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis disease severity score, patients who received nipocalimab had an average reduction of 4.86 points from baseline compared to a reduction of 2.05 points in the placebo arm (P <.001). 

Similarly, MG-ADL response (defined as ≥ 2-point improvement from baseline) was significantly greater in the nipocalimab versus placebo arms (68.8% vs 52.6%; P =.021).

Subgroup analysis revealed similar results for the different types of seropositive patients, but there was no statistically significant difference in results for seronegative patients treated with nipocalimab versus placebo.

“The drug was pretty well tolerated and there was little difference, other than more patients with muscle spasm in the nipocalimab group (12.2% vs 3.1%),” said Vu. 

In addition, peripheral edema occurred in 11.2% of the nipocalimab group and none of the placebo-treated patients. Cholesterol levels were also higher in the nipocalimab arm, but there were no cardiac side effects, he added.
 

Encouraging Findings

Commenting on the findings, Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, was encouraged.

“It’s a phase 3 trial, it’s positive, which is great, so it’ll be another drug on the market, another option for our patients,” she said. However, she cautioned, “their placebo arm did better than most placebos, so I think the delta is not as robust, but it was still statistically significant.” 

Goyal noted that, if approved, nipocalimab will be the third FcRn inhibitor in the MG field, preceded by efgartigimod (Vyvgart), which is approved for AChR antibody-positive disease, and rozanolixizumab-noli (Rystiggo) which is approved for both for AChR and MUSK antibody positive disease. 

“Its target of action is similar to the two drugs that are already on the market, but one thing that is unique about nipocalimab is that it is continuous dosing versus the other two medications that are given cyclically,” she said. 

“The reason that’s an upside, is that with cyclical dosing, patients have a return of symptoms. We treat, they get better, and then they get worse. That’s very disconcerting to patients. So, they want to be treated continuously.”

Additionally, she said there are some early data suggesting its safety in pregnancy.

Vu disclosed he is the USF Site Principal Investigator for MG clinical trials sponsored by Alexion/ AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Amgen, argenx, Cartesian Therapeutics, COUR Pharmaceuticals, Dianthus Therapeutics, Immunovant, Johnson & Johnson, NMD Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, and has served as a speaker for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, and CSL Behring. He performs consulting work for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, Dianthus Therapeutics, ImmunAbs, and UCB. Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Janssen. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA – The investigational monoclonal antibody nipocalimab (Johnson & Johnson) is associated with significant improvement in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) over a 24-week period, according to topline results from the phase 3 VIVACITY-MG3 study.

The VIVACITY-MG3 trial is the first registrational study of a neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) blocker to show sustained efficacy through 6 months of fixed schedule dosing.

Lead investigator Tuan Vu, MD, professor of neurology at the University of South Florida in Tampa, presented the findings at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. 
 

Autoantibody Depletion

FcRN plays a crucial role in the transport of immunoglobulin G. Blocking it can reduce circulating immunoglobulin G antibodies, including pathogenic gMG autoantibodies. 

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 196 adults with a broad range of seropositive gMG – who account for approximately 95% of the gMG patient population – and 42 seronegative patients.

The mean age was 52 years, 92% were female, and 63% were White. The mean disease duration was about 8 years. Among seropositive patients, 87.6% were acetylcholine receptor autoantibody-positive (AChR+), 10.5% were muscle-specific kinase autoantibody-positive (MuSK+), and 2% were low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 antibody positive.

They were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either nipocalimab IV plus standard of care, or placebo plus standard of care for 24 weeks. A total of 87 patients in the nipocalimab arm and 82 in the placebo arm completed the study.

The primary efficacy endpoint was the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score. Participants treated with nipocalimab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement of 4.70 points from baseline, compared to the 3.25-point improvement in those treated with placebo (P =.002). 
 

Clinically Meaningful Changes?

“For someone living with gMG, a 1 to 2-point improvement on MG-ADL may be the difference between normal eating and frequent choking on food, or shortness of breath at rest and being on a ventilator,” the drug’s manufacturer noted in a release. 

Secondary endpoints were also better in the nipocalimab group, compared with participants on placebo. Specifically, on the 13-item clinician assessed Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis disease severity score, patients who received nipocalimab had an average reduction of 4.86 points from baseline compared to a reduction of 2.05 points in the placebo arm (P <.001). 

Similarly, MG-ADL response (defined as ≥ 2-point improvement from baseline) was significantly greater in the nipocalimab versus placebo arms (68.8% vs 52.6%; P =.021).

Subgroup analysis revealed similar results for the different types of seropositive patients, but there was no statistically significant difference in results for seronegative patients treated with nipocalimab versus placebo.

“The drug was pretty well tolerated and there was little difference, other than more patients with muscle spasm in the nipocalimab group (12.2% vs 3.1%),” said Vu. 

In addition, peripheral edema occurred in 11.2% of the nipocalimab group and none of the placebo-treated patients. Cholesterol levels were also higher in the nipocalimab arm, but there were no cardiac side effects, he added.
 

Encouraging Findings

Commenting on the findings, Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, was encouraged.

“It’s a phase 3 trial, it’s positive, which is great, so it’ll be another drug on the market, another option for our patients,” she said. However, she cautioned, “their placebo arm did better than most placebos, so I think the delta is not as robust, but it was still statistically significant.” 

Goyal noted that, if approved, nipocalimab will be the third FcRn inhibitor in the MG field, preceded by efgartigimod (Vyvgart), which is approved for AChR antibody-positive disease, and rozanolixizumab-noli (Rystiggo) which is approved for both for AChR and MUSK antibody positive disease. 

“Its target of action is similar to the two drugs that are already on the market, but one thing that is unique about nipocalimab is that it is continuous dosing versus the other two medications that are given cyclically,” she said. 

“The reason that’s an upside, is that with cyclical dosing, patients have a return of symptoms. We treat, they get better, and then they get worse. That’s very disconcerting to patients. So, they want to be treated continuously.”

Additionally, she said there are some early data suggesting its safety in pregnancy.

Vu disclosed he is the USF Site Principal Investigator for MG clinical trials sponsored by Alexion/ AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Amgen, argenx, Cartesian Therapeutics, COUR Pharmaceuticals, Dianthus Therapeutics, Immunovant, Johnson & Johnson, NMD Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, and has served as a speaker for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, and CSL Behring. He performs consulting work for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, Dianthus Therapeutics, ImmunAbs, and UCB. Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Janssen. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA – The investigational monoclonal antibody nipocalimab (Johnson & Johnson) is associated with significant improvement in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) over a 24-week period, according to topline results from the phase 3 VIVACITY-MG3 study.

The VIVACITY-MG3 trial is the first registrational study of a neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) blocker to show sustained efficacy through 6 months of fixed schedule dosing.

Lead investigator Tuan Vu, MD, professor of neurology at the University of South Florida in Tampa, presented the findings at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. 
 

Autoantibody Depletion

FcRN plays a crucial role in the transport of immunoglobulin G. Blocking it can reduce circulating immunoglobulin G antibodies, including pathogenic gMG autoantibodies. 

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 196 adults with a broad range of seropositive gMG – who account for approximately 95% of the gMG patient population – and 42 seronegative patients.

The mean age was 52 years, 92% were female, and 63% were White. The mean disease duration was about 8 years. Among seropositive patients, 87.6% were acetylcholine receptor autoantibody-positive (AChR+), 10.5% were muscle-specific kinase autoantibody-positive (MuSK+), and 2% were low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 antibody positive.

They were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either nipocalimab IV plus standard of care, or placebo plus standard of care for 24 weeks. A total of 87 patients in the nipocalimab arm and 82 in the placebo arm completed the study.

The primary efficacy endpoint was the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score. Participants treated with nipocalimab demonstrated a statistically significant improvement of 4.70 points from baseline, compared to the 3.25-point improvement in those treated with placebo (P =.002). 
 

Clinically Meaningful Changes?

“For someone living with gMG, a 1 to 2-point improvement on MG-ADL may be the difference between normal eating and frequent choking on food, or shortness of breath at rest and being on a ventilator,” the drug’s manufacturer noted in a release. 

Secondary endpoints were also better in the nipocalimab group, compared with participants on placebo. Specifically, on the 13-item clinician assessed Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis disease severity score, patients who received nipocalimab had an average reduction of 4.86 points from baseline compared to a reduction of 2.05 points in the placebo arm (P <.001). 

Similarly, MG-ADL response (defined as ≥ 2-point improvement from baseline) was significantly greater in the nipocalimab versus placebo arms (68.8% vs 52.6%; P =.021).

Subgroup analysis revealed similar results for the different types of seropositive patients, but there was no statistically significant difference in results for seronegative patients treated with nipocalimab versus placebo.

“The drug was pretty well tolerated and there was little difference, other than more patients with muscle spasm in the nipocalimab group (12.2% vs 3.1%),” said Vu. 

In addition, peripheral edema occurred in 11.2% of the nipocalimab group and none of the placebo-treated patients. Cholesterol levels were also higher in the nipocalimab arm, but there were no cardiac side effects, he added.
 

Encouraging Findings

Commenting on the findings, Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, was encouraged.

“It’s a phase 3 trial, it’s positive, which is great, so it’ll be another drug on the market, another option for our patients,” she said. However, she cautioned, “their placebo arm did better than most placebos, so I think the delta is not as robust, but it was still statistically significant.” 

Goyal noted that, if approved, nipocalimab will be the third FcRn inhibitor in the MG field, preceded by efgartigimod (Vyvgart), which is approved for AChR antibody-positive disease, and rozanolixizumab-noli (Rystiggo) which is approved for both for AChR and MUSK antibody positive disease. 

“Its target of action is similar to the two drugs that are already on the market, but one thing that is unique about nipocalimab is that it is continuous dosing versus the other two medications that are given cyclically,” she said. 

“The reason that’s an upside, is that with cyclical dosing, patients have a return of symptoms. We treat, they get better, and then they get worse. That’s very disconcerting to patients. So, they want to be treated continuously.”

Additionally, she said there are some early data suggesting its safety in pregnancy.

Vu disclosed he is the USF Site Principal Investigator for MG clinical trials sponsored by Alexion/ AstraZeneca Rare Disease, Amgen, argenx, Cartesian Therapeutics, COUR Pharmaceuticals, Dianthus Therapeutics, Immunovant, Johnson & Johnson, NMD Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, and has served as a speaker for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, and CSL Behring. He performs consulting work for Alexion/AstraZeneca Rare Disease, argenx, Dianthus Therapeutics, ImmunAbs, and UCB. Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Janssen. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Inebilizumab, a first-in-class anti-CD19 B-cell depleting agent, demonstrated both safety and superior efficacy compared with placebo in patients with seropositive generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), new phase 3 data showed.

“Based on these results, we have demonstrated that targeting B cells, including the antibody-secreting cells, is beneficial, and there is likely a role for this kind of therapeutic strategy for patients with myasthenia gravis,” said senior investigator Richard Nowak, MD.

The findings were published and presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Largest Cohort of Muscle-Specific Kinase (MuSK) Antibody–Positive Disease

The Myasthenia Gravis INebilizumab Trial study enrolled 238 participants, 60.8% women, mean age 47.5 years, from 79 sites in 18 countries. The participants were divided into two cohorts: 190 acetylcholine receptor (AChR) autoantibody–positive patients and 48 MuSK autoantibody–positive patients.

“This is the largest enrolled cohort of MuSK antibody–positive disease in a placebo-controlled trial to date,” said Nowak, director of the Yale Myasthenia Gravis Clinic and associate professor of neurology at Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut.

Both groups had similar gMG duration (mean 6.7 and 5.2 years for AChR+ and MuSK+ patients, respectively) and disease severity based on Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) baseline score. In addition, more than 80% of participants were on a prednisone equivalent dose greater than 5 mg daily at study entry.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (IV) inebilizumab or IV placebo for 52 weeks (AChR+ group) or 26 weeks (MuSK+ group). In addition, study participants who were taking corticosteroids were tapered down starting at week 4 to prednisone 5 mg per day by week 24.

The trial met its primary endpoint, with a statistically significant change from baseline in MG-ADL and with a reduction of 4.2 points for inebilizumab versus 2.2 for placebo (P < .0001) at week 26 for the combined study population.

“You can see that the trend is actually going toward separation of the two groups after week 8 in the combined population,” said Nowak. Key secondary endpoints also showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful change from baseline compared with placebo.

This included a statistically significant change in QMG score inebilizumab compared with placebo for the combined population, a reduction of 4.8 versus 2.3 points, respectively, at week 26 (P = .0002).

In addition, both MG-ADL and QMG scores in the AChR+ subgroup were superior for inebilizumab versus placebo at week 26, with reductions of 4.2 versus 2.4, and 4.4 versus 2.0; P = .0015 and P = .0011, respectively.

In the MuSK+ subgroup, inebilizumab-treated patients had better MG-ADL scores than placebo-treated patients, with reductions of 3.9 versus 1.7 points, respectively, at week 26, although this difference did not meet statistical significance.

“There were no increased safety incidents in the inebilizumab-treated patients versus placebo, and a similar percentage of safety incidents in the AChR–positive and MuSK–positive groups. There were three deaths reported, all likely related to myasthenic crisis,” he said.

Nowak said that inebilizumab is “unique from the other currently FDA-approved medications for myasthenia gravis in that it’s targeting the upstream immunopathogenic mechanism of disease, specifically B cells — and B cells that are actually antibody-secreting cells.”

“It is targeting the factories of autoantibody production, whereas an FcRn antagonist, for example, is not targeting those factories but rather targeting what’s being produced — the immunoglobulins, IgGs in general,” he added.

Nowak said that what is particularly exciting about the drug is that the schedule is not very frequent. It begins with an initial IV infusion, followed by a second infusion 2 weeks later and a third infusion 6 months after that, so that patients are treated approximately every 6 months. This is in contrast to some other targeted therapies, where failing to address the underlying factors driving immunopathogenesis necessitates more regular and frequent medication administration.
 

New, Novel, Exciting

Commenting on the research, Neelam Goyal, MD, who chaired the session, said, “It’s definitely new, novel, interesting, exciting.”

Goyal, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, also noted that while B-cell depletion has shown some previous success in MG, it was with rituximab, a CD20 B-cell depleting agent.

She noted that unlike rituximab, which targets CD20, inebilizumab targets CD19, although both medications lead to B-cell depletion. Rituximab has proven effective for MUSK–positive MG, which accounts for approximately 5% of cases.

However, Goyal noted that the results for AChR–positive MG have been mixed — “the BeatMG trial was negative and the RINOMAX trial was positive. So, I think this is really interesting. It is exciting, and this drug is already on the market.”

She added that although inebilizumab is already US Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica, it still faces approval and indication hurdles for MG.

The future of this drug in the management algorithm for MG remains uncertain. Goyal noted that it’s “quite costly,” and although its benefits are evident — particularly for FcRn and complement inhibitors — some early data from chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy studies appear significantly more impressive.

Nowak disclosed research support from the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Annexon Biosciences, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), Immunovant, Grifols, S.A., and Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics (now Amgen). Served as a consultant and advisor for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Cabaletta Bio, Cour Pharmaceuticals, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), Immunovant, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), and Viela Bio (Horizon Therapeutics, now Amgen).

Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory, or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Amgen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Inebilizumab, a first-in-class anti-CD19 B-cell depleting agent, demonstrated both safety and superior efficacy compared with placebo in patients with seropositive generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), new phase 3 data showed.

“Based on these results, we have demonstrated that targeting B cells, including the antibody-secreting cells, is beneficial, and there is likely a role for this kind of therapeutic strategy for patients with myasthenia gravis,” said senior investigator Richard Nowak, MD.

The findings were published and presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Largest Cohort of Muscle-Specific Kinase (MuSK) Antibody–Positive Disease

The Myasthenia Gravis INebilizumab Trial study enrolled 238 participants, 60.8% women, mean age 47.5 years, from 79 sites in 18 countries. The participants were divided into two cohorts: 190 acetylcholine receptor (AChR) autoantibody–positive patients and 48 MuSK autoantibody–positive patients.

“This is the largest enrolled cohort of MuSK antibody–positive disease in a placebo-controlled trial to date,” said Nowak, director of the Yale Myasthenia Gravis Clinic and associate professor of neurology at Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut.

Both groups had similar gMG duration (mean 6.7 and 5.2 years for AChR+ and MuSK+ patients, respectively) and disease severity based on Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) baseline score. In addition, more than 80% of participants were on a prednisone equivalent dose greater than 5 mg daily at study entry.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (IV) inebilizumab or IV placebo for 52 weeks (AChR+ group) or 26 weeks (MuSK+ group). In addition, study participants who were taking corticosteroids were tapered down starting at week 4 to prednisone 5 mg per day by week 24.

The trial met its primary endpoint, with a statistically significant change from baseline in MG-ADL and with a reduction of 4.2 points for inebilizumab versus 2.2 for placebo (P < .0001) at week 26 for the combined study population.

“You can see that the trend is actually going toward separation of the two groups after week 8 in the combined population,” said Nowak. Key secondary endpoints also showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful change from baseline compared with placebo.

This included a statistically significant change in QMG score inebilizumab compared with placebo for the combined population, a reduction of 4.8 versus 2.3 points, respectively, at week 26 (P = .0002).

In addition, both MG-ADL and QMG scores in the AChR+ subgroup were superior for inebilizumab versus placebo at week 26, with reductions of 4.2 versus 2.4, and 4.4 versus 2.0; P = .0015 and P = .0011, respectively.

In the MuSK+ subgroup, inebilizumab-treated patients had better MG-ADL scores than placebo-treated patients, with reductions of 3.9 versus 1.7 points, respectively, at week 26, although this difference did not meet statistical significance.

“There were no increased safety incidents in the inebilizumab-treated patients versus placebo, and a similar percentage of safety incidents in the AChR–positive and MuSK–positive groups. There were three deaths reported, all likely related to myasthenic crisis,” he said.

Nowak said that inebilizumab is “unique from the other currently FDA-approved medications for myasthenia gravis in that it’s targeting the upstream immunopathogenic mechanism of disease, specifically B cells — and B cells that are actually antibody-secreting cells.”

“It is targeting the factories of autoantibody production, whereas an FcRn antagonist, for example, is not targeting those factories but rather targeting what’s being produced — the immunoglobulins, IgGs in general,” he added.

Nowak said that what is particularly exciting about the drug is that the schedule is not very frequent. It begins with an initial IV infusion, followed by a second infusion 2 weeks later and a third infusion 6 months after that, so that patients are treated approximately every 6 months. This is in contrast to some other targeted therapies, where failing to address the underlying factors driving immunopathogenesis necessitates more regular and frequent medication administration.
 

New, Novel, Exciting

Commenting on the research, Neelam Goyal, MD, who chaired the session, said, “It’s definitely new, novel, interesting, exciting.”

Goyal, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, also noted that while B-cell depletion has shown some previous success in MG, it was with rituximab, a CD20 B-cell depleting agent.

She noted that unlike rituximab, which targets CD20, inebilizumab targets CD19, although both medications lead to B-cell depletion. Rituximab has proven effective for MUSK–positive MG, which accounts for approximately 5% of cases.

However, Goyal noted that the results for AChR–positive MG have been mixed — “the BeatMG trial was negative and the RINOMAX trial was positive. So, I think this is really interesting. It is exciting, and this drug is already on the market.”

She added that although inebilizumab is already US Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica, it still faces approval and indication hurdles for MG.

The future of this drug in the management algorithm for MG remains uncertain. Goyal noted that it’s “quite costly,” and although its benefits are evident — particularly for FcRn and complement inhibitors — some early data from chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy studies appear significantly more impressive.

Nowak disclosed research support from the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Annexon Biosciences, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), Immunovant, Grifols, S.A., and Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics (now Amgen). Served as a consultant and advisor for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Cabaletta Bio, Cour Pharmaceuticals, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), Immunovant, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), and Viela Bio (Horizon Therapeutics, now Amgen).

Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory, or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Amgen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Inebilizumab, a first-in-class anti-CD19 B-cell depleting agent, demonstrated both safety and superior efficacy compared with placebo in patients with seropositive generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), new phase 3 data showed.

“Based on these results, we have demonstrated that targeting B cells, including the antibody-secreting cells, is beneficial, and there is likely a role for this kind of therapeutic strategy for patients with myasthenia gravis,” said senior investigator Richard Nowak, MD.

The findings were published and presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Largest Cohort of Muscle-Specific Kinase (MuSK) Antibody–Positive Disease

The Myasthenia Gravis INebilizumab Trial study enrolled 238 participants, 60.8% women, mean age 47.5 years, from 79 sites in 18 countries. The participants were divided into two cohorts: 190 acetylcholine receptor (AChR) autoantibody–positive patients and 48 MuSK autoantibody–positive patients.

“This is the largest enrolled cohort of MuSK antibody–positive disease in a placebo-controlled trial to date,” said Nowak, director of the Yale Myasthenia Gravis Clinic and associate professor of neurology at Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut.

Both groups had similar gMG duration (mean 6.7 and 5.2 years for AChR+ and MuSK+ patients, respectively) and disease severity based on Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) baseline score. In addition, more than 80% of participants were on a prednisone equivalent dose greater than 5 mg daily at study entry.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (IV) inebilizumab or IV placebo for 52 weeks (AChR+ group) or 26 weeks (MuSK+ group). In addition, study participants who were taking corticosteroids were tapered down starting at week 4 to prednisone 5 mg per day by week 24.

The trial met its primary endpoint, with a statistically significant change from baseline in MG-ADL and with a reduction of 4.2 points for inebilizumab versus 2.2 for placebo (P < .0001) at week 26 for the combined study population.

“You can see that the trend is actually going toward separation of the two groups after week 8 in the combined population,” said Nowak. Key secondary endpoints also showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful change from baseline compared with placebo.

This included a statistically significant change in QMG score inebilizumab compared with placebo for the combined population, a reduction of 4.8 versus 2.3 points, respectively, at week 26 (P = .0002).

In addition, both MG-ADL and QMG scores in the AChR+ subgroup were superior for inebilizumab versus placebo at week 26, with reductions of 4.2 versus 2.4, and 4.4 versus 2.0; P = .0015 and P = .0011, respectively.

In the MuSK+ subgroup, inebilizumab-treated patients had better MG-ADL scores than placebo-treated patients, with reductions of 3.9 versus 1.7 points, respectively, at week 26, although this difference did not meet statistical significance.

“There were no increased safety incidents in the inebilizumab-treated patients versus placebo, and a similar percentage of safety incidents in the AChR–positive and MuSK–positive groups. There were three deaths reported, all likely related to myasthenic crisis,” he said.

Nowak said that inebilizumab is “unique from the other currently FDA-approved medications for myasthenia gravis in that it’s targeting the upstream immunopathogenic mechanism of disease, specifically B cells — and B cells that are actually antibody-secreting cells.”

“It is targeting the factories of autoantibody production, whereas an FcRn antagonist, for example, is not targeting those factories but rather targeting what’s being produced — the immunoglobulins, IgGs in general,” he added.

Nowak said that what is particularly exciting about the drug is that the schedule is not very frequent. It begins with an initial IV infusion, followed by a second infusion 2 weeks later and a third infusion 6 months after that, so that patients are treated approximately every 6 months. This is in contrast to some other targeted therapies, where failing to address the underlying factors driving immunopathogenesis necessitates more regular and frequent medication administration.
 

New, Novel, Exciting

Commenting on the research, Neelam Goyal, MD, who chaired the session, said, “It’s definitely new, novel, interesting, exciting.”

Goyal, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, also noted that while B-cell depletion has shown some previous success in MG, it was with rituximab, a CD20 B-cell depleting agent.

She noted that unlike rituximab, which targets CD20, inebilizumab targets CD19, although both medications lead to B-cell depletion. Rituximab has proven effective for MUSK–positive MG, which accounts for approximately 5% of cases.

However, Goyal noted that the results for AChR–positive MG have been mixed — “the BeatMG trial was negative and the RINOMAX trial was positive. So, I think this is really interesting. It is exciting, and this drug is already on the market.”

She added that although inebilizumab is already US Food and Drug Administration–approved for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica, it still faces approval and indication hurdles for MG.

The future of this drug in the management algorithm for MG remains uncertain. Goyal noted that it’s “quite costly,” and although its benefits are evident — particularly for FcRn and complement inhibitors — some early data from chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy studies appear significantly more impressive.

Nowak disclosed research support from the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Annexon Biosciences, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), Immunovant, Grifols, S.A., and Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics (now Amgen). Served as a consultant and advisor for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, argenx, Cabaletta Bio, Cour Pharmaceuticals, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB S.A.), Immunovant, Momenta Pharmaceuticals (now Janssen), and Viela Bio (Horizon Therapeutics, now Amgen).

Goyal disclosed consultant, advisory, or grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen. The study was funded by Amgen.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with bipolar disorder showed a decline in total white matter volume, but stability in other brain features over time compared to healthy controls, based on data from 88 individuals.

Patients with bipolar disorder demonstrate cognitive impairment and brain structure abnormalities, including global white matter loss, that have been associated with poor outcomes, but data on the stability or progression of neuroanatomical changes are limited, wrote Julian Macoveanu, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 97 adults aged 18 to 60 years with recently diagnosed bipolar disorder and matched them with 66 healthy controls. Participants were enrolled in the larger Bipolar Illness Onset (BIO) study. All participants underwent structural MRI and neuropsychological testing at baseline and were in full or partial remission based on total scores of 14 or less on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Young Mania Rating Scale. Approximately half of the participants (50 bipolar patients and 38 controls) participated in follow-up scans and testing after 6-27 months (mean 16 months), because of limited resources, according to the researchers.

The researchers compared changes in cortical gray matter volume and thickness, total cerebral white matter, hippocampal and amygdala volumes, estimated brain age, and cognitive functioning over time. In addition, they examined within-patient associations between baseline brain structure abnormalities and later mood episodes.

Overall, bipolar patients (BD) showed a significant decrease in total cerebral white matter from baseline, compared with healthy controls (HC) in mixed models (P = .006). “This effect was driven by BD patients showing a decrease in WM volume over time compared to HC who remained stable,” the researchers wrote, and the effect persisted in a post hoc analysis adjusting for subsyndromal symptoms and body mass index.

BD patients also had a larger amygdala volume at baseline and follow-up than HC, but no changes were noted between the groups. Changes in hippocampal volume also remained similar between the groups.

Analysis of cognitive data showed no significant differences in trajectories between BD patients and controls across cognitive domains or globally; although BD patients performed worse than controls at both time points.

BD patients in general experienced lower functioning and worse quality of life, compared with controls, but the trajectories of each group were similar for both functional and quality of life.

The researchers found no significant differences over time in total white matter, hippocampus, or amygdala volumes between BD patients who experienced at least one mood episode during the study period and those who remained in remission.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and limited generalizability of the findings because of the restriction to patients in full or partial remission, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in follow-up time and the potential impact of psychotropic medication use.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of neuropsychiatric testing in addition to MRI to compare brain structure and cognitive function, the researchers said. The data suggest that both amygdala volume and cognitive impairment may be stable markers of BD soon after diagnosis, but that decreases in white matter may stem from disease progression.

The BIO study is funded by the Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research, Medical Sciences, Weimans Fund, Markedsmodningsfonden, Gangstedfonden, Læge Sofus Carl Emil og hustru Olga Boris Friis’ legat, Helsefonden, Innovation Fund Denmark, Copenhagen Center for Health Technology (CACHET), EU H2020 ITN, Augustinusfonden, and The Capital Region of Denmark. Macoveanu had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with bipolar disorder showed a decline in total white matter volume, but stability in other brain features over time compared to healthy controls, based on data from 88 individuals.

Patients with bipolar disorder demonstrate cognitive impairment and brain structure abnormalities, including global white matter loss, that have been associated with poor outcomes, but data on the stability or progression of neuroanatomical changes are limited, wrote Julian Macoveanu, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 97 adults aged 18 to 60 years with recently diagnosed bipolar disorder and matched them with 66 healthy controls. Participants were enrolled in the larger Bipolar Illness Onset (BIO) study. All participants underwent structural MRI and neuropsychological testing at baseline and were in full or partial remission based on total scores of 14 or less on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Young Mania Rating Scale. Approximately half of the participants (50 bipolar patients and 38 controls) participated in follow-up scans and testing after 6-27 months (mean 16 months), because of limited resources, according to the researchers.

The researchers compared changes in cortical gray matter volume and thickness, total cerebral white matter, hippocampal and amygdala volumes, estimated brain age, and cognitive functioning over time. In addition, they examined within-patient associations between baseline brain structure abnormalities and later mood episodes.

Overall, bipolar patients (BD) showed a significant decrease in total cerebral white matter from baseline, compared with healthy controls (HC) in mixed models (P = .006). “This effect was driven by BD patients showing a decrease in WM volume over time compared to HC who remained stable,” the researchers wrote, and the effect persisted in a post hoc analysis adjusting for subsyndromal symptoms and body mass index.

BD patients also had a larger amygdala volume at baseline and follow-up than HC, but no changes were noted between the groups. Changes in hippocampal volume also remained similar between the groups.

Analysis of cognitive data showed no significant differences in trajectories between BD patients and controls across cognitive domains or globally; although BD patients performed worse than controls at both time points.

BD patients in general experienced lower functioning and worse quality of life, compared with controls, but the trajectories of each group were similar for both functional and quality of life.

The researchers found no significant differences over time in total white matter, hippocampus, or amygdala volumes between BD patients who experienced at least one mood episode during the study period and those who remained in remission.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and limited generalizability of the findings because of the restriction to patients in full or partial remission, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in follow-up time and the potential impact of psychotropic medication use.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of neuropsychiatric testing in addition to MRI to compare brain structure and cognitive function, the researchers said. The data suggest that both amygdala volume and cognitive impairment may be stable markers of BD soon after diagnosis, but that decreases in white matter may stem from disease progression.

The BIO study is funded by the Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research, Medical Sciences, Weimans Fund, Markedsmodningsfonden, Gangstedfonden, Læge Sofus Carl Emil og hustru Olga Boris Friis’ legat, Helsefonden, Innovation Fund Denmark, Copenhagen Center for Health Technology (CACHET), EU H2020 ITN, Augustinusfonden, and The Capital Region of Denmark. Macoveanu had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with bipolar disorder showed a decline in total white matter volume, but stability in other brain features over time compared to healthy controls, based on data from 88 individuals.

Patients with bipolar disorder demonstrate cognitive impairment and brain structure abnormalities, including global white matter loss, that have been associated with poor outcomes, but data on the stability or progression of neuroanatomical changes are limited, wrote Julian Macoveanu, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 97 adults aged 18 to 60 years with recently diagnosed bipolar disorder and matched them with 66 healthy controls. Participants were enrolled in the larger Bipolar Illness Onset (BIO) study. All participants underwent structural MRI and neuropsychological testing at baseline and were in full or partial remission based on total scores of 14 or less on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Young Mania Rating Scale. Approximately half of the participants (50 bipolar patients and 38 controls) participated in follow-up scans and testing after 6-27 months (mean 16 months), because of limited resources, according to the researchers.

The researchers compared changes in cortical gray matter volume and thickness, total cerebral white matter, hippocampal and amygdala volumes, estimated brain age, and cognitive functioning over time. In addition, they examined within-patient associations between baseline brain structure abnormalities and later mood episodes.

Overall, bipolar patients (BD) showed a significant decrease in total cerebral white matter from baseline, compared with healthy controls (HC) in mixed models (P = .006). “This effect was driven by BD patients showing a decrease in WM volume over time compared to HC who remained stable,” the researchers wrote, and the effect persisted in a post hoc analysis adjusting for subsyndromal symptoms and body mass index.

BD patients also had a larger amygdala volume at baseline and follow-up than HC, but no changes were noted between the groups. Changes in hippocampal volume also remained similar between the groups.

Analysis of cognitive data showed no significant differences in trajectories between BD patients and controls across cognitive domains or globally; although BD patients performed worse than controls at both time points.

BD patients in general experienced lower functioning and worse quality of life, compared with controls, but the trajectories of each group were similar for both functional and quality of life.

The researchers found no significant differences over time in total white matter, hippocampus, or amygdala volumes between BD patients who experienced at least one mood episode during the study period and those who remained in remission.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and limited generalizability of the findings because of the restriction to patients in full or partial remission, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in follow-up time and the potential impact of psychotropic medication use.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of neuropsychiatric testing in addition to MRI to compare brain structure and cognitive function, the researchers said. The data suggest that both amygdala volume and cognitive impairment may be stable markers of BD soon after diagnosis, but that decreases in white matter may stem from disease progression.

The BIO study is funded by the Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research, Medical Sciences, Weimans Fund, Markedsmodningsfonden, Gangstedfonden, Læge Sofus Carl Emil og hustru Olga Boris Friis’ legat, Helsefonden, Innovation Fund Denmark, Copenhagen Center for Health Technology (CACHET), EU H2020 ITN, Augustinusfonden, and The Capital Region of Denmark. Macoveanu had no financial conflicts to disclose.

MOA — Mechanism of action — gets bandied about a lot.

Drug reps love it. Saying your product is a “first-in-class MOA” sounds great as they hand you a glossy brochure. It also features prominently in print ads, usually with pics of smiling people.

It’s a good thing to know, too, both medically and in a cool-science-geeky way. We want to understand what we’re prescribing will do to patients. We want to explain it to them, too.

It certainly helps to know that what we’re doing when treating a disorder using rational polypharmacy.

But at the same time we face the realization that it may not mean as much as we think it should. I don’t have to go back very far in my career to find Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that worked, but we didn’t have a clear reason why. I mean, we had a vague idea on a scientific basis, but we’re still guessing.

This didn’t stop us from using them, which is nothing new. The ancients had learned certain plants reduced pain and fever long before they understood what aspirin (and its MOA) was.

At the same time we’re now using drugs, such as the anti-amyloid treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, that should be more effective than one would think. Pulling the damaged molecules out of the brain should, on paper, make a dramatic difference ... but it doesn’t. I’m not saying they don’t have some benefit, but certainly not as much as you’d think. Of course, that’s based on our understanding of the disease mechanism being correct. We find there’s a lot more going on than we know.

Like so much in science (and this aspect of medicine is a science) the answers often lead to more questions.

Observation takes the lead over understanding in most things. Our ancestors knew what fire was, and how to use it, without any idea of what rapid exothermic oxidation was. (Admittedly, I have a degree in chemistry and can’t explain it myself anymore.)

The glossy ads and scientific data about MOA doesn’t mean much in my world if they don’t work. I’d rather have a drug that works, even if the MOA isn’t clear, than a known MOA without clinical benefit. My patients would say the same.

Clinical medicine, after all, is both an art and a science.

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

MOA — Mechanism of action — gets bandied about a lot.

Drug reps love it. Saying your product is a “first-in-class MOA” sounds great as they hand you a glossy brochure. It also features prominently in print ads, usually with pics of smiling people.

It’s a good thing to know, too, both medically and in a cool-science-geeky way. We want to understand what we’re prescribing will do to patients. We want to explain it to them, too.

It certainly helps to know that what we’re doing when treating a disorder using rational polypharmacy.

But at the same time we face the realization that it may not mean as much as we think it should. I don’t have to go back very far in my career to find Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that worked, but we didn’t have a clear reason why. I mean, we had a vague idea on a scientific basis, but we’re still guessing.

This didn’t stop us from using them, which is nothing new. The ancients had learned certain plants reduced pain and fever long before they understood what aspirin (and its MOA) was.

At the same time we’re now using drugs, such as the anti-amyloid treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, that should be more effective than one would think. Pulling the damaged molecules out of the brain should, on paper, make a dramatic difference ... but it doesn’t. I’m not saying they don’t have some benefit, but certainly not as much as you’d think. Of course, that’s based on our understanding of the disease mechanism being correct. We find there’s a lot more going on than we know.

Like so much in science (and this aspect of medicine is a science) the answers often lead to more questions.

Observation takes the lead over understanding in most things. Our ancestors knew what fire was, and how to use it, without any idea of what rapid exothermic oxidation was. (Admittedly, I have a degree in chemistry and can’t explain it myself anymore.)

The glossy ads and scientific data about MOA doesn’t mean much in my world if they don’t work. I’d rather have a drug that works, even if the MOA isn’t clear, than a known MOA without clinical benefit. My patients would say the same.

Clinical medicine, after all, is both an art and a science.

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

MOA — Mechanism of action — gets bandied about a lot.

Drug reps love it. Saying your product is a “first-in-class MOA” sounds great as they hand you a glossy brochure. It also features prominently in print ads, usually with pics of smiling people.

It’s a good thing to know, too, both medically and in a cool-science-geeky way. We want to understand what we’re prescribing will do to patients. We want to explain it to them, too.

It certainly helps to know that what we’re doing when treating a disorder using rational polypharmacy.

But at the same time we face the realization that it may not mean as much as we think it should. I don’t have to go back very far in my career to find Food and Drug Administration–approved medications that worked, but we didn’t have a clear reason why. I mean, we had a vague idea on a scientific basis, but we’re still guessing.

This didn’t stop us from using them, which is nothing new. The ancients had learned certain plants reduced pain and fever long before they understood what aspirin (and its MOA) was.

At the same time we’re now using drugs, such as the anti-amyloid treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, that should be more effective than one would think. Pulling the damaged molecules out of the brain should, on paper, make a dramatic difference ... but it doesn’t. I’m not saying they don’t have some benefit, but certainly not as much as you’d think. Of course, that’s based on our understanding of the disease mechanism being correct. We find there’s a lot more going on than we know.

Like so much in science (and this aspect of medicine is a science) the answers often lead to more questions.

Observation takes the lead over understanding in most things. Our ancestors knew what fire was, and how to use it, without any idea of what rapid exothermic oxidation was. (Admittedly, I have a degree in chemistry and can’t explain it myself anymore.)

The glossy ads and scientific data about MOA doesn’t mean much in my world if they don’t work. I’d rather have a drug that works, even if the MOA isn’t clear, than a known MOA without clinical benefit. My patients would say the same.

Clinical medicine, after all, is both an art and a science.

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

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

TOPLINE:

Deprescribing antihypertensive medications is associated with a 12% lower likelihood of cognitive decline in older nursing home residents, a new study suggests. The association was strongest among those with dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The cohort study included 12,644 long-term care residents (mean age, 77.7 years; 97% men; 17.5% Black) with stays of at least 12 weeks from 2006 to 2019.
• Residents who experienced either a reduction in the total number of antihypertensive medications or a sustained 30% decrease in dosage for at least 2 weeks were classified as deprescribing users (n = 1290). Those with no medication changes were considered stable users (n = 11,354).
• The primary outcome was cognitive impairment assessed using the four-point Cognitive Function Scale (CFS), with the score proportional to the severity of impairment.
• The median follow-up duration was 23 weeks for the deprescribing users and 21 weeks for the stable users.

TAKEAWAY:

• Deprescribing antihypertensives was associated with a 12% lower likelihood of progressing to a worse CFS score per 12-week period (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99), compared with stable users.
• Among residents with dementia, deprescribing was associated with a 16% reduced likelihood of cognitive decline per 12-week period (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
• At the end of follow-up, 12% of residents had a higher CFS score and 7.7% had a lower CFS score.
• In the intention-to-treat analysis, the association between deprescribing antihypertensive medications and reduced cognitive decline remained consistent (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“This work highlights the need for patient-centered approaches to deprescribing, ensuring that medication regimens for older adults are optimized to preserve cognitive function and minimize potential harms,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bocheng Jing, MS, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population included predominantly men and White individuals, limiting the generalizability of the results to women and other racial and ethnic groups. The findings may not be applicable to patients with heart failure owing to their noninclusion. The specificity of dementia diagnosis was limited, as this study combined various forms of dementia, making it challenging to differentiate the impacts among subgroups.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US National Institute on Aging. Two authors reported receiving grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or royalties from various sources. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Deprescribing antihypertensive medications is associated with a 12% lower likelihood of cognitive decline in older nursing home residents, a new study suggests. The association was strongest among those with dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The cohort study included 12,644 long-term care residents (mean age, 77.7 years; 97% men; 17.5% Black) with stays of at least 12 weeks from 2006 to 2019.
• Residents who experienced either a reduction in the total number of antihypertensive medications or a sustained 30% decrease in dosage for at least 2 weeks were classified as deprescribing users (n = 1290). Those with no medication changes were considered stable users (n = 11,354).
• The primary outcome was cognitive impairment assessed using the four-point Cognitive Function Scale (CFS), with the score proportional to the severity of impairment.
• The median follow-up duration was 23 weeks for the deprescribing users and 21 weeks for the stable users.

TAKEAWAY:

• Deprescribing antihypertensives was associated with a 12% lower likelihood of progressing to a worse CFS score per 12-week period (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99), compared with stable users.
• Among residents with dementia, deprescribing was associated with a 16% reduced likelihood of cognitive decline per 12-week period (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
• At the end of follow-up, 12% of residents had a higher CFS score and 7.7% had a lower CFS score.
• In the intention-to-treat analysis, the association between deprescribing antihypertensive medications and reduced cognitive decline remained consistent (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“This work highlights the need for patient-centered approaches to deprescribing, ensuring that medication regimens for older adults are optimized to preserve cognitive function and minimize potential harms,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bocheng Jing, MS, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population included predominantly men and White individuals, limiting the generalizability of the results to women and other racial and ethnic groups. The findings may not be applicable to patients with heart failure owing to their noninclusion. The specificity of dementia diagnosis was limited, as this study combined various forms of dementia, making it challenging to differentiate the impacts among subgroups.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US National Institute on Aging. Two authors reported receiving grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or royalties from various sources. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Deprescribing antihypertensive medications is associated with a 12% lower likelihood of cognitive decline in older nursing home residents, a new study suggests. The association was strongest among those with dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• The cohort study included 12,644 long-term care residents (mean age, 77.7 years; 97% men; 17.5% Black) with stays of at least 12 weeks from 2006 to 2019.
• Residents who experienced either a reduction in the total number of antihypertensive medications or a sustained 30% decrease in dosage for at least 2 weeks were classified as deprescribing users (n = 1290). Those with no medication changes were considered stable users (n = 11,354).
• The primary outcome was cognitive impairment assessed using the four-point Cognitive Function Scale (CFS), with the score proportional to the severity of impairment.
• The median follow-up duration was 23 weeks for the deprescribing users and 21 weeks for the stable users.

TAKEAWAY:

• Deprescribing antihypertensives was associated with a 12% lower likelihood of progressing to a worse CFS score per 12-week period (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99), compared with stable users.
• Among residents with dementia, deprescribing was associated with a 16% reduced likelihood of cognitive decline per 12-week period (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
• At the end of follow-up, 12% of residents had a higher CFS score and 7.7% had a lower CFS score.
• In the intention-to-treat analysis, the association between deprescribing antihypertensive medications and reduced cognitive decline remained consistent (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“This work highlights the need for patient-centered approaches to deprescribing, ensuring that medication regimens for older adults are optimized to preserve cognitive function and minimize potential harms,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bocheng Jing, MS, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population included predominantly men and White individuals, limiting the generalizability of the results to women and other racial and ethnic groups. The findings may not be applicable to patients with heart failure owing to their noninclusion. The specificity of dementia diagnosis was limited, as this study combined various forms of dementia, making it challenging to differentiate the impacts among subgroups.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US National Institute on Aging. Two authors reported receiving grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or royalties from various sources. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As at-home, do-it-yourself (DIY) brain stimulation devices like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) gain popularity for common psychiatric conditions like depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), questions arise about their safety and efficacy.

However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to “fully” clear any of these devices and has only granted breakthrough device designation to a few. In addition, most of the portable products don’t market themselves as medical interventions, putting them into a regulatory “gray area” that has little oversight.

This has led to a free-for-all environment, allowing individuals to purchase these products online and self-administer “treatment” — often without the guidance or even knowledge of their healthcare providers.

So how effective and safe are these noninvasive brain stimulators, and what guidance, if any, should clinicians provide to patients who are or are contemplating using them at home; what does the research show, and what are the ethical considerations?
 

What the Research Shows

Data from studies examining unsupervised at-home and use under medical supervision are mixed. Results from a recent randomized trial of more than 200 participants showed no significant difference in safety or efficacy between adjunctive at-home tDCS and at-home sham tDCS for depressive symptoms.

“To be fair, they did not find any unexpected safety issues. What they did find was that there was no clear signal that it worked,” said Noah S. Philip, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Philip, who is also lead for mental health research at Brown’s Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Providence, Rhode Island, and was not involved in the study, noted that while other research papers have shown more promising results for depression and other conditions such as adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and pain, they often are not placebo controlled or include large numbers of patients.

Still, he added the growing use of these devices reflects the fact that standard treatment often doesn’t meet patients’ needs.

“Broadly speaking, part of the hope with brain stimulation is that instead of taking a pill, we’re trying to more directly affect the brain tissues involved — and therefore, avoid the issue of having systemic side effects that you get from the meds. There’s certainly a hunger” for better interventions, Philip said.

tDCS involves a low-intensity electrical current applied through electrodes on the scalp in order to influence brain activity. Generally speaking, it emits less energy than other types of noninvasive brain stimulation, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. “The trade-off is that’s it also a little harder to find a clear signal about how it works,” Philip said.

As such, he added, it’s important for clinicians to familiarize themselves with these devices, to ask about patient use, and to set up structured assessments of efficacy and adverse events.

Results from a randomized trial published last year in The Lancet showed no significant benefit for in-office use of tDCS plus a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor vs sham tDCS for major depression.

On the other hand, a randomized trial published earlier this year in Brain Stimulation showed that older adults who received active tDCS had greater reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms than those in the sham group.

In addition, results from a small study of eight participants published last year in SAGE Open Medicine showed adjuvant tDCS helped patients with refractory PTSD. Finally, a randomized trial of 54 veterans from Philip’s own team showed tDCS plus virtual reality was effective for combat-related PTSD.

Although there have also been several studies showing possible benefit of tDCS for Alzheimer’s disease, Gayatri Devi, MD, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, noted in a Medscape Neurology Decision Point that “the problem with all these studies is that they’re all very small, and there [are] so many different variables in terms of how you interpret response.”
 

On-Demand Brain Stim

As for at-home use, there’s now a wide offering of these types of devices available online, allowing an individual to apply daily brain stimulation via headsets, dispensing with the need to consult a clinician. Most are battery-powered and emit a low-level current.

Philip noted that there are essentially two ways to obtain such devices. Some are readily available from online stores, while others require a prescription, which typically includes guidelines on how to use the device.

So far, none of these portable products have been fully cleared by the FDA — although the agency did grant Breakthrough Device designation to Sooma Medical for its device to treat depression in 2023 and to Flow Neuroscience in 2022.

In August 2023, Flow announced that its device is now being reviewed for full FDA clearance on the basis of trial results showing at-home tDCS was “twice as effective” as antidepressants. The company received regulatory approval in Europe in 2019.

Other research has shown “encouraging” results for these at-home devices for conditions such as adult ADHD and pain relief with remote supervision.

Philip noted that more high-quality randomized controlled trials are definitely needed, with “a number of companies probably getting close to releasing data sometime soon.”

Is it possible that a placebo effect is at work here? “Yes, partially,” said Philip. Users often become more mindful of managing their depression and other conditions, which leads to behavior change, he said.
 

A Quick Fix for a Broken System?

Joseph J. Fins, MD, The E. William Davis Jr, MD, professor of Medical Ethics and chief of the Division of Medical Ethics at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, also believes there could be a placebo effect at play.

“It’s important that we don’t ascribe efficacy to a device without being aware of the placebo effect,” he said. That’s why more and larger, placebo-controlled trials are needed, he added.

There’s a multitude of reasons why patients may turn to at-home devices on their own, including drug shortages and the inability to see a psychiatrist in a timely manner.

“I think it speaks to the isolation of these folks that leads to them doing this on their own. These devices become a technological quick fix for a system that’s desperately broken. There’s nothing wrong with being a consumer, but at a certain point they need to be a patient, and they need to have a clinician there to help them,” he said.

Fins said that he also worries about regulatory oversight because of the way the devices are classified. He likened them to supplements, which, because they don’t make certain claims, are not regulated with the same stringency as other products and fall into an area “in between regulatory spheres.”

“I think we’re trying to take old regulatory frameworks and jerry-rig it to accommodate new and evolving technologies. And I think we need to have serious study of how we protect patients as they become consumers — to make sure there’s enough safety and enough efficacy and that they don’t get ripped off out of desperation,” Fins said.

As for safety, at-home devices are unlikely to cause physical harm — at least when used as intended. “The riskier situations happen when people build their own, overuse it, or use it in combination with drugs or alcohol or other factors that can produce unpredictable results,” Philip said.

He added that DIY-built products carry a higher risk for burns or excessive energy output. A 2016 “open letter” from a group of neurologists, published in Annals of Neurology, warned about the dangers of DIY tDCS.

In addition, Philip noted that he has seen instances where patients become manic after using at-home tDCS, especially when trying to improve cognition.

“We have seen a number of peculiar side effects emerge in those situations. Typically, it’s anxiety, panic attacks, and sensitivity to bright lights, in addition to the emergence of mania, which would require major psychiatric intervention,” he said.

“So, it’s important that if folks do engage with these sorts of things, it’s with some degree of medical involvement,” Philip added.
 

Ethical Considerations

Roy Hamilton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry, and physical medicine & rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, said that in the setting of proper training, proper clinician communication, and proper oversight, he doesn’t view at-home tDCS as ethically problematic.

“For individuals who have conditions that are clearly causing them remarkable detriment to quality of life or to their health, it seems like the risk-benefit ratio with respect to the likelihood of harm is quite good,” said Hamilton, who is also the director of the Penn Brain Science, Translation, Innovation, and Modulation Center.

In addition, tDCS and other transcranial electrical stimulation techniques seem to have a better safety profile than “many of the other things we send patients home with to treat their pain,” he said.

On the other hand, this risk calculus changes in a scenario where patients are neurologically intact, he said.

The brain, Hamilton noted, exhibits functional differences based on the region undergoing stimulation. This means users should follow a specific, prescribed method. However, he pointed out that those using commercially available devices often lack clear guidance on where to place the electrodes and what intensity to use.

“This raises concerns because the way you use the device is important,” he said.

Hamilton also highlighted important ethical considerations regarding enhanced cognition through technology or pharmaceutical interventions. The possibility of coercive use raises questions about equity and fairness, particularly if individuals feel pressured to use such devices to remain competitive in academic or professional settings.

This mirrors the current issues surrounding the use of stimulants among students, where those without ADHD may feel compelled to use these drugs to improve performance. In addition, there is the possibility that the capacity to access devices that enhance cognition could exacerbate existing inequalities.

“Any time you introduce a technological intervention, you have to worry about discriminative justice. That’s where only people who can afford such devices or have access to specialists who can give them such devices get to receive improvements in their cognition,” Hamilton said.

Neither the American Academy of Neurology nor the American Psychiatric Association has established practice guidelines for tDCS, either for use in clinical settings or for use at home. Hamilton believes this is due to the current lack of data, noting that organizations likely want to see more approvals and widespread use before creating guidelines.

Fins emphasized the need for organized medicine to sponsor research, noting that the use of these devices is becoming a public health issue. He expressed concern that some devices are marketed as nonmedical interventions, despite involving medical procedures like brain stimulation. He concluded that while scrutiny is necessary, the current landscape should be approached without judgment.

Fins reported no relevant financial relationships. Philip reported serving on a scientific advisory board for Pulvinar Neuro and past involvement in clinical trials related to these devices and their use as home. Hamilton reported he is on the board of trustees for the McKnight Brain Research Foundation, which is dedicated to advancing healthy cognitive aging.
 

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

As at-home, do-it-yourself (DIY) brain stimulation devices like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) gain popularity for common psychiatric conditions like depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), questions arise about their safety and efficacy.

However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to “fully” clear any of these devices and has only granted breakthrough device designation to a few. In addition, most of the portable products don’t market themselves as medical interventions, putting them into a regulatory “gray area” that has little oversight.

This has led to a free-for-all environment, allowing individuals to purchase these products online and self-administer “treatment” — often without the guidance or even knowledge of their healthcare providers.

So how effective and safe are these noninvasive brain stimulators, and what guidance, if any, should clinicians provide to patients who are or are contemplating using them at home; what does the research show, and what are the ethical considerations?
 

What the Research Shows

Data from studies examining unsupervised at-home and use under medical supervision are mixed. Results from a recent randomized trial of more than 200 participants showed no significant difference in safety or efficacy between adjunctive at-home tDCS and at-home sham tDCS for depressive symptoms.

“To be fair, they did not find any unexpected safety issues. What they did find was that there was no clear signal that it worked,” said Noah S. Philip, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Philip, who is also lead for mental health research at Brown’s Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Providence, Rhode Island, and was not involved in the study, noted that while other research papers have shown more promising results for depression and other conditions such as adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and pain, they often are not placebo controlled or include large numbers of patients.

Still, he added the growing use of these devices reflects the fact that standard treatment often doesn’t meet patients’ needs.

“Broadly speaking, part of the hope with brain stimulation is that instead of taking a pill, we’re trying to more directly affect the brain tissues involved — and therefore, avoid the issue of having systemic side effects that you get from the meds. There’s certainly a hunger” for better interventions, Philip said.

tDCS involves a low-intensity electrical current applied through electrodes on the scalp in order to influence brain activity. Generally speaking, it emits less energy than other types of noninvasive brain stimulation, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. “The trade-off is that’s it also a little harder to find a clear signal about how it works,” Philip said.

As such, he added, it’s important for clinicians to familiarize themselves with these devices, to ask about patient use, and to set up structured assessments of efficacy and adverse events.

Results from a randomized trial published last year in The Lancet showed no significant benefit for in-office use of tDCS plus a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor vs sham tDCS for major depression.

On the other hand, a randomized trial published earlier this year in Brain Stimulation showed that older adults who received active tDCS had greater reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms than those in the sham group.

In addition, results from a small study of eight participants published last year in SAGE Open Medicine showed adjuvant tDCS helped patients with refractory PTSD. Finally, a randomized trial of 54 veterans from Philip’s own team showed tDCS plus virtual reality was effective for combat-related PTSD.

Although there have also been several studies showing possible benefit of tDCS for Alzheimer’s disease, Gayatri Devi, MD, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, noted in a Medscape Neurology Decision Point that “the problem with all these studies is that they’re all very small, and there [are] so many different variables in terms of how you interpret response.”
 

On-Demand Brain Stim

As for at-home use, there’s now a wide offering of these types of devices available online, allowing an individual to apply daily brain stimulation via headsets, dispensing with the need to consult a clinician. Most are battery-powered and emit a low-level current.

Philip noted that there are essentially two ways to obtain such devices. Some are readily available from online stores, while others require a prescription, which typically includes guidelines on how to use the device.

So far, none of these portable products have been fully cleared by the FDA — although the agency did grant Breakthrough Device designation to Sooma Medical for its device to treat depression in 2023 and to Flow Neuroscience in 2022.

In August 2023, Flow announced that its device is now being reviewed for full FDA clearance on the basis of trial results showing at-home tDCS was “twice as effective” as antidepressants. The company received regulatory approval in Europe in 2019.

Other research has shown “encouraging” results for these at-home devices for conditions such as adult ADHD and pain relief with remote supervision.

Philip noted that more high-quality randomized controlled trials are definitely needed, with “a number of companies probably getting close to releasing data sometime soon.”

Is it possible that a placebo effect is at work here? “Yes, partially,” said Philip. Users often become more mindful of managing their depression and other conditions, which leads to behavior change, he said.
 

A Quick Fix for a Broken System?

Joseph J. Fins, MD, The E. William Davis Jr, MD, professor of Medical Ethics and chief of the Division of Medical Ethics at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, also believes there could be a placebo effect at play.

“It’s important that we don’t ascribe efficacy to a device without being aware of the placebo effect,” he said. That’s why more and larger, placebo-controlled trials are needed, he added.

There’s a multitude of reasons why patients may turn to at-home devices on their own, including drug shortages and the inability to see a psychiatrist in a timely manner.

“I think it speaks to the isolation of these folks that leads to them doing this on their own. These devices become a technological quick fix for a system that’s desperately broken. There’s nothing wrong with being a consumer, but at a certain point they need to be a patient, and they need to have a clinician there to help them,” he said.

Fins said that he also worries about regulatory oversight because of the way the devices are classified. He likened them to supplements, which, because they don’t make certain claims, are not regulated with the same stringency as other products and fall into an area “in between regulatory spheres.”

“I think we’re trying to take old regulatory frameworks and jerry-rig it to accommodate new and evolving technologies. And I think we need to have serious study of how we protect patients as they become consumers — to make sure there’s enough safety and enough efficacy and that they don’t get ripped off out of desperation,” Fins said.

As for safety, at-home devices are unlikely to cause physical harm — at least when used as intended. “The riskier situations happen when people build their own, overuse it, or use it in combination with drugs or alcohol or other factors that can produce unpredictable results,” Philip said.

He added that DIY-built products carry a higher risk for burns or excessive energy output. A 2016 “open letter” from a group of neurologists, published in Annals of Neurology, warned about the dangers of DIY tDCS.

In addition, Philip noted that he has seen instances where patients become manic after using at-home tDCS, especially when trying to improve cognition.

“We have seen a number of peculiar side effects emerge in those situations. Typically, it’s anxiety, panic attacks, and sensitivity to bright lights, in addition to the emergence of mania, which would require major psychiatric intervention,” he said.

“So, it’s important that if folks do engage with these sorts of things, it’s with some degree of medical involvement,” Philip added.
 

Ethical Considerations

Roy Hamilton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry, and physical medicine & rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, said that in the setting of proper training, proper clinician communication, and proper oversight, he doesn’t view at-home tDCS as ethically problematic.

“For individuals who have conditions that are clearly causing them remarkable detriment to quality of life or to their health, it seems like the risk-benefit ratio with respect to the likelihood of harm is quite good,” said Hamilton, who is also the director of the Penn Brain Science, Translation, Innovation, and Modulation Center.

In addition, tDCS and other transcranial electrical stimulation techniques seem to have a better safety profile than “many of the other things we send patients home with to treat their pain,” he said.

On the other hand, this risk calculus changes in a scenario where patients are neurologically intact, he said.

The brain, Hamilton noted, exhibits functional differences based on the region undergoing stimulation. This means users should follow a specific, prescribed method. However, he pointed out that those using commercially available devices often lack clear guidance on where to place the electrodes and what intensity to use.

“This raises concerns because the way you use the device is important,” he said.

Hamilton also highlighted important ethical considerations regarding enhanced cognition through technology or pharmaceutical interventions. The possibility of coercive use raises questions about equity and fairness, particularly if individuals feel pressured to use such devices to remain competitive in academic or professional settings.

This mirrors the current issues surrounding the use of stimulants among students, where those without ADHD may feel compelled to use these drugs to improve performance. In addition, there is the possibility that the capacity to access devices that enhance cognition could exacerbate existing inequalities.

“Any time you introduce a technological intervention, you have to worry about discriminative justice. That’s where only people who can afford such devices or have access to specialists who can give them such devices get to receive improvements in their cognition,” Hamilton said.

Neither the American Academy of Neurology nor the American Psychiatric Association has established practice guidelines for tDCS, either for use in clinical settings or for use at home. Hamilton believes this is due to the current lack of data, noting that organizations likely want to see more approvals and widespread use before creating guidelines.

Fins emphasized the need for organized medicine to sponsor research, noting that the use of these devices is becoming a public health issue. He expressed concern that some devices are marketed as nonmedical interventions, despite involving medical procedures like brain stimulation. He concluded that while scrutiny is necessary, the current landscape should be approached without judgment.

Fins reported no relevant financial relationships. Philip reported serving on a scientific advisory board for Pulvinar Neuro and past involvement in clinical trials related to these devices and their use as home. Hamilton reported he is on the board of trustees for the McKnight Brain Research Foundation, which is dedicated to advancing healthy cognitive aging.
 

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

As at-home, do-it-yourself (DIY) brain stimulation devices like transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) gain popularity for common psychiatric conditions like depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), questions arise about their safety and efficacy.

However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to “fully” clear any of these devices and has only granted breakthrough device designation to a few. In addition, most of the portable products don’t market themselves as medical interventions, putting them into a regulatory “gray area” that has little oversight.

This has led to a free-for-all environment, allowing individuals to purchase these products online and self-administer “treatment” — often without the guidance or even knowledge of their healthcare providers.

So how effective and safe are these noninvasive brain stimulators, and what guidance, if any, should clinicians provide to patients who are or are contemplating using them at home; what does the research show, and what are the ethical considerations?
 

What the Research Shows

Data from studies examining unsupervised at-home and use under medical supervision are mixed. Results from a recent randomized trial of more than 200 participants showed no significant difference in safety or efficacy between adjunctive at-home tDCS and at-home sham tDCS for depressive symptoms.

“To be fair, they did not find any unexpected safety issues. What they did find was that there was no clear signal that it worked,” said Noah S. Philip, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Philip, who is also lead for mental health research at Brown’s Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology, Providence, Rhode Island, and was not involved in the study, noted that while other research papers have shown more promising results for depression and other conditions such as adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and pain, they often are not placebo controlled or include large numbers of patients.

Still, he added the growing use of these devices reflects the fact that standard treatment often doesn’t meet patients’ needs.

“Broadly speaking, part of the hope with brain stimulation is that instead of taking a pill, we’re trying to more directly affect the brain tissues involved — and therefore, avoid the issue of having systemic side effects that you get from the meds. There’s certainly a hunger” for better interventions, Philip said.

tDCS involves a low-intensity electrical current applied through electrodes on the scalp in order to influence brain activity. Generally speaking, it emits less energy than other types of noninvasive brain stimulation, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. “The trade-off is that’s it also a little harder to find a clear signal about how it works,” Philip said.

As such, he added, it’s important for clinicians to familiarize themselves with these devices, to ask about patient use, and to set up structured assessments of efficacy and adverse events.

Results from a randomized trial published last year in The Lancet showed no significant benefit for in-office use of tDCS plus a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor vs sham tDCS for major depression.

On the other hand, a randomized trial published earlier this year in Brain Stimulation showed that older adults who received active tDCS had greater reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms than those in the sham group.

In addition, results from a small study of eight participants published last year in SAGE Open Medicine showed adjuvant tDCS helped patients with refractory PTSD. Finally, a randomized trial of 54 veterans from Philip’s own team showed tDCS plus virtual reality was effective for combat-related PTSD.

Although there have also been several studies showing possible benefit of tDCS for Alzheimer’s disease, Gayatri Devi, MD, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, noted in a Medscape Neurology Decision Point that “the problem with all these studies is that they’re all very small, and there [are] so many different variables in terms of how you interpret response.”
 

On-Demand Brain Stim

As for at-home use, there’s now a wide offering of these types of devices available online, allowing an individual to apply daily brain stimulation via headsets, dispensing with the need to consult a clinician. Most are battery-powered and emit a low-level current.

Philip noted that there are essentially two ways to obtain such devices. Some are readily available from online stores, while others require a prescription, which typically includes guidelines on how to use the device.

So far, none of these portable products have been fully cleared by the FDA — although the agency did grant Breakthrough Device designation to Sooma Medical for its device to treat depression in 2023 and to Flow Neuroscience in 2022.

In August 2023, Flow announced that its device is now being reviewed for full FDA clearance on the basis of trial results showing at-home tDCS was “twice as effective” as antidepressants. The company received regulatory approval in Europe in 2019.

Other research has shown “encouraging” results for these at-home devices for conditions such as adult ADHD and pain relief with remote supervision.

Philip noted that more high-quality randomized controlled trials are definitely needed, with “a number of companies probably getting close to releasing data sometime soon.”

Is it possible that a placebo effect is at work here? “Yes, partially,” said Philip. Users often become more mindful of managing their depression and other conditions, which leads to behavior change, he said.
 

A Quick Fix for a Broken System?

Joseph J. Fins, MD, The E. William Davis Jr, MD, professor of Medical Ethics and chief of the Division of Medical Ethics at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, also believes there could be a placebo effect at play.

“It’s important that we don’t ascribe efficacy to a device without being aware of the placebo effect,” he said. That’s why more and larger, placebo-controlled trials are needed, he added.

There’s a multitude of reasons why patients may turn to at-home devices on their own, including drug shortages and the inability to see a psychiatrist in a timely manner.

“I think it speaks to the isolation of these folks that leads to them doing this on their own. These devices become a technological quick fix for a system that’s desperately broken. There’s nothing wrong with being a consumer, but at a certain point they need to be a patient, and they need to have a clinician there to help them,” he said.

Fins said that he also worries about regulatory oversight because of the way the devices are classified. He likened them to supplements, which, because they don’t make certain claims, are not regulated with the same stringency as other products and fall into an area “in between regulatory spheres.”

“I think we’re trying to take old regulatory frameworks and jerry-rig it to accommodate new and evolving technologies. And I think we need to have serious study of how we protect patients as they become consumers — to make sure there’s enough safety and enough efficacy and that they don’t get ripped off out of desperation,” Fins said.

As for safety, at-home devices are unlikely to cause physical harm — at least when used as intended. “The riskier situations happen when people build their own, overuse it, or use it in combination with drugs or alcohol or other factors that can produce unpredictable results,” Philip said.

He added that DIY-built products carry a higher risk for burns or excessive energy output. A 2016 “open letter” from a group of neurologists, published in Annals of Neurology, warned about the dangers of DIY tDCS.

In addition, Philip noted that he has seen instances where patients become manic after using at-home tDCS, especially when trying to improve cognition.

“We have seen a number of peculiar side effects emerge in those situations. Typically, it’s anxiety, panic attacks, and sensitivity to bright lights, in addition to the emergence of mania, which would require major psychiatric intervention,” he said.

“So, it’s important that if folks do engage with these sorts of things, it’s with some degree of medical involvement,” Philip added.
 

Ethical Considerations

Roy Hamilton, MD, professor of neurology, psychiatry, and physical medicine & rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, said that in the setting of proper training, proper clinician communication, and proper oversight, he doesn’t view at-home tDCS as ethically problematic.

“For individuals who have conditions that are clearly causing them remarkable detriment to quality of life or to their health, it seems like the risk-benefit ratio with respect to the likelihood of harm is quite good,” said Hamilton, who is also the director of the Penn Brain Science, Translation, Innovation, and Modulation Center.

In addition, tDCS and other transcranial electrical stimulation techniques seem to have a better safety profile than “many of the other things we send patients home with to treat their pain,” he said.

On the other hand, this risk calculus changes in a scenario where patients are neurologically intact, he said.

The brain, Hamilton noted, exhibits functional differences based on the region undergoing stimulation. This means users should follow a specific, prescribed method. However, he pointed out that those using commercially available devices often lack clear guidance on where to place the electrodes and what intensity to use.

“This raises concerns because the way you use the device is important,” he said.

Hamilton also highlighted important ethical considerations regarding enhanced cognition through technology or pharmaceutical interventions. The possibility of coercive use raises questions about equity and fairness, particularly if individuals feel pressured to use such devices to remain competitive in academic or professional settings.

This mirrors the current issues surrounding the use of stimulants among students, where those without ADHD may feel compelled to use these drugs to improve performance. In addition, there is the possibility that the capacity to access devices that enhance cognition could exacerbate existing inequalities.

“Any time you introduce a technological intervention, you have to worry about discriminative justice. That’s where only people who can afford such devices or have access to specialists who can give them such devices get to receive improvements in their cognition,” Hamilton said.

Neither the American Academy of Neurology nor the American Psychiatric Association has established practice guidelines for tDCS, either for use in clinical settings or for use at home. Hamilton believes this is due to the current lack of data, noting that organizations likely want to see more approvals and widespread use before creating guidelines.

Fins emphasized the need for organized medicine to sponsor research, noting that the use of these devices is becoming a public health issue. He expressed concern that some devices are marketed as nonmedical interventions, despite involving medical procedures like brain stimulation. He concluded that while scrutiny is necessary, the current landscape should be approached without judgment.

Fins reported no relevant financial relationships. Philip reported serving on a scientific advisory board for Pulvinar Neuro and past involvement in clinical trials related to these devices and their use as home. Hamilton reported he is on the board of trustees for the McKnight Brain Research Foundation, which is dedicated to advancing healthy cognitive aging.
 

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

Older adults at risk for dementia can be identified using mobile data obtained during a wayfinding task, a novel real-world study suggested.

During a smartphone-assisted scavenger hunt on a university campus, researchers observed that older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) paused more frequently, likely to reorient themselves, than those without SCD. This behavior served as an identifier of individuals with SCD.

“Deficits in spatial navigation are one of the first signs of Alzheimer’s disease,” said study investigator Nadine Diersch, PhD, guest researcher with the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Tübingen.

This study, said Diersch, provides “first evidence of how a digital footprint for early dementia-related cognitive decline might look like in real-world settings during a short (less than 30 minutes) and remotely performed wayfinding task.” 

The study was published online  in PLOS Digital Health.
 

Trouble With Orientation

A total of 72 men and women in their mid-20s to mid-60s participated in the study; 23 of the 48 older adults had SCD but still scored normally on neuropsychological assessments.

All study participants were instructed to independently find five buildings on the medical campus of the Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg in Germany, guided by a smartphone app developed by the study team. Their patterns of movement were tracked by GPS.

All participants had similar knowledge of the campus, and all were experienced in using smartphones. They also practiced using the app beforehand.

In most cases, participants reached the five destinations in less than half an hour. The younger participants performed better than the older ones; on average, the younger adults walked shorter distances and generally did not use the help function on the app as often as the older ones.

In the older adults, the number of orientation stops was predictive of SCD status. The adults with SCD tended to hesitate more at intersections. A decline in executive functioning might explain this finding, Diersch said.

“Intact executive functioning is an important component of efficient navigation, for example, when switching between different navigation strategies or planning a route. However, since this was the first study on that subject, more research is needed to determine the precise contribution of different cognitive processes on digital wayfinding data,” said Diersch.

With more study, “we think that such a smartphone-assisted wayfinding task, performed in the immediate surroundings, could be used as a low-threshold screening tool — for example, to stratify subjects with regard to the need of extended cognitive and clinical diagnostics in specialized care,” she added.
 

‘A Game Changer’

Commenting on the research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the findings have the potential to “revolutionize” dementia care.

“We’ve seen smartphones transform everything from banking to dating — now they’re set to reshape brain health monitoring. This ingenious digital scavenger hunt detects cognitive decline in real-world scenarios, bypassing costly, complex tests. It’s a game changer,” said Lakhan.

“Just as we track our steps and calories, we could soon track our cognitive health with a tap. This isn’t just innovation; it’s the future of dementia prevention and care unfolding on our smartphone screens. We’re not just talking about convenience. We’re talking about catching Alzheimer’s before it catches us,” he added.

The next phase, Lakhan noted, would be to develop smartphone apps as digital therapeutics, not just to detect cognitive decline but to treat or even prevent it.

“Imagine your phone not only flagging potential issues but also providing personalized brain training exercises to keep your mind sharp and resilient against dementia,” Lakhan said.

This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) within the Collaborative Research Center “Neural Resources of Cognition” and a DZNE Innovation-2-Application Award. Diersch is now a full-time employee of neotiv. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

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

Older adults at risk for dementia can be identified using mobile data obtained during a wayfinding task, a novel real-world study suggested.

During a smartphone-assisted scavenger hunt on a university campus, researchers observed that older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) paused more frequently, likely to reorient themselves, than those without SCD. This behavior served as an identifier of individuals with SCD.

“Deficits in spatial navigation are one of the first signs of Alzheimer’s disease,” said study investigator Nadine Diersch, PhD, guest researcher with the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Tübingen.

This study, said Diersch, provides “first evidence of how a digital footprint for early dementia-related cognitive decline might look like in real-world settings during a short (less than 30 minutes) and remotely performed wayfinding task.” 

The study was published online  in PLOS Digital Health.
 

Trouble With Orientation

A total of 72 men and women in their mid-20s to mid-60s participated in the study; 23 of the 48 older adults had SCD but still scored normally on neuropsychological assessments.

All study participants were instructed to independently find five buildings on the medical campus of the Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg in Germany, guided by a smartphone app developed by the study team. Their patterns of movement were tracked by GPS.

All participants had similar knowledge of the campus, and all were experienced in using smartphones. They also practiced using the app beforehand.

In most cases, participants reached the five destinations in less than half an hour. The younger participants performed better than the older ones; on average, the younger adults walked shorter distances and generally did not use the help function on the app as often as the older ones.

In the older adults, the number of orientation stops was predictive of SCD status. The adults with SCD tended to hesitate more at intersections. A decline in executive functioning might explain this finding, Diersch said.

“Intact executive functioning is an important component of efficient navigation, for example, when switching between different navigation strategies or planning a route. However, since this was the first study on that subject, more research is needed to determine the precise contribution of different cognitive processes on digital wayfinding data,” said Diersch.

With more study, “we think that such a smartphone-assisted wayfinding task, performed in the immediate surroundings, could be used as a low-threshold screening tool — for example, to stratify subjects with regard to the need of extended cognitive and clinical diagnostics in specialized care,” she added.
 

‘A Game Changer’

Commenting on the research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the findings have the potential to “revolutionize” dementia care.

“We’ve seen smartphones transform everything from banking to dating — now they’re set to reshape brain health monitoring. This ingenious digital scavenger hunt detects cognitive decline in real-world scenarios, bypassing costly, complex tests. It’s a game changer,” said Lakhan.

“Just as we track our steps and calories, we could soon track our cognitive health with a tap. This isn’t just innovation; it’s the future of dementia prevention and care unfolding on our smartphone screens. We’re not just talking about convenience. We’re talking about catching Alzheimer’s before it catches us,” he added.

The next phase, Lakhan noted, would be to develop smartphone apps as digital therapeutics, not just to detect cognitive decline but to treat or even prevent it.

“Imagine your phone not only flagging potential issues but also providing personalized brain training exercises to keep your mind sharp and resilient against dementia,” Lakhan said.

This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) within the Collaborative Research Center “Neural Resources of Cognition” and a DZNE Innovation-2-Application Award. Diersch is now a full-time employee of neotiv. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

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

Older adults at risk for dementia can be identified using mobile data obtained during a wayfinding task, a novel real-world study suggested.

During a smartphone-assisted scavenger hunt on a university campus, researchers observed that older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) paused more frequently, likely to reorient themselves, than those without SCD. This behavior served as an identifier of individuals with SCD.

“Deficits in spatial navigation are one of the first signs of Alzheimer’s disease,” said study investigator Nadine Diersch, PhD, guest researcher with the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Tübingen.

This study, said Diersch, provides “first evidence of how a digital footprint for early dementia-related cognitive decline might look like in real-world settings during a short (less than 30 minutes) and remotely performed wayfinding task.” 

The study was published online  in PLOS Digital Health.
 

Trouble With Orientation

A total of 72 men and women in their mid-20s to mid-60s participated in the study; 23 of the 48 older adults had SCD but still scored normally on neuropsychological assessments.

All study participants were instructed to independently find five buildings on the medical campus of the Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg in Germany, guided by a smartphone app developed by the study team. Their patterns of movement were tracked by GPS.

All participants had similar knowledge of the campus, and all were experienced in using smartphones. They also practiced using the app beforehand.

In most cases, participants reached the five destinations in less than half an hour. The younger participants performed better than the older ones; on average, the younger adults walked shorter distances and generally did not use the help function on the app as often as the older ones.

In the older adults, the number of orientation stops was predictive of SCD status. The adults with SCD tended to hesitate more at intersections. A decline in executive functioning might explain this finding, Diersch said.

“Intact executive functioning is an important component of efficient navigation, for example, when switching between different navigation strategies or planning a route. However, since this was the first study on that subject, more research is needed to determine the precise contribution of different cognitive processes on digital wayfinding data,” said Diersch.

With more study, “we think that such a smartphone-assisted wayfinding task, performed in the immediate surroundings, could be used as a low-threshold screening tool — for example, to stratify subjects with regard to the need of extended cognitive and clinical diagnostics in specialized care,” she added.
 

‘A Game Changer’

Commenting on the research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, who wasn’t involved in the research, said the findings have the potential to “revolutionize” dementia care.

“We’ve seen smartphones transform everything from banking to dating — now they’re set to reshape brain health monitoring. This ingenious digital scavenger hunt detects cognitive decline in real-world scenarios, bypassing costly, complex tests. It’s a game changer,” said Lakhan.

“Just as we track our steps and calories, we could soon track our cognitive health with a tap. This isn’t just innovation; it’s the future of dementia prevention and care unfolding on our smartphone screens. We’re not just talking about convenience. We’re talking about catching Alzheimer’s before it catches us,” he added.

The next phase, Lakhan noted, would be to develop smartphone apps as digital therapeutics, not just to detect cognitive decline but to treat or even prevent it.

“Imagine your phone not only flagging potential issues but also providing personalized brain training exercises to keep your mind sharp and resilient against dementia,” Lakhan said.

This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) within the Collaborative Research Center “Neural Resources of Cognition” and a DZNE Innovation-2-Application Award. Diersch is now a full-time employee of neotiv. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

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

Coffee and tea are among the plants that are highest in caffeine. Their use as beverages makes caffeine the most consumed psychoactive agent in the world. Coffee is commonly used to increase alertness and work productivity. Synthetic caffeine is added to soft drinks, energy drinks, and products intended to reduce fatigue or promote weight loss.

The caffeine content varies with the type of drink: It is high in coffee, energy drinks, and caffeine tablets; intermediate in tea; and low in soft drinks. Coffee is the predominant source of the caffeine ingested by adults. The evidence for caffeine’s effects on people is ambiguous, and some risks and benefits deserve special attention because of the impact they may have on our health.
 

Characteristics of Caffeine

Caffeine is a methylxanthine that is completely absorbed 45 minutes after ingestion, peaking between 15 minutes and 2 hours. The half-life of caffeine varies according to age. In adults, it is 2.5-4.5 hours; in newborns, 80 hours; in children older than 6 months, it remains stable over time with respect to weight. Smoking accelerates caffeine metabolism by reducing the half-life by 50%. Oral contraceptives, however, double caffeine’s half-life. Caffeine metabolism is reduced during pregnancy (it is greater in the first trimester), with a half-life of more than 15 hours. Caffeine clearance can be slowed by several classes of drugs (eg, quinolones, cardiovascular drugs, bronchodilators, and antidepressants) that increase its half-life because they are metabolized by the same liver enzymes.

Caffeine passes the blood-brain barrier and, having an adenosine-like structure, inhibits adenosine’s effects by binding to adenosine receptors. In the brain, caffeine reduces fatigue, increases alertness, reduces reaction times, may reduce the risk for depression, and increases the effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in treating headaches and other types of pain.
 

Caffeine and Chronic Diseases

The evidence available on the relationship between caffeine and health has several methodological limitations. Observations of the acute effects of caffeine may not reflect long-term effects because tolerance to caffeine’s effects may develop over time. Smoking and unhealthy lifestyles are confounding factors in epidemiological studies of caffeine intake. In addition, the estimate of the amount and frequency of caffeine intake is often inaccurate because it is mainly based on self-assessment systems. Finally, prospective studies of caffeine consumption are mainly based on coffee and tea consumption, but it is unclear how much the observed outcomes can be translated to intake of other beverages such as energy drinks.

Considering the very high prevalence of arterial hypertension worldwide (31.1% of adults), many questions have been raised about the influence of coffee consumption on blood pressure (BP) and the risk for arterial hypertension. Administration of 200-300 mg caffeine is shown to induce a mean increase of 8.1 mm Hg systolic BP and 5.7 mm Hg diastolic BP. The increase is observed in the first hour after caffeine intake and lasts no longer than 3 hours.

Yet, the moderate and usual consumption of coffee does not increase, but may even reduce, the risk of developing high BP. In contrast, occasional coffee consumption can have hypertensive effects, and moderate and usual consumption in patients with high BP does not appear to increase the risk for uncontrolled BP and can reduce the risk for death from any cause. The inverse association between coffee consumption and hypertension risk was confirmed in a review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and cohort studies.

With respect to lipid metabolism, cholesterol levels may increase after caffeine consumption because of cafestol. Concentrations of cafestol are high in unfiltered coffee, intermediate in espresso and moka pot coffee, and negligible in instant or filtered coffee. Studies on the impact of coffee on lipid levels have led to inconsistent results, however. Data have shown that people who drink more coffee have higher triglycerides, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Other data have shown that caffeine promotes LDL receptor expression and clearance of LDL cholesterol.

Experimental and cohort studies have not shown an association between coffee consumption and atrial fibrillation (AF). In fact, evidence suggests that coffee consumption tends to reduce the risk for AF in a dose-response relationship. Similarly, coffee consumption is not associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events in the general population or among patients with a history of hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

The Coffee and Real-Time Atrial and Ventricular Ectopy study evaluated the acute effects of coffee consumption on cardiac ectopy using wearable sensors with continuous recording. It did not demonstrate any increase in daily premature atrial contractions with coffee consumption, compared with abstaining from caffeine. 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, a study performed in Japan showed that coffee consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The results suggested a dose-response relationship, and drinking coffee and green tea appeared to reduce mortality risk further. The results were not generalizable, however, because of the study population’s ethnic homogeneity.
 

Dose and Toxicity

Caffeine at high doses (> 400 mg daily) and in susceptible patients can induce anxiety, but the effects of caffeine on sleep and anxiety can differ from patient to patient. This variation reflects differences in caffeine metabolism rate and adenosine receptor gene variants.

High caffeine intake can stimulate diuresis, but without causing damaging effects on hydration when taking moderate doses of caffeine (≤ 400 mg daily) for long periods. Stopping caffeine suddenly, in a regular consumer, can lead to withdrawal symptoms such as headache, asthenia, decreased attention, depressed mood, and flu-like symptoms.

The toxic effects of caffeine occur with intake > 1.2 g. A dose of 10-14 g is considered fatal. Caffeine overdose is rare when considering traditional methods of intake (coffee and tea) because 70-100 cups of coffee should be sufficient for caffeine poisoning. Severe events can occur following the use of caffeine tablets or as energy drinks for the following reasons:

• The episodic consumption of caffeine does not allow for tolerance to develop.
• Young people are more vulnerable to the effects of caffeine.
• Caffeine has a synergistic effect in combination with other components in energy drinks.
• Taking caffeine in combination with alcohol or intense exertion causes serious, even fatal, outcomes.

Products Containing Caffeine

Evidence supports the relationship between high consumption (approximately 1 L) of energy drinks with a caffeine content of 320 mg and short-term cardiovascular adverse events, such as increased BP, QT-segment prolongation corrected for heart rate, and palpitations. These tests prompt the recommendation to avoid consuming these beverages in high quantities and in association with alcohol.

Weight loss products generally contain caffeine coupled with herbal extracts that are expected to improve fat metabolism, lipolysis, and oxidation. These products, because of their easy availability, presumed benefits, and high caffeine concentration, may be more susceptible to misuse because they can be taken in larger portions than recommended. The combination of multiple ingredients, concentrated amounts of caffeine, and excessive consumption increases the likelihood of adverse effects.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Coffee and tea are among the plants that are highest in caffeine. Their use as beverages makes caffeine the most consumed psychoactive agent in the world. Coffee is commonly used to increase alertness and work productivity. Synthetic caffeine is added to soft drinks, energy drinks, and products intended to reduce fatigue or promote weight loss.

The caffeine content varies with the type of drink: It is high in coffee, energy drinks, and caffeine tablets; intermediate in tea; and low in soft drinks. Coffee is the predominant source of the caffeine ingested by adults. The evidence for caffeine’s effects on people is ambiguous, and some risks and benefits deserve special attention because of the impact they may have on our health.
 

Characteristics of Caffeine

Caffeine is a methylxanthine that is completely absorbed 45 minutes after ingestion, peaking between 15 minutes and 2 hours. The half-life of caffeine varies according to age. In adults, it is 2.5-4.5 hours; in newborns, 80 hours; in children older than 6 months, it remains stable over time with respect to weight. Smoking accelerates caffeine metabolism by reducing the half-life by 50%. Oral contraceptives, however, double caffeine’s half-life. Caffeine metabolism is reduced during pregnancy (it is greater in the first trimester), with a half-life of more than 15 hours. Caffeine clearance can be slowed by several classes of drugs (eg, quinolones, cardiovascular drugs, bronchodilators, and antidepressants) that increase its half-life because they are metabolized by the same liver enzymes.

Caffeine passes the blood-brain barrier and, having an adenosine-like structure, inhibits adenosine’s effects by binding to adenosine receptors. In the brain, caffeine reduces fatigue, increases alertness, reduces reaction times, may reduce the risk for depression, and increases the effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in treating headaches and other types of pain.
 

Caffeine and Chronic Diseases

The evidence available on the relationship between caffeine and health has several methodological limitations. Observations of the acute effects of caffeine may not reflect long-term effects because tolerance to caffeine’s effects may develop over time. Smoking and unhealthy lifestyles are confounding factors in epidemiological studies of caffeine intake. In addition, the estimate of the amount and frequency of caffeine intake is often inaccurate because it is mainly based on self-assessment systems. Finally, prospective studies of caffeine consumption are mainly based on coffee and tea consumption, but it is unclear how much the observed outcomes can be translated to intake of other beverages such as energy drinks.

Considering the very high prevalence of arterial hypertension worldwide (31.1% of adults), many questions have been raised about the influence of coffee consumption on blood pressure (BP) and the risk for arterial hypertension. Administration of 200-300 mg caffeine is shown to induce a mean increase of 8.1 mm Hg systolic BP and 5.7 mm Hg diastolic BP. The increase is observed in the first hour after caffeine intake and lasts no longer than 3 hours.

Yet, the moderate and usual consumption of coffee does not increase, but may even reduce, the risk of developing high BP. In contrast, occasional coffee consumption can have hypertensive effects, and moderate and usual consumption in patients with high BP does not appear to increase the risk for uncontrolled BP and can reduce the risk for death from any cause. The inverse association between coffee consumption and hypertension risk was confirmed in a review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and cohort studies.

With respect to lipid metabolism, cholesterol levels may increase after caffeine consumption because of cafestol. Concentrations of cafestol are high in unfiltered coffee, intermediate in espresso and moka pot coffee, and negligible in instant or filtered coffee. Studies on the impact of coffee on lipid levels have led to inconsistent results, however. Data have shown that people who drink more coffee have higher triglycerides, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Other data have shown that caffeine promotes LDL receptor expression and clearance of LDL cholesterol.

Experimental and cohort studies have not shown an association between coffee consumption and atrial fibrillation (AF). In fact, evidence suggests that coffee consumption tends to reduce the risk for AF in a dose-response relationship. Similarly, coffee consumption is not associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events in the general population or among patients with a history of hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

The Coffee and Real-Time Atrial and Ventricular Ectopy study evaluated the acute effects of coffee consumption on cardiac ectopy using wearable sensors with continuous recording. It did not demonstrate any increase in daily premature atrial contractions with coffee consumption, compared with abstaining from caffeine. 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, a study performed in Japan showed that coffee consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The results suggested a dose-response relationship, and drinking coffee and green tea appeared to reduce mortality risk further. The results were not generalizable, however, because of the study population’s ethnic homogeneity.
 

Dose and Toxicity

Caffeine at high doses (> 400 mg daily) and in susceptible patients can induce anxiety, but the effects of caffeine on sleep and anxiety can differ from patient to patient. This variation reflects differences in caffeine metabolism rate and adenosine receptor gene variants.

High caffeine intake can stimulate diuresis, but without causing damaging effects on hydration when taking moderate doses of caffeine (≤ 400 mg daily) for long periods. Stopping caffeine suddenly, in a regular consumer, can lead to withdrawal symptoms such as headache, asthenia, decreased attention, depressed mood, and flu-like symptoms.

The toxic effects of caffeine occur with intake > 1.2 g. A dose of 10-14 g is considered fatal. Caffeine overdose is rare when considering traditional methods of intake (coffee and tea) because 70-100 cups of coffee should be sufficient for caffeine poisoning. Severe events can occur following the use of caffeine tablets or as energy drinks for the following reasons:

• The episodic consumption of caffeine does not allow for tolerance to develop.
• Young people are more vulnerable to the effects of caffeine.
• Caffeine has a synergistic effect in combination with other components in energy drinks.
• Taking caffeine in combination with alcohol or intense exertion causes serious, even fatal, outcomes.

Products Containing Caffeine

Evidence supports the relationship between high consumption (approximately 1 L) of energy drinks with a caffeine content of 320 mg and short-term cardiovascular adverse events, such as increased BP, QT-segment prolongation corrected for heart rate, and palpitations. These tests prompt the recommendation to avoid consuming these beverages in high quantities and in association with alcohol.

Weight loss products generally contain caffeine coupled with herbal extracts that are expected to improve fat metabolism, lipolysis, and oxidation. These products, because of their easy availability, presumed benefits, and high caffeine concentration, may be more susceptible to misuse because they can be taken in larger portions than recommended. The combination of multiple ingredients, concentrated amounts of caffeine, and excessive consumption increases the likelihood of adverse effects.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Coffee and tea are among the plants that are highest in caffeine. Their use as beverages makes caffeine the most consumed psychoactive agent in the world. Coffee is commonly used to increase alertness and work productivity. Synthetic caffeine is added to soft drinks, energy drinks, and products intended to reduce fatigue or promote weight loss.

The caffeine content varies with the type of drink: It is high in coffee, energy drinks, and caffeine tablets; intermediate in tea; and low in soft drinks. Coffee is the predominant source of the caffeine ingested by adults. The evidence for caffeine’s effects on people is ambiguous, and some risks and benefits deserve special attention because of the impact they may have on our health.
 

Characteristics of Caffeine

Caffeine is a methylxanthine that is completely absorbed 45 minutes after ingestion, peaking between 15 minutes and 2 hours. The half-life of caffeine varies according to age. In adults, it is 2.5-4.5 hours; in newborns, 80 hours; in children older than 6 months, it remains stable over time with respect to weight. Smoking accelerates caffeine metabolism by reducing the half-life by 50%. Oral contraceptives, however, double caffeine’s half-life. Caffeine metabolism is reduced during pregnancy (it is greater in the first trimester), with a half-life of more than 15 hours. Caffeine clearance can be slowed by several classes of drugs (eg, quinolones, cardiovascular drugs, bronchodilators, and antidepressants) that increase its half-life because they are metabolized by the same liver enzymes.

Caffeine passes the blood-brain barrier and, having an adenosine-like structure, inhibits adenosine’s effects by binding to adenosine receptors. In the brain, caffeine reduces fatigue, increases alertness, reduces reaction times, may reduce the risk for depression, and increases the effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in treating headaches and other types of pain.
 

Caffeine and Chronic Diseases

The evidence available on the relationship between caffeine and health has several methodological limitations. Observations of the acute effects of caffeine may not reflect long-term effects because tolerance to caffeine’s effects may develop over time. Smoking and unhealthy lifestyles are confounding factors in epidemiological studies of caffeine intake. In addition, the estimate of the amount and frequency of caffeine intake is often inaccurate because it is mainly based on self-assessment systems. Finally, prospective studies of caffeine consumption are mainly based on coffee and tea consumption, but it is unclear how much the observed outcomes can be translated to intake of other beverages such as energy drinks.

Considering the very high prevalence of arterial hypertension worldwide (31.1% of adults), many questions have been raised about the influence of coffee consumption on blood pressure (BP) and the risk for arterial hypertension. Administration of 200-300 mg caffeine is shown to induce a mean increase of 8.1 mm Hg systolic BP and 5.7 mm Hg diastolic BP. The increase is observed in the first hour after caffeine intake and lasts no longer than 3 hours.

Yet, the moderate and usual consumption of coffee does not increase, but may even reduce, the risk of developing high BP. In contrast, occasional coffee consumption can have hypertensive effects, and moderate and usual consumption in patients with high BP does not appear to increase the risk for uncontrolled BP and can reduce the risk for death from any cause. The inverse association between coffee consumption and hypertension risk was confirmed in a review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and cohort studies.

With respect to lipid metabolism, cholesterol levels may increase after caffeine consumption because of cafestol. Concentrations of cafestol are high in unfiltered coffee, intermediate in espresso and moka pot coffee, and negligible in instant or filtered coffee. Studies on the impact of coffee on lipid levels have led to inconsistent results, however. Data have shown that people who drink more coffee have higher triglycerides, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Other data have shown that caffeine promotes LDL receptor expression and clearance of LDL cholesterol.

Experimental and cohort studies have not shown an association between coffee consumption and atrial fibrillation (AF). In fact, evidence suggests that coffee consumption tends to reduce the risk for AF in a dose-response relationship. Similarly, coffee consumption is not associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events in the general population or among patients with a history of hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

The Coffee and Real-Time Atrial and Ventricular Ectopy study evaluated the acute effects of coffee consumption on cardiac ectopy using wearable sensors with continuous recording. It did not demonstrate any increase in daily premature atrial contractions with coffee consumption, compared with abstaining from caffeine. 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, a study performed in Japan showed that coffee consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The results suggested a dose-response relationship, and drinking coffee and green tea appeared to reduce mortality risk further. The results were not generalizable, however, because of the study population’s ethnic homogeneity.
 

Dose and Toxicity

Caffeine at high doses (> 400 mg daily) and in susceptible patients can induce anxiety, but the effects of caffeine on sleep and anxiety can differ from patient to patient. This variation reflects differences in caffeine metabolism rate and adenosine receptor gene variants.

High caffeine intake can stimulate diuresis, but without causing damaging effects on hydration when taking moderate doses of caffeine (≤ 400 mg daily) for long periods. Stopping caffeine suddenly, in a regular consumer, can lead to withdrawal symptoms such as headache, asthenia, decreased attention, depressed mood, and flu-like symptoms.

The toxic effects of caffeine occur with intake > 1.2 g. A dose of 10-14 g is considered fatal. Caffeine overdose is rare when considering traditional methods of intake (coffee and tea) because 70-100 cups of coffee should be sufficient for caffeine poisoning. Severe events can occur following the use of caffeine tablets or as energy drinks for the following reasons:

• The episodic consumption of caffeine does not allow for tolerance to develop.
• Young people are more vulnerable to the effects of caffeine.
• Caffeine has a synergistic effect in combination with other components in energy drinks.
• Taking caffeine in combination with alcohol or intense exertion causes serious, even fatal, outcomes.

Products Containing Caffeine

Evidence supports the relationship between high consumption (approximately 1 L) of energy drinks with a caffeine content of 320 mg and short-term cardiovascular adverse events, such as increased BP, QT-segment prolongation corrected for heart rate, and palpitations. These tests prompt the recommendation to avoid consuming these beverages in high quantities and in association with alcohol.

Weight loss products generally contain caffeine coupled with herbal extracts that are expected to improve fat metabolism, lipolysis, and oxidation. These products, because of their easy availability, presumed benefits, and high caffeine concentration, may be more susceptible to misuse because they can be taken in larger portions than recommended. The combination of multiple ingredients, concentrated amounts of caffeine, and excessive consumption increases the likelihood of adverse effects.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A first stroke in older adults is associated with substantial immediate and accelerated long-term cognitive decline, suggested a new study that underscores the need for continuous cognitive monitoring in this patient population.

Results from the study, which included 14 international cohorts of older adults, showed that stroke was associated with a significant acute decline in global cognition and a small, but significant, acceleration in the rate of cognitive decline over time.

Cognitive assessments in primary care are “crucial, especially since cognitive impairment is frequently missed or undiagnosed in hospitals,” lead author Jessica Lo, MSc, biostatistician and research associate with the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, told this news organization.

She suggested clinicians incorporate long-term cognitive assessments into care plans, using more sensitive neuropsychological tests in primary care to detect early signs of cognitive impairment. “Early detection would enable timely interventions to improve outcomes,” Lo said.

She also noted that poststroke care typically includes physical rehabilitation but not cognitive rehabilitation, which many rehabilitation centers aren’t equipped to provide.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Mapping Cognitive Decline Trajectory

Cognitive impairment after stroke is common, but the trajectory of cognitive decline following a first stroke, relative to prestroke cognitive function, remains unclear.

The investigators leveraged data from 14 population-based cohort studies of 20,860 adults (mean age, 73 years; 59% women) to map the trajectory of cognitive function before and after a first stroke.

The primary outcome was global cognition, defined as the standardized average of four cognitive domains (language, memory, processing speed, and executive function).

During a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, 1041 (5%) adults (mean age, 79 years) experienced a first stroke, a mean of 4.5 years after study entry.

In adjusted analyses, stroke was associated with a significant acute decline of 0.25 SD in global cognition and a “small but significant” acceleration in the rate of decline of −0.038 SD per year, the authors reported.

Stroke was also associated with acute decline in all individual cognitive domains except for memory, with effect sizes ranging from −0.17 to −0.22 SD. Poststroke declines in Mini-Mental State Examination scores (−0.36 SD) were also noted.

In terms of cognitive trajectory, the rate of decline before stroke in survivors was similar to that seen in peers who didn’t have a stroke (−0.048 and −0.049 SD per year in global cognition, respectively).

The researchers did not identify any vascular risk factors moderating cognitive decline following a stroke, consistent with prior research. However, cognitive decline was significantly more rapid in individuals without stroke, regardless of any future stroke, who had a history of diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, depression, smoking, or were APOE4 carriers.

“Targeting modifiable vascular risk factors at an early stage may reduce the risk of stroke but also subsequent risk of stroke-related cognitive decline and cognitive impairment,” the researchers noted.
 

A ‘Major Step’ in the Right Direction

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2023 the American Heart Association (AHA) issued a statement noting that screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors.

Commenting for this news organization, Mitchell Elkind, MD, MS, AHA chief clinical science officer, said these new data are consistent with current AHA guidelines and statements that “support screening for cognitive and functional decline in patients both acutely and over the long term after stroke.”

Elkind noted that the 2022 guideline for intracerebral hemorrhage states that cognitive screening should occur “across the continuum of inpatient care and at intervals in the outpatient setting” and provides recommendations for cognitive therapy.

“Our 2021 scientific statement on the primary care of patients after stroke also recommends screening for both depression and cognitive impairment over both the short- and long-term,” said Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City.

“These documents recognize the fact that function and cognition can continue to decline years after stroke and that patients’ rehabilitation and support needs may therefore change over time after stroke,” Elkind added.

The authors of an accompanying commentary called it a “major step” in the right direction for the future of long-term stroke outcome assessment.

“As we develop new devices, indications, and time windows for stroke treatment, it may perhaps be wise to ensure trials steer away from simpler outcomes to more complex, granular ones,” wrote Yasmin Sadigh, MSc, and Victor Volovici, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and commentary writers and Elkind have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

A first stroke in older adults is associated with substantial immediate and accelerated long-term cognitive decline, suggested a new study that underscores the need for continuous cognitive monitoring in this patient population.

Results from the study, which included 14 international cohorts of older adults, showed that stroke was associated with a significant acute decline in global cognition and a small, but significant, acceleration in the rate of cognitive decline over time.

Cognitive assessments in primary care are “crucial, especially since cognitive impairment is frequently missed or undiagnosed in hospitals,” lead author Jessica Lo, MSc, biostatistician and research associate with the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, told this news organization.

She suggested clinicians incorporate long-term cognitive assessments into care plans, using more sensitive neuropsychological tests in primary care to detect early signs of cognitive impairment. “Early detection would enable timely interventions to improve outcomes,” Lo said.

She also noted that poststroke care typically includes physical rehabilitation but not cognitive rehabilitation, which many rehabilitation centers aren’t equipped to provide.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Mapping Cognitive Decline Trajectory

Cognitive impairment after stroke is common, but the trajectory of cognitive decline following a first stroke, relative to prestroke cognitive function, remains unclear.

The investigators leveraged data from 14 population-based cohort studies of 20,860 adults (mean age, 73 years; 59% women) to map the trajectory of cognitive function before and after a first stroke.

The primary outcome was global cognition, defined as the standardized average of four cognitive domains (language, memory, processing speed, and executive function).

During a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, 1041 (5%) adults (mean age, 79 years) experienced a first stroke, a mean of 4.5 years after study entry.

In adjusted analyses, stroke was associated with a significant acute decline of 0.25 SD in global cognition and a “small but significant” acceleration in the rate of decline of −0.038 SD per year, the authors reported.

Stroke was also associated with acute decline in all individual cognitive domains except for memory, with effect sizes ranging from −0.17 to −0.22 SD. Poststroke declines in Mini-Mental State Examination scores (−0.36 SD) were also noted.

In terms of cognitive trajectory, the rate of decline before stroke in survivors was similar to that seen in peers who didn’t have a stroke (−0.048 and −0.049 SD per year in global cognition, respectively).

The researchers did not identify any vascular risk factors moderating cognitive decline following a stroke, consistent with prior research. However, cognitive decline was significantly more rapid in individuals without stroke, regardless of any future stroke, who had a history of diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, depression, smoking, or were APOE4 carriers.

“Targeting modifiable vascular risk factors at an early stage may reduce the risk of stroke but also subsequent risk of stroke-related cognitive decline and cognitive impairment,” the researchers noted.
 

A ‘Major Step’ in the Right Direction

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2023 the American Heart Association (AHA) issued a statement noting that screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors.

Commenting for this news organization, Mitchell Elkind, MD, MS, AHA chief clinical science officer, said these new data are consistent with current AHA guidelines and statements that “support screening for cognitive and functional decline in patients both acutely and over the long term after stroke.”

Elkind noted that the 2022 guideline for intracerebral hemorrhage states that cognitive screening should occur “across the continuum of inpatient care and at intervals in the outpatient setting” and provides recommendations for cognitive therapy.

“Our 2021 scientific statement on the primary care of patients after stroke also recommends screening for both depression and cognitive impairment over both the short- and long-term,” said Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City.

“These documents recognize the fact that function and cognition can continue to decline years after stroke and that patients’ rehabilitation and support needs may therefore change over time after stroke,” Elkind added.

The authors of an accompanying commentary called it a “major step” in the right direction for the future of long-term stroke outcome assessment.

“As we develop new devices, indications, and time windows for stroke treatment, it may perhaps be wise to ensure trials steer away from simpler outcomes to more complex, granular ones,” wrote Yasmin Sadigh, MSc, and Victor Volovici, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and commentary writers and Elkind have declared no conflicts of interest.

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

A first stroke in older adults is associated with substantial immediate and accelerated long-term cognitive decline, suggested a new study that underscores the need for continuous cognitive monitoring in this patient population.

Results from the study, which included 14 international cohorts of older adults, showed that stroke was associated with a significant acute decline in global cognition and a small, but significant, acceleration in the rate of cognitive decline over time.

Cognitive assessments in primary care are “crucial, especially since cognitive impairment is frequently missed or undiagnosed in hospitals,” lead author Jessica Lo, MSc, biostatistician and research associate with the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, told this news organization.

She suggested clinicians incorporate long-term cognitive assessments into care plans, using more sensitive neuropsychological tests in primary care to detect early signs of cognitive impairment. “Early detection would enable timely interventions to improve outcomes,” Lo said.

She also noted that poststroke care typically includes physical rehabilitation but not cognitive rehabilitation, which many rehabilitation centers aren’t equipped to provide.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Mapping Cognitive Decline Trajectory

Cognitive impairment after stroke is common, but the trajectory of cognitive decline following a first stroke, relative to prestroke cognitive function, remains unclear.

The investigators leveraged data from 14 population-based cohort studies of 20,860 adults (mean age, 73 years; 59% women) to map the trajectory of cognitive function before and after a first stroke.

The primary outcome was global cognition, defined as the standardized average of four cognitive domains (language, memory, processing speed, and executive function).

During a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, 1041 (5%) adults (mean age, 79 years) experienced a first stroke, a mean of 4.5 years after study entry.

In adjusted analyses, stroke was associated with a significant acute decline of 0.25 SD in global cognition and a “small but significant” acceleration in the rate of decline of −0.038 SD per year, the authors reported.

Stroke was also associated with acute decline in all individual cognitive domains except for memory, with effect sizes ranging from −0.17 to −0.22 SD. Poststroke declines in Mini-Mental State Examination scores (−0.36 SD) were also noted.

In terms of cognitive trajectory, the rate of decline before stroke in survivors was similar to that seen in peers who didn’t have a stroke (−0.048 and −0.049 SD per year in global cognition, respectively).

The researchers did not identify any vascular risk factors moderating cognitive decline following a stroke, consistent with prior research. However, cognitive decline was significantly more rapid in individuals without stroke, regardless of any future stroke, who had a history of diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, depression, smoking, or were APOE4 carriers.

“Targeting modifiable vascular risk factors at an early stage may reduce the risk of stroke but also subsequent risk of stroke-related cognitive decline and cognitive impairment,” the researchers noted.
 

A ‘Major Step’ in the Right Direction

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2023 the American Heart Association (AHA) issued a statement noting that screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors.

Commenting for this news organization, Mitchell Elkind, MD, MS, AHA chief clinical science officer, said these new data are consistent with current AHA guidelines and statements that “support screening for cognitive and functional decline in patients both acutely and over the long term after stroke.”

Elkind noted that the 2022 guideline for intracerebral hemorrhage states that cognitive screening should occur “across the continuum of inpatient care and at intervals in the outpatient setting” and provides recommendations for cognitive therapy.

“Our 2021 scientific statement on the primary care of patients after stroke also recommends screening for both depression and cognitive impairment over both the short- and long-term,” said Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City.

“These documents recognize the fact that function and cognition can continue to decline years after stroke and that patients’ rehabilitation and support needs may therefore change over time after stroke,” Elkind added.

The authors of an accompanying commentary called it a “major step” in the right direction for the future of long-term stroke outcome assessment.

“As we develop new devices, indications, and time windows for stroke treatment, it may perhaps be wise to ensure trials steer away from simpler outcomes to more complex, granular ones,” wrote Yasmin Sadigh, MSc, and Victor Volovici, MD, PhD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and commentary writers and Elkind have declared no conflicts of interest.

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