MDedge Neurology

In 2017, Sanofi Genzyme launched a phase 2 clinical trial of a drug designed to target a specific genetic mutation in some patients with Parkinson’s disease. Researchers hoped the drug would slow or even stop disease progression.

Like many before it, the trial yielded disappointing results and the company shut it down in 2021. It was the latest in a string of unsuccessful clinical trials testing disease-modifying Parkinson’s disease drugs.

Although it failed, the Sanofi Genzyme study was different: It was the first to enroll patients with Parkinson’s disease who had a specific genotype and marked the earliest days of precision medicine and gene-specific drug development for the disease.

Once thought to play only a small role in a small number of patients with Parkinson’s disease, a growing body of work has prompted researchers and drug developers to take a longer look at how genetics influence Parkinson’s disease risk and progression.

“We’re about to enter this era of precision medicine for Parkinson’s disease, which makes genetic testing important,” said James Beck, PhD, senior vice president and chief scientific officer for the Parkinson’s Foundation.

“A number of companies have clinical trials or are in preparation for clinical trials to test some specific therapies that would depend upon people having a specific genetic mutation,” he said.

Today, at least four clinical trials of drugs that target specific Parkinson’s disease-related gene variants on LRRK2 and GBA are under way, and more are in the pipeline. Whether these drugs will be effective at modifying the course of the disease remains to be seen. First, the trials must enroll enough patients. And therein lies the challenge: Genetic testing isn’t part of routine Parkinson’s disease care and isn’t covered by most insurance policies. Most patients don’t know their genotype.

It’s a significant roadblock to the future of a precision medicine approach that is based on a patient’s individual genotype, which some experts argue offers the best shot at slowing disease progression.

“To enroll in clinical trials for precision drugs people with Parkinson’s disease have to be aware of their genetic status,” said Roy N. Alcalay, MD, chief of the movement disorders division at Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel and part-time associate professor at Columbia University in New York. “How can a person with Parkinson’s and a LRRK2 mutation join a precision medicine trial for LRRK2 if she does not know she is a LRRK2 carrier?”
 

Free genetic testing

Previous studies have shown that some genetic variants increase the risk for Parkinson’s disease after exposure to environmental factors such as pesticides. Research has also shown that a patient’s genotype can predict survival time and that certain medications may prove more effective at slowing disease progression in patients with specific genotypes. All of this points to a significant role for genetics in a disorder that is rapidly increasing.

This makes expanding patient access to genetic testing even more important, Dr. Alcalay said, noting that it’s equally important that patients are informed of their genotype, something that doesn’t usually happen in blinded clinical trials.

To that end, Dr. Alcalay hopes a national genetics study he is leading will address access and need-to-know issues. PD GENEration, a project launched in 2019 by the Parkinson’s Foundation, offers patients free genetic testing for seven clinically relevant Parkinson’s disease-related genes.

Testing is done at home or in a nearby clinic and the results are shared with patients during a free genetic counseling session and with site investigators. Patient samples are stored in a genetic data bank that is open to researchers around the world.

“We surveyed clinical trialists in the Parkinson’s disease field prior to initiation of PD GENEration and estimated that over 90% of people with Parkinson’s disease prior to the effort were not aware of their genetic status,” Dr. Alcalay said.

“I think precision medicine in Parkinson’s disease will not happen without PD GENEration or similar efforts.”
 

‘Overwhelming’ patient interest

Participants in the study are screened for variants in seven genes known to be involved in Parkinson’s disease risk: GBA, LRRK2, PRKN, PINK1, SNCA, PARK7, and VPS35.

In less than 3 years, the study has already produced what is thought to be the largest genetic data bank of sequenced sets of Parkinson’s disease-risk genes made accessible to patients. Since the end of 2020, the first year of patient enrollment, the number of participants has increased from 676 to 10,515 and the number of participating clinical sites rose from 12 to 101.

The foundation has spent nearly $20 million on the project so far and plans to spend another $10 million to reach a goal of 15,000 patients. The study, which is funded by private donors, is so successful that the foundation has had to scale back enrollment.

“When we were at a peak, we had over 700 participants enrolling each month,” Dr. Beck said. Beginning in April, the program capped new sign-ups to 200 patients per month and created a waiting list for future enrollment. The waiting list is hundreds of patients long.

“The participants’ response to enroll in PD GENEration demonstrates there is an overwhelming interest by people with Parkinson’s disease to learn more about their genetic risk factors,” Dr. Alcalay said.
 

A research driver

Nearly 60% of participants enrolled so far are male and close to 80% are White. The average age is 69 years and 44% were diagnosed in the past 5 years. Close to 75% had never participated in a clinical trial.

Nearly 13% have tested positive for mutations on at least one of the seven target genes. Previous studies had suggested genetics were involved in only about 10% of cases.

The majority of those with positive results had early-onset Parkinson’s disease, high-risk ancestry, or a first-degree relative with the disease. However, 9% of people who tested positive weren’t in any of those categories.

Genetic information collected by the project is shared with the Global Parkinson’s Genetics Program (GP2), a resource program of the Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s initiative that is focused on the disease’s genetic architecture. Researchers around the world have access to GP2 data to study known gene variants and identify new ones.

PD GENEration participants can choose to be notified if they are carriers of gene variants discovered in the future.

“All DNA samples shared by participants are undergoing research-grade testing,” Dr. Beck said. “Not only do we want to be able to inform people with Parkinson’s disease about their genetic status, but we also want to be able to use this precious resource to further drive research into the genetics of Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Early success

Patient recruitment has long been one of the biggest challenges to any clinical trial’s success. Research suggests that 90% of all clinical trials fail to reach recruitment milestones in their allotted time frame and two-thirds of multicenter trials fold because too few patients sign up. Data from the Parkinson’s Foundation show that only about 1% of all patients with Parkinson’s disease participate in clinical trials.

Increasing those numbers is the primary goal of PD GENEration, Dr. Beck said. And there’s evidence it’s already paying off.

Earlier this year, one of the program’s participating clinical sites, Intermountain Health, in Salt Lake City, Utah, joined a phase 2 clinical trial of an experimental drug that targets a mutation on the GBA1 gene.

“One of the reasons we were able to participate was when we got the call about joining, we were able to say that we had patients with that specific gene mutation, and we could only say that because the patients had been genotyped through PD GENEration,” said Kathleen E. McKee, MD, director of movement disorders, associate medical director of neurosciences research, and PD GENEration principal investigator at Intermountain Health.

Since 2021, Dr. McKee has enrolled hundreds of patients in the foundation’s gene study and hopes to enroll even more. Few patients turn down the opportunity to participate, she added. Knowing their genotype has proven empowering for her patients, most of whom could not afford genetic testing on their own.

“Previously I would tell patients this is not going to change your immediate management,” Dr. McKee said. “Now I tell my patients that these trials are out there, it may actually change how I treat you and what I recommend.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2017, Sanofi Genzyme launched a phase 2 clinical trial of a drug designed to target a specific genetic mutation in some patients with Parkinson’s disease. Researchers hoped the drug would slow or even stop disease progression.

Like many before it, the trial yielded disappointing results and the company shut it down in 2021. It was the latest in a string of unsuccessful clinical trials testing disease-modifying Parkinson’s disease drugs.

Although it failed, the Sanofi Genzyme study was different: It was the first to enroll patients with Parkinson’s disease who had a specific genotype and marked the earliest days of precision medicine and gene-specific drug development for the disease.

Once thought to play only a small role in a small number of patients with Parkinson’s disease, a growing body of work has prompted researchers and drug developers to take a longer look at how genetics influence Parkinson’s disease risk and progression.

“We’re about to enter this era of precision medicine for Parkinson’s disease, which makes genetic testing important,” said James Beck, PhD, senior vice president and chief scientific officer for the Parkinson’s Foundation.

“A number of companies have clinical trials or are in preparation for clinical trials to test some specific therapies that would depend upon people having a specific genetic mutation,” he said.

Today, at least four clinical trials of drugs that target specific Parkinson’s disease-related gene variants on LRRK2 and GBA are under way, and more are in the pipeline. Whether these drugs will be effective at modifying the course of the disease remains to be seen. First, the trials must enroll enough patients. And therein lies the challenge: Genetic testing isn’t part of routine Parkinson’s disease care and isn’t covered by most insurance policies. Most patients don’t know their genotype.

It’s a significant roadblock to the future of a precision medicine approach that is based on a patient’s individual genotype, which some experts argue offers the best shot at slowing disease progression.

“To enroll in clinical trials for precision drugs people with Parkinson’s disease have to be aware of their genetic status,” said Roy N. Alcalay, MD, chief of the movement disorders division at Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel and part-time associate professor at Columbia University in New York. “How can a person with Parkinson’s and a LRRK2 mutation join a precision medicine trial for LRRK2 if she does not know she is a LRRK2 carrier?”
 

Free genetic testing

Previous studies have shown that some genetic variants increase the risk for Parkinson’s disease after exposure to environmental factors such as pesticides. Research has also shown that a patient’s genotype can predict survival time and that certain medications may prove more effective at slowing disease progression in patients with specific genotypes. All of this points to a significant role for genetics in a disorder that is rapidly increasing.

This makes expanding patient access to genetic testing even more important, Dr. Alcalay said, noting that it’s equally important that patients are informed of their genotype, something that doesn’t usually happen in blinded clinical trials.

To that end, Dr. Alcalay hopes a national genetics study he is leading will address access and need-to-know issues. PD GENEration, a project launched in 2019 by the Parkinson’s Foundation, offers patients free genetic testing for seven clinically relevant Parkinson’s disease-related genes.

Testing is done at home or in a nearby clinic and the results are shared with patients during a free genetic counseling session and with site investigators. Patient samples are stored in a genetic data bank that is open to researchers around the world.

“We surveyed clinical trialists in the Parkinson’s disease field prior to initiation of PD GENEration and estimated that over 90% of people with Parkinson’s disease prior to the effort were not aware of their genetic status,” Dr. Alcalay said.

“I think precision medicine in Parkinson’s disease will not happen without PD GENEration or similar efforts.”
 

‘Overwhelming’ patient interest

Participants in the study are screened for variants in seven genes known to be involved in Parkinson’s disease risk: GBA, LRRK2, PRKN, PINK1, SNCA, PARK7, and VPS35.

In less than 3 years, the study has already produced what is thought to be the largest genetic data bank of sequenced sets of Parkinson’s disease-risk genes made accessible to patients. Since the end of 2020, the first year of patient enrollment, the number of participants has increased from 676 to 10,515 and the number of participating clinical sites rose from 12 to 101.

The foundation has spent nearly $20 million on the project so far and plans to spend another $10 million to reach a goal of 15,000 patients. The study, which is funded by private donors, is so successful that the foundation has had to scale back enrollment.

“When we were at a peak, we had over 700 participants enrolling each month,” Dr. Beck said. Beginning in April, the program capped new sign-ups to 200 patients per month and created a waiting list for future enrollment. The waiting list is hundreds of patients long.

“The participants’ response to enroll in PD GENEration demonstrates there is an overwhelming interest by people with Parkinson’s disease to learn more about their genetic risk factors,” Dr. Alcalay said.
 

A research driver

Nearly 60% of participants enrolled so far are male and close to 80% are White. The average age is 69 years and 44% were diagnosed in the past 5 years. Close to 75% had never participated in a clinical trial.

Nearly 13% have tested positive for mutations on at least one of the seven target genes. Previous studies had suggested genetics were involved in only about 10% of cases.

The majority of those with positive results had early-onset Parkinson’s disease, high-risk ancestry, or a first-degree relative with the disease. However, 9% of people who tested positive weren’t in any of those categories.

Genetic information collected by the project is shared with the Global Parkinson’s Genetics Program (GP2), a resource program of the Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s initiative that is focused on the disease’s genetic architecture. Researchers around the world have access to GP2 data to study known gene variants and identify new ones.

PD GENEration participants can choose to be notified if they are carriers of gene variants discovered in the future.

“All DNA samples shared by participants are undergoing research-grade testing,” Dr. Beck said. “Not only do we want to be able to inform people with Parkinson’s disease about their genetic status, but we also want to be able to use this precious resource to further drive research into the genetics of Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Early success

Patient recruitment has long been one of the biggest challenges to any clinical trial’s success. Research suggests that 90% of all clinical trials fail to reach recruitment milestones in their allotted time frame and two-thirds of multicenter trials fold because too few patients sign up. Data from the Parkinson’s Foundation show that only about 1% of all patients with Parkinson’s disease participate in clinical trials.

Increasing those numbers is the primary goal of PD GENEration, Dr. Beck said. And there’s evidence it’s already paying off.

Earlier this year, one of the program’s participating clinical sites, Intermountain Health, in Salt Lake City, Utah, joined a phase 2 clinical trial of an experimental drug that targets a mutation on the GBA1 gene.

“One of the reasons we were able to participate was when we got the call about joining, we were able to say that we had patients with that specific gene mutation, and we could only say that because the patients had been genotyped through PD GENEration,” said Kathleen E. McKee, MD, director of movement disorders, associate medical director of neurosciences research, and PD GENEration principal investigator at Intermountain Health.

Since 2021, Dr. McKee has enrolled hundreds of patients in the foundation’s gene study and hopes to enroll even more. Few patients turn down the opportunity to participate, she added. Knowing their genotype has proven empowering for her patients, most of whom could not afford genetic testing on their own.

“Previously I would tell patients this is not going to change your immediate management,” Dr. McKee said. “Now I tell my patients that these trials are out there, it may actually change how I treat you and what I recommend.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2017, Sanofi Genzyme launched a phase 2 clinical trial of a drug designed to target a specific genetic mutation in some patients with Parkinson’s disease. Researchers hoped the drug would slow or even stop disease progression.

Like many before it, the trial yielded disappointing results and the company shut it down in 2021. It was the latest in a string of unsuccessful clinical trials testing disease-modifying Parkinson’s disease drugs.

Although it failed, the Sanofi Genzyme study was different: It was the first to enroll patients with Parkinson’s disease who had a specific genotype and marked the earliest days of precision medicine and gene-specific drug development for the disease.

Once thought to play only a small role in a small number of patients with Parkinson’s disease, a growing body of work has prompted researchers and drug developers to take a longer look at how genetics influence Parkinson’s disease risk and progression.

“We’re about to enter this era of precision medicine for Parkinson’s disease, which makes genetic testing important,” said James Beck, PhD, senior vice president and chief scientific officer for the Parkinson’s Foundation.

“A number of companies have clinical trials or are in preparation for clinical trials to test some specific therapies that would depend upon people having a specific genetic mutation,” he said.

Today, at least four clinical trials of drugs that target specific Parkinson’s disease-related gene variants on LRRK2 and GBA are under way, and more are in the pipeline. Whether these drugs will be effective at modifying the course of the disease remains to be seen. First, the trials must enroll enough patients. And therein lies the challenge: Genetic testing isn’t part of routine Parkinson’s disease care and isn’t covered by most insurance policies. Most patients don’t know their genotype.

It’s a significant roadblock to the future of a precision medicine approach that is based on a patient’s individual genotype, which some experts argue offers the best shot at slowing disease progression.

“To enroll in clinical trials for precision drugs people with Parkinson’s disease have to be aware of their genetic status,” said Roy N. Alcalay, MD, chief of the movement disorders division at Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel and part-time associate professor at Columbia University in New York. “How can a person with Parkinson’s and a LRRK2 mutation join a precision medicine trial for LRRK2 if she does not know she is a LRRK2 carrier?”
 

Free genetic testing

Previous studies have shown that some genetic variants increase the risk for Parkinson’s disease after exposure to environmental factors such as pesticides. Research has also shown that a patient’s genotype can predict survival time and that certain medications may prove more effective at slowing disease progression in patients with specific genotypes. All of this points to a significant role for genetics in a disorder that is rapidly increasing.

This makes expanding patient access to genetic testing even more important, Dr. Alcalay said, noting that it’s equally important that patients are informed of their genotype, something that doesn’t usually happen in blinded clinical trials.

To that end, Dr. Alcalay hopes a national genetics study he is leading will address access and need-to-know issues. PD GENEration, a project launched in 2019 by the Parkinson’s Foundation, offers patients free genetic testing for seven clinically relevant Parkinson’s disease-related genes.

Testing is done at home or in a nearby clinic and the results are shared with patients during a free genetic counseling session and with site investigators. Patient samples are stored in a genetic data bank that is open to researchers around the world.

“We surveyed clinical trialists in the Parkinson’s disease field prior to initiation of PD GENEration and estimated that over 90% of people with Parkinson’s disease prior to the effort were not aware of their genetic status,” Dr. Alcalay said.

“I think precision medicine in Parkinson’s disease will not happen without PD GENEration or similar efforts.”
 

‘Overwhelming’ patient interest

Participants in the study are screened for variants in seven genes known to be involved in Parkinson’s disease risk: GBA, LRRK2, PRKN, PINK1, SNCA, PARK7, and VPS35.

In less than 3 years, the study has already produced what is thought to be the largest genetic data bank of sequenced sets of Parkinson’s disease-risk genes made accessible to patients. Since the end of 2020, the first year of patient enrollment, the number of participants has increased from 676 to 10,515 and the number of participating clinical sites rose from 12 to 101.

The foundation has spent nearly $20 million on the project so far and plans to spend another $10 million to reach a goal of 15,000 patients. The study, which is funded by private donors, is so successful that the foundation has had to scale back enrollment.

“When we were at a peak, we had over 700 participants enrolling each month,” Dr. Beck said. Beginning in April, the program capped new sign-ups to 200 patients per month and created a waiting list for future enrollment. The waiting list is hundreds of patients long.

“The participants’ response to enroll in PD GENEration demonstrates there is an overwhelming interest by people with Parkinson’s disease to learn more about their genetic risk factors,” Dr. Alcalay said.
 

A research driver

Nearly 60% of participants enrolled so far are male and close to 80% are White. The average age is 69 years and 44% were diagnosed in the past 5 years. Close to 75% had never participated in a clinical trial.

Nearly 13% have tested positive for mutations on at least one of the seven target genes. Previous studies had suggested genetics were involved in only about 10% of cases.

The majority of those with positive results had early-onset Parkinson’s disease, high-risk ancestry, or a first-degree relative with the disease. However, 9% of people who tested positive weren’t in any of those categories.

Genetic information collected by the project is shared with the Global Parkinson’s Genetics Program (GP2), a resource program of the Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s initiative that is focused on the disease’s genetic architecture. Researchers around the world have access to GP2 data to study known gene variants and identify new ones.

PD GENEration participants can choose to be notified if they are carriers of gene variants discovered in the future.

“All DNA samples shared by participants are undergoing research-grade testing,” Dr. Beck said. “Not only do we want to be able to inform people with Parkinson’s disease about their genetic status, but we also want to be able to use this precious resource to further drive research into the genetics of Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Early success

Patient recruitment has long been one of the biggest challenges to any clinical trial’s success. Research suggests that 90% of all clinical trials fail to reach recruitment milestones in their allotted time frame and two-thirds of multicenter trials fold because too few patients sign up. Data from the Parkinson’s Foundation show that only about 1% of all patients with Parkinson’s disease participate in clinical trials.

Increasing those numbers is the primary goal of PD GENEration, Dr. Beck said. And there’s evidence it’s already paying off.

Earlier this year, one of the program’s participating clinical sites, Intermountain Health, in Salt Lake City, Utah, joined a phase 2 clinical trial of an experimental drug that targets a mutation on the GBA1 gene.

“One of the reasons we were able to participate was when we got the call about joining, we were able to say that we had patients with that specific gene mutation, and we could only say that because the patients had been genotyped through PD GENEration,” said Kathleen E. McKee, MD, director of movement disorders, associate medical director of neurosciences research, and PD GENEration principal investigator at Intermountain Health.

Since 2021, Dr. McKee has enrolled hundreds of patients in the foundation’s gene study and hopes to enroll even more. Few patients turn down the opportunity to participate, she added. Knowing their genotype has proven empowering for her patients, most of whom could not afford genetic testing on their own.

“Previously I would tell patients this is not going to change your immediate management,” Dr. McKee said. “Now I tell my patients that these trials are out there, it may actually change how I treat you and what I recommend.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This past June, during the search for the Titan submersible, and since then, we’ve had a not-entirely-unexpected development: Sick humor.

There was a lot of it. The Subway owner who got reprimanded for putting “Our subs don’t implode” on his sign was minor league compared with other things circulating on the Internet. One example that was sent to me showed the late Stockton Rush, OceanGate’s co-owner, as the new spokesman for Cap’n Crunch.

Of course, this is nothing new. People have made jokes about awful situations since to the dawn of civilization.

Why do we do this?

Humor is a remarkably human trait. There’s evidence other mammals have it, but not to the extent we do. We’ve created a multitude of forms that vary between cultures. But there isn’t a civilization or culture on Earth that doesn’t have humor.

Why we developed it I’ll leave to others, though I assume a key part is that it strengthens bonds between people, helping them stick together in the groups that keep society moving forward.

Sick humor is part of this, though having grown up watching Monty Python and reading National Lampoon magazine I’m certainly guilty of enjoying it. To this day I think “Eating Raoul” is one of the greatest comedies ever.

It’s also pretty common in medicine. I’ve been involved in plenty of hospital situations that were quite unfunny, yet there are always jokes about it flying as we work.

I assume it’s a defense mechanism. Helping us cope with a bad situation as we do our best to deal with it. Using humor to put a block between the obvious realization that someday this could happen to us. To help psychologically shield us from something tragic.

Years ago I was trying to describe the plot of “Eating Raoul” and said “if you read about this sort of crime spree in a newspaper you’d be horrified. But the way it’s handled in the movie it’s hysterical.” Perhaps that’s as close to understanding sick humor as I’ll ever get. It makes the unfunny funny.

Perhaps the better phrase is the more generic “it’s human nature.” We seek relief in humor, even (maybe especially) in bad situations of our own and others.

Whether or not it’s funny depends on the person. There were plenty of people horrified by the Subway sign, enough that the owner had to change it. But there were also those who admitted they found it tasteless, but still got a laugh out of it. I’m sure the families of those lost on the Titan were justifiably upset, but the closer you get to a personal tragedy the more serious it is.

There’s a fine line, as National Lampoon put it, between funny and sick. But it’s also part of who we are.

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

This past June, during the search for the Titan submersible, and since then, we’ve had a not-entirely-unexpected development: Sick humor.

There was a lot of it. The Subway owner who got reprimanded for putting “Our subs don’t implode” on his sign was minor league compared with other things circulating on the Internet. One example that was sent to me showed the late Stockton Rush, OceanGate’s co-owner, as the new spokesman for Cap’n Crunch.

Of course, this is nothing new. People have made jokes about awful situations since to the dawn of civilization.

Why do we do this?

Humor is a remarkably human trait. There’s evidence other mammals have it, but not to the extent we do. We’ve created a multitude of forms that vary between cultures. But there isn’t a civilization or culture on Earth that doesn’t have humor.

Why we developed it I’ll leave to others, though I assume a key part is that it strengthens bonds between people, helping them stick together in the groups that keep society moving forward.

Sick humor is part of this, though having grown up watching Monty Python and reading National Lampoon magazine I’m certainly guilty of enjoying it. To this day I think “Eating Raoul” is one of the greatest comedies ever.

It’s also pretty common in medicine. I’ve been involved in plenty of hospital situations that were quite unfunny, yet there are always jokes about it flying as we work.

I assume it’s a defense mechanism. Helping us cope with a bad situation as we do our best to deal with it. Using humor to put a block between the obvious realization that someday this could happen to us. To help psychologically shield us from something tragic.

Years ago I was trying to describe the plot of “Eating Raoul” and said “if you read about this sort of crime spree in a newspaper you’d be horrified. But the way it’s handled in the movie it’s hysterical.” Perhaps that’s as close to understanding sick humor as I’ll ever get. It makes the unfunny funny.

Perhaps the better phrase is the more generic “it’s human nature.” We seek relief in humor, even (maybe especially) in bad situations of our own and others.

Whether or not it’s funny depends on the person. There were plenty of people horrified by the Subway sign, enough that the owner had to change it. But there were also those who admitted they found it tasteless, but still got a laugh out of it. I’m sure the families of those lost on the Titan were justifiably upset, but the closer you get to a personal tragedy the more serious it is.

There’s a fine line, as National Lampoon put it, between funny and sick. But it’s also part of who we are.

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

This past June, during the search for the Titan submersible, and since then, we’ve had a not-entirely-unexpected development: Sick humor.

There was a lot of it. The Subway owner who got reprimanded for putting “Our subs don’t implode” on his sign was minor league compared with other things circulating on the Internet. One example that was sent to me showed the late Stockton Rush, OceanGate’s co-owner, as the new spokesman for Cap’n Crunch.

Of course, this is nothing new. People have made jokes about awful situations since to the dawn of civilization.

Why do we do this?

Humor is a remarkably human trait. There’s evidence other mammals have it, but not to the extent we do. We’ve created a multitude of forms that vary between cultures. But there isn’t a civilization or culture on Earth that doesn’t have humor.

Why we developed it I’ll leave to others, though I assume a key part is that it strengthens bonds between people, helping them stick together in the groups that keep society moving forward.

Sick humor is part of this, though having grown up watching Monty Python and reading National Lampoon magazine I’m certainly guilty of enjoying it. To this day I think “Eating Raoul” is one of the greatest comedies ever.

It’s also pretty common in medicine. I’ve been involved in plenty of hospital situations that were quite unfunny, yet there are always jokes about it flying as we work.

I assume it’s a defense mechanism. Helping us cope with a bad situation as we do our best to deal with it. Using humor to put a block between the obvious realization that someday this could happen to us. To help psychologically shield us from something tragic.

Years ago I was trying to describe the plot of “Eating Raoul” and said “if you read about this sort of crime spree in a newspaper you’d be horrified. But the way it’s handled in the movie it’s hysterical.” Perhaps that’s as close to understanding sick humor as I’ll ever get. It makes the unfunny funny.

Perhaps the better phrase is the more generic “it’s human nature.” We seek relief in humor, even (maybe especially) in bad situations of our own and others.

Whether or not it’s funny depends on the person. There were plenty of people horrified by the Subway sign, enough that the owner had to change it. But there were also those who admitted they found it tasteless, but still got a laugh out of it. I’m sure the families of those lost on the Titan were justifiably upset, but the closer you get to a personal tragedy the more serious it is.

There’s a fine line, as National Lampoon put it, between funny and sick. But it’s also part of who we are.

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

Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.

The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin. 

The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.

“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.

It’s not as clear for others, he said.

“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.

Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.

The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease. 

The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain. 

There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.

The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”

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

Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.

The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin. 

The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.

“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.

It’s not as clear for others, he said.

“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.

Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.

The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease. 

The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain. 

There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.

The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”

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

Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.

The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin. 

The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.

“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.

It’s not as clear for others, he said.

“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.

Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.

The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease. 

The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain. 

There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.

The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”

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

Gum disease and tooth loss are linked to hippocampal atrophy and may have a more negative impact on the brain than aging, new research suggests.

Investigators found that in a late middle-aged and older cohort, among patients with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth was linked to a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy. For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth was associated with a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“Tooth loss and gum disease, which is inflammation of the tissue around the teeth that can cause shrinkage of the gums and loosening of the teeth, are very common, so evaluating a potential link with dementia is incredibly important,” study investigator Satoshi Yamaguchi, PhD, DDS, of Tohoku University, in Sendai, Japan, said in a release.

“Our study found that these conditions may play a role in the health of the brain area that controls thinking and memory, giving people another reason to take better care of their teeth,” Dr. Yamaguchi noted.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Greater effect than aging

Although previous research suggests that tooth loss and periodontitis are risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease, longitudinal research has not shown a significant correlation between these conditions and hippocampal atrophy.

To clarify this association, the investigators followed 172 men and women (average age, 67 years) who had undergone two MRI brain scans 4 years apart and had had a dental examination. None of the participants had any signs of cognitive decline at baseline.

At study outset, information on cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, alcohol consumption, smoking, depression history, and cognitive function was gathered. The Mini Mental State Exam and dental exams were administered at baseline and at 4-year follow-up.

For each participant, the number of teeth was counted, and all participants were assessed for gum disease via periodontal probing depth (PD).

Healthy gums typically measure between 1 and 3 mm in depth. Mild gum disease is signified by measurements of 3-4 mm in several areas. Severe gum disease involves measurements of 5-6 mm and is accompanied by greater bone loss, leading to potential tooth loss.

Multiple regression analysis was performed, with the annual symmetric percentage change (SPC) of hippocampal volume as the dependent variable. The analysis included an interaction term between the number of teeth present (NTP) and mean PD.

Over the 4-year study period, the investigators found that the qualitative interaction between NTP and mean PD was significant for the annual SPC in the left hippocampus.

Among those with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth correlated with more rapid atrophy of the left hippocampus, such that every tooth lost was equivalent to nearly 1 year of brain aging.

In contrast, having more teeth was associated with a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy among those with severe periodontitis and was equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth corresponded to a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“This finding indicates that periodontitis may have a greater association with left hippocampal atrophy than the association exhibited by age. Furthermore, in cases of mild periodontitis, fewer teeth may be associated with a subsequent decline in cognitive function,” the investigators write.

The study’s results, they add, highlight the importance of preserving oral health, not just the retaining of teeth. “These findings suggest that retaining teeth with severe gum disease is associated with brain atrophy,” said Dr. Yamaguchi.

“Controlling the progression of gum disease through regular dental visits is crucial, and teeth with severe gum disease may need to be extracted and replaced with appropriate prosthetic devices,” he added.

The researchers note that further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The study was supported the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology; Kelo University; Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund; Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; Teiko University; Pfizer Japan; Bayer Yakuhin; Chugai Pharmaceutical; Daiichi Sankyo; Astrellas Pharma; Takeda Pharmaceutical; the Health Care Science Institute; the Health Science Center; and the Takeda Science Foundation. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gum disease and tooth loss are linked to hippocampal atrophy and may have a more negative impact on the brain than aging, new research suggests.

Investigators found that in a late middle-aged and older cohort, among patients with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth was linked to a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy. For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth was associated with a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“Tooth loss and gum disease, which is inflammation of the tissue around the teeth that can cause shrinkage of the gums and loosening of the teeth, are very common, so evaluating a potential link with dementia is incredibly important,” study investigator Satoshi Yamaguchi, PhD, DDS, of Tohoku University, in Sendai, Japan, said in a release.

“Our study found that these conditions may play a role in the health of the brain area that controls thinking and memory, giving people another reason to take better care of their teeth,” Dr. Yamaguchi noted.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Greater effect than aging

Although previous research suggests that tooth loss and periodontitis are risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease, longitudinal research has not shown a significant correlation between these conditions and hippocampal atrophy.

To clarify this association, the investigators followed 172 men and women (average age, 67 years) who had undergone two MRI brain scans 4 years apart and had had a dental examination. None of the participants had any signs of cognitive decline at baseline.

At study outset, information on cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, alcohol consumption, smoking, depression history, and cognitive function was gathered. The Mini Mental State Exam and dental exams were administered at baseline and at 4-year follow-up.

For each participant, the number of teeth was counted, and all participants were assessed for gum disease via periodontal probing depth (PD).

Healthy gums typically measure between 1 and 3 mm in depth. Mild gum disease is signified by measurements of 3-4 mm in several areas. Severe gum disease involves measurements of 5-6 mm and is accompanied by greater bone loss, leading to potential tooth loss.

Multiple regression analysis was performed, with the annual symmetric percentage change (SPC) of hippocampal volume as the dependent variable. The analysis included an interaction term between the number of teeth present (NTP) and mean PD.

Over the 4-year study period, the investigators found that the qualitative interaction between NTP and mean PD was significant for the annual SPC in the left hippocampus.

Among those with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth correlated with more rapid atrophy of the left hippocampus, such that every tooth lost was equivalent to nearly 1 year of brain aging.

In contrast, having more teeth was associated with a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy among those with severe periodontitis and was equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth corresponded to a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“This finding indicates that periodontitis may have a greater association with left hippocampal atrophy than the association exhibited by age. Furthermore, in cases of mild periodontitis, fewer teeth may be associated with a subsequent decline in cognitive function,” the investigators write.

The study’s results, they add, highlight the importance of preserving oral health, not just the retaining of teeth. “These findings suggest that retaining teeth with severe gum disease is associated with brain atrophy,” said Dr. Yamaguchi.

“Controlling the progression of gum disease through regular dental visits is crucial, and teeth with severe gum disease may need to be extracted and replaced with appropriate prosthetic devices,” he added.

The researchers note that further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The study was supported the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology; Kelo University; Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund; Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; Teiko University; Pfizer Japan; Bayer Yakuhin; Chugai Pharmaceutical; Daiichi Sankyo; Astrellas Pharma; Takeda Pharmaceutical; the Health Care Science Institute; the Health Science Center; and the Takeda Science Foundation. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gum disease and tooth loss are linked to hippocampal atrophy and may have a more negative impact on the brain than aging, new research suggests.

Investigators found that in a late middle-aged and older cohort, among patients with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth was linked to a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy. For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth was associated with a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“Tooth loss and gum disease, which is inflammation of the tissue around the teeth that can cause shrinkage of the gums and loosening of the teeth, are very common, so evaluating a potential link with dementia is incredibly important,” study investigator Satoshi Yamaguchi, PhD, DDS, of Tohoku University, in Sendai, Japan, said in a release.

“Our study found that these conditions may play a role in the health of the brain area that controls thinking and memory, giving people another reason to take better care of their teeth,” Dr. Yamaguchi noted.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Greater effect than aging

Although previous research suggests that tooth loss and periodontitis are risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease, longitudinal research has not shown a significant correlation between these conditions and hippocampal atrophy.

To clarify this association, the investigators followed 172 men and women (average age, 67 years) who had undergone two MRI brain scans 4 years apart and had had a dental examination. None of the participants had any signs of cognitive decline at baseline.

At study outset, information on cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, alcohol consumption, smoking, depression history, and cognitive function was gathered. The Mini Mental State Exam and dental exams were administered at baseline and at 4-year follow-up.

For each participant, the number of teeth was counted, and all participants were assessed for gum disease via periodontal probing depth (PD).

Healthy gums typically measure between 1 and 3 mm in depth. Mild gum disease is signified by measurements of 3-4 mm in several areas. Severe gum disease involves measurements of 5-6 mm and is accompanied by greater bone loss, leading to potential tooth loss.

Multiple regression analysis was performed, with the annual symmetric percentage change (SPC) of hippocampal volume as the dependent variable. The analysis included an interaction term between the number of teeth present (NTP) and mean PD.

Over the 4-year study period, the investigators found that the qualitative interaction between NTP and mean PD was significant for the annual SPC in the left hippocampus.

Among those with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth correlated with more rapid atrophy of the left hippocampus, such that every tooth lost was equivalent to nearly 1 year of brain aging.

In contrast, having more teeth was associated with a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy among those with severe periodontitis and was equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth corresponded to a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“This finding indicates that periodontitis may have a greater association with left hippocampal atrophy than the association exhibited by age. Furthermore, in cases of mild periodontitis, fewer teeth may be associated with a subsequent decline in cognitive function,” the investigators write.

The study’s results, they add, highlight the importance of preserving oral health, not just the retaining of teeth. “These findings suggest that retaining teeth with severe gum disease is associated with brain atrophy,” said Dr. Yamaguchi.

“Controlling the progression of gum disease through regular dental visits is crucial, and teeth with severe gum disease may need to be extracted and replaced with appropriate prosthetic devices,” he added.

The researchers note that further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The study was supported the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology; Kelo University; Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund; Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; Teiko University; Pfizer Japan; Bayer Yakuhin; Chugai Pharmaceutical; Daiichi Sankyo; Astrellas Pharma; Takeda Pharmaceutical; the Health Care Science Institute; the Health Science Center; and the Takeda Science Foundation. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social isolation in older individuals has been linked to reduced brain volume in regions associated with memory, a new study shows.

Further, the association between social isolation and reduced brain volume appears to be at least partly mediated by depressive symptoms.

“We believe that efforts should be made to reduce social isolation among the elderly as much as possible,” investigator Toshiharu Ninomiya, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and public health at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

A dementia prevention strategy

Dr. Ninomiya noted there have been several studies suggesting that social interaction is beneficial in preventing cognitive decline and the onset of dementia.

In addition, recent epidemiological studies have shown social isolation is associated with a risk for cognitive decline and dementia.

Although the investigators note that very little is known about the link between the two, some studies have shown that social isolation is linked with depressive symptoms in older adults, and late-life depression has been associated with brain atrophy.

To explore the potential link between social isolation and brain atrophy, as well as the role of depression as a potential mediator, the investigators studied nearly 9,000 citizens aged 65 and older as part of the Japan Prospective Studies Collaboration for Aging and Dementia (JPSC-AD), an ongoing, community-based nationwide cohort study of dementia in Japan.

Participants were recruited from eight research sites across Japan, and each had a baseline MRI scan between 2016 and 2018. The investigators excluded those with a dementia diagnosis at baseline. Self-reported frequency of social contact was categorized as every day, several times a week, several times a month, or seldom.

Participants also answered questions about medical history and treatment, antihypertensive or antidiabetic medications, exercise, current alcohol intake, and smoking habits. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale. Of the participants, 57% were women, and the mean age was 73 years.
 

Lower brain volume

Total brain volume was lower in those with the lowest frequency of social contact vs. those with the highest frequency (67.3% vs. 67.8%). Less social contact was also linked to smaller temporal lobe, occipital lobe, cingulum, hippocampus, and amygdala volumes.

White matter lesion volume increased with fewer social interactions, from 0.26% in the most social group to 0.30% in the least.

Cognitive function was higher in participants who had daily social contact, compared with those who had the least contact (28 vs. 27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination; P < .001). Scores between 25 and 30 are considered normal.

Depressive symptoms were lower in the daily contact group, compared with the seldom-contact group (P < .001).

The team also found that lower frequency of social contact was significantly associated with the smaller superior, middle, or inferior temporal gyrus; and a smaller fusiform gyrus, transverse temporal gyrus, temporal pole, and entorhinal cortex, among other subregions.

Mediation analyses indicated that depressive symptoms accounted for only 15%-29% of the associations of lower frequency of social contact with each regional volume.
 

Worse physical health

The results also showed that socially isolated participants were more likely to have diabetes, to have hypertension, to smoke, and to be physically inactive.

“Cardiovascular risk factors have been reported to cause endothelial dysfunction in the brain, which could in turn lead to problems in maintaining microcirculation and blood-brain barrier function,” the investigators write.

Some epidemiological studies have associated cardiovascular risk factors with brain atrophy, they noted, which could have been one of the underlying mechanisms.

Another possibility is that reduced cognitive stimulation due to social isolation may cause brain atrophy, they add.

“Ultimately,” Dr. Ninomiya said, “the detailed mechanism of the relationship between social isolation and brain volume is not yet clear.”

He also said more research is needed to know whether the findings would apply to people in other countries.

In an accompanying editorial, Alexa Walter, PhD, and Danielle Sandsmark, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, note that  isolation has been associated with many adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and premature death.

“Given these findings, future work considering social health factors in the context of neurological disease is an important area of research to consider. Additionally, leveraging other existing longitudinal studies could provide us with an opportunity to better understand these relationships within populations and inform public policy to address these issues,” Dr. Walter and Dr. Sandsmark write.

The study was funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Suntory Holdings Limited. Dr. Ninomiya reports receiving grants from Suntory Holdings Limited.

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

Social isolation in older individuals has been linked to reduced brain volume in regions associated with memory, a new study shows.

Further, the association between social isolation and reduced brain volume appears to be at least partly mediated by depressive symptoms.

“We believe that efforts should be made to reduce social isolation among the elderly as much as possible,” investigator Toshiharu Ninomiya, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and public health at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

A dementia prevention strategy

Dr. Ninomiya noted there have been several studies suggesting that social interaction is beneficial in preventing cognitive decline and the onset of dementia.

In addition, recent epidemiological studies have shown social isolation is associated with a risk for cognitive decline and dementia.

Although the investigators note that very little is known about the link between the two, some studies have shown that social isolation is linked with depressive symptoms in older adults, and late-life depression has been associated with brain atrophy.

To explore the potential link between social isolation and brain atrophy, as well as the role of depression as a potential mediator, the investigators studied nearly 9,000 citizens aged 65 and older as part of the Japan Prospective Studies Collaboration for Aging and Dementia (JPSC-AD), an ongoing, community-based nationwide cohort study of dementia in Japan.

Participants were recruited from eight research sites across Japan, and each had a baseline MRI scan between 2016 and 2018. The investigators excluded those with a dementia diagnosis at baseline. Self-reported frequency of social contact was categorized as every day, several times a week, several times a month, or seldom.

Participants also answered questions about medical history and treatment, antihypertensive or antidiabetic medications, exercise, current alcohol intake, and smoking habits. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale. Of the participants, 57% were women, and the mean age was 73 years.
 

Lower brain volume

Total brain volume was lower in those with the lowest frequency of social contact vs. those with the highest frequency (67.3% vs. 67.8%). Less social contact was also linked to smaller temporal lobe, occipital lobe, cingulum, hippocampus, and amygdala volumes.

White matter lesion volume increased with fewer social interactions, from 0.26% in the most social group to 0.30% in the least.

Cognitive function was higher in participants who had daily social contact, compared with those who had the least contact (28 vs. 27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination; P < .001). Scores between 25 and 30 are considered normal.

Depressive symptoms were lower in the daily contact group, compared with the seldom-contact group (P < .001).

The team also found that lower frequency of social contact was significantly associated with the smaller superior, middle, or inferior temporal gyrus; and a smaller fusiform gyrus, transverse temporal gyrus, temporal pole, and entorhinal cortex, among other subregions.

Mediation analyses indicated that depressive symptoms accounted for only 15%-29% of the associations of lower frequency of social contact with each regional volume.
 

Worse physical health

The results also showed that socially isolated participants were more likely to have diabetes, to have hypertension, to smoke, and to be physically inactive.

“Cardiovascular risk factors have been reported to cause endothelial dysfunction in the brain, which could in turn lead to problems in maintaining microcirculation and blood-brain barrier function,” the investigators write.

Some epidemiological studies have associated cardiovascular risk factors with brain atrophy, they noted, which could have been one of the underlying mechanisms.

Another possibility is that reduced cognitive stimulation due to social isolation may cause brain atrophy, they add.

“Ultimately,” Dr. Ninomiya said, “the detailed mechanism of the relationship between social isolation and brain volume is not yet clear.”

He also said more research is needed to know whether the findings would apply to people in other countries.

In an accompanying editorial, Alexa Walter, PhD, and Danielle Sandsmark, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, note that  isolation has been associated with many adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and premature death.

“Given these findings, future work considering social health factors in the context of neurological disease is an important area of research to consider. Additionally, leveraging other existing longitudinal studies could provide us with an opportunity to better understand these relationships within populations and inform public policy to address these issues,” Dr. Walter and Dr. Sandsmark write.

The study was funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Suntory Holdings Limited. Dr. Ninomiya reports receiving grants from Suntory Holdings Limited.

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

Social isolation in older individuals has been linked to reduced brain volume in regions associated with memory, a new study shows.

Further, the association between social isolation and reduced brain volume appears to be at least partly mediated by depressive symptoms.

“We believe that efforts should be made to reduce social isolation among the elderly as much as possible,” investigator Toshiharu Ninomiya, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and public health at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

A dementia prevention strategy

Dr. Ninomiya noted there have been several studies suggesting that social interaction is beneficial in preventing cognitive decline and the onset of dementia.

In addition, recent epidemiological studies have shown social isolation is associated with a risk for cognitive decline and dementia.

Although the investigators note that very little is known about the link between the two, some studies have shown that social isolation is linked with depressive symptoms in older adults, and late-life depression has been associated with brain atrophy.

To explore the potential link between social isolation and brain atrophy, as well as the role of depression as a potential mediator, the investigators studied nearly 9,000 citizens aged 65 and older as part of the Japan Prospective Studies Collaboration for Aging and Dementia (JPSC-AD), an ongoing, community-based nationwide cohort study of dementia in Japan.

Participants were recruited from eight research sites across Japan, and each had a baseline MRI scan between 2016 and 2018. The investigators excluded those with a dementia diagnosis at baseline. Self-reported frequency of social contact was categorized as every day, several times a week, several times a month, or seldom.

Participants also answered questions about medical history and treatment, antihypertensive or antidiabetic medications, exercise, current alcohol intake, and smoking habits. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale. Of the participants, 57% were women, and the mean age was 73 years.
 

Lower brain volume

Total brain volume was lower in those with the lowest frequency of social contact vs. those with the highest frequency (67.3% vs. 67.8%). Less social contact was also linked to smaller temporal lobe, occipital lobe, cingulum, hippocampus, and amygdala volumes.

White matter lesion volume increased with fewer social interactions, from 0.26% in the most social group to 0.30% in the least.

Cognitive function was higher in participants who had daily social contact, compared with those who had the least contact (28 vs. 27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination; P < .001). Scores between 25 and 30 are considered normal.

Depressive symptoms were lower in the daily contact group, compared with the seldom-contact group (P < .001).

The team also found that lower frequency of social contact was significantly associated with the smaller superior, middle, or inferior temporal gyrus; and a smaller fusiform gyrus, transverse temporal gyrus, temporal pole, and entorhinal cortex, among other subregions.

Mediation analyses indicated that depressive symptoms accounted for only 15%-29% of the associations of lower frequency of social contact with each regional volume.
 

Worse physical health

The results also showed that socially isolated participants were more likely to have diabetes, to have hypertension, to smoke, and to be physically inactive.

“Cardiovascular risk factors have been reported to cause endothelial dysfunction in the brain, which could in turn lead to problems in maintaining microcirculation and blood-brain barrier function,” the investigators write.

Some epidemiological studies have associated cardiovascular risk factors with brain atrophy, they noted, which could have been one of the underlying mechanisms.

Another possibility is that reduced cognitive stimulation due to social isolation may cause brain atrophy, they add.

“Ultimately,” Dr. Ninomiya said, “the detailed mechanism of the relationship between social isolation and brain volume is not yet clear.”

He also said more research is needed to know whether the findings would apply to people in other countries.

In an accompanying editorial, Alexa Walter, PhD, and Danielle Sandsmark, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, note that  isolation has been associated with many adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and premature death.

“Given these findings, future work considering social health factors in the context of neurological disease is an important area of research to consider. Additionally, leveraging other existing longitudinal studies could provide us with an opportunity to better understand these relationships within populations and inform public policy to address these issues,” Dr. Walter and Dr. Sandsmark write.

The study was funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Suntory Holdings Limited. Dr. Ninomiya reports receiving grants from Suntory Holdings Limited.

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

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Meditation and foreign language training does not boost cognitive function in cognitively healthy older adults, a new study suggests.

The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.

“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.

Harriet Demnitz-King

Contradictory findings

For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.

The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.

Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.

The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.

“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”

Natalie Marchant

More to learn

The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.

Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.

“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”

Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.

“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”

The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.

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

Meditation and foreign language training does not boost cognitive function in cognitively healthy older adults, a new study suggests.

The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.

“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.

Harriet Demnitz-King

Contradictory findings

For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.

The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.

Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.

The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.

“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”

Natalie Marchant

More to learn

The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.

Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.

“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”

Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.

“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”

The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.

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

Meditation and foreign language training does not boost cognitive function in cognitively healthy older adults, a new study suggests.

The findings are similar to results from another study published last year but are contrary to previous findings showing cognitive benefits for practicing meditation and learning a new language later in life.

“Based on existing literature, which has provided support for the efficacy of meditation and foreign language training in promoting cognition among older adults, perhaps the most surprising outcome of our study was the lack of evidence indicating cognitive benefits after 18 months of either intervention,” lead author Harriet Demnitz-King, MSc, a doctoral candidate at University College London, said in an interview. The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.

Harriet Demnitz-King

Contradictory findings

For the study, 135 French-speaking, cognitively healthy people were randomized to English-language training, meditation, or a control group. All participants were aged 65 years or older, had been retired for at least 1 year, and had completed at least 7 years of education.

The meditation and English-language training interventions were both 18 months long and included a 2-hour weekly group session, daily home practice of at least 20 minutes, and 1-day intensive 5-hour practice.

Researchers found no significant changes in global cognition, episodic memory, executive function, or attention with either intervention, compared with the control group or to each other.

The findings contradict the researchers’ earlier work that found mindfulness meditation boosted cognitive function in older adults with subjective cognitive decline.

“We are still trying to reconcile these findings,” senior author Natalie Marchant, PhD, associate professor in the division of psychiatry at University College London, said. “It may be that mindfulness meditation may not improve cognition beyond normally functioning levels but may help to preserve cognition in the face of cognitive decline.”

Natalie Marchant

More to learn

The results harken to those of a study last year with a similar participant group and similar results. In that work, mindfulness meditation and exercise also failed to boost cognition in healthy adults. But that may not be the whole story, according to Eric Lenze, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis.

Dr. Lenze was a lead author on that earlier research, known as the MEDEX trial, but was not involved with this study. He commented on the new findings for this news organization.

“People may read these results, and ours that were published in JAMA in December, as suggesting that lifestyle and cognitive interventions don’t work in older adults, but that’s not what this shows, in my opinion,” Dr. Lenze said. “It shows that we don’t understand the science of the aging brain as much as we would like to.”

Participants in most of these studies were mostly White, highly educated, and in good cognitive health, all characteristics that could have skewed these findings, he added.

“It may be that interventions to improve cognitive function in older adults would be more likely to help people who have more room to benefit,” Dr. Lenze said. “If you’re already highly educated, healthy, and cognitively normal, why should we expect that you could do even better than that?”

The Age-Well study was funded by European Union in Horizon 2020 program and Inserm, Région Normandie, Fondation d’entreprise MMA des Entrepreneurs du Futur. Dr. Marchant reports grants from Alzheimer’s Society and the U.K. Medical Research Council. Dr. Lenze reports funding from Takeda pharmaceuticals and has been a consultant for Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.

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

Initiating treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS) within 6 months of the first symptoms is associated with a significantly lower risk for severe disability 1 decade later, a new study suggests.

Patients who received early treatment had a 45% lower risk of reaching a disability score of 3 and a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS compared with those who began treatment 18 months or more after symptoms presented.

Those with a score of 3 can still walk unassisted but have moderate disability in one of eight areas, such as motor function, vision or thinking skills, or mild disability in three or four areas.

“With a very early treatment, within 6 months from the first symptoms and even before the MS diagnosis, we are now able to decrease long-term disability. This means the earlier the better – time is brain,” lead author Alvaro Cobo-Calvo, MD, PhD, clinical neurologists and researcher with the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Catalonia in Barcelona and the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Measuring disability

The observational, retrospective study included people aged 50 years or younger who received MS treatment within 6 months of their first clinical demyelinating event (n = 194), 6-16 months later (n = 192), or more than 16 months after the initial symptoms presented (n = 194).

The investigators noted that this cohort is one of the few that is considered “deeply phenotyped,” meaning it is followed prospectively over time with strict quality controls and systematic data collection methods.

MRIs were done within 3-5 months of the first symptoms, again at 12 months after the first event, and every 5 years over a median 11.2-year follow-up.

Disability levels were measured using the Expanded Disability Status Scale, with scores ranging from 0-10 and higher scores indicating more disability.

Patients who received treatment within 6 months of first symptoms were 45% less likely to have a disability score of 3 by the end of the study than did those who received treatment more than 16 months after that first event (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.97).

The earliest-treatment group also had a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS than did people in the latest-treatment group (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.85).
 

Better disease stability

The researchers also found that earlier treatment was associated with a 53% better chance of disease stability 1 year after initial treatment (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.80).

The early-treatment group also had a lower disability progression rate and lower severe disability in a self-reported test, compared with those who were treated later.

The investigators also found that patients who received early treatment were at lower risk for disability, even those with a higher baseline radiologic burden.

Current guidelines recommend early treatment of MS, but it is unclear whether disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) should be prescribed after the first MS symptoms or after a definitive MS diagnosis.

Earlier studies often evaluated treatment efficacy after MS diagnosis. This study began tracking efficacy when therapy began after the first symptoms. In some cases, that was before a diagnosis was given.

“It is important to be cautious when starting treatment and we need to know if the patient will evolve to MS or if the patient is diagnosed with MS based on current McDonald criteria.

“In our study, 70% of patients had MS at the time of the first symptoms according to McDonald 201, but the remainder started treatment without an ‘official’ diagnosis but with an event highly suggestive of MS,” Dr. Cobo-Calvo said.

He added that very early treatment after first symptoms is key to preserving neurologic functionality.
 

Controversy remains

Adding MRI results as a clinical variable is a novel approach, but the MRI risk score used in the study is a new tool that has not yet been validated, the authors of an accompanying editorial noted.

“The results of this study show that in order to achieve a balance between compared groups, matching on MRI has little to add to good-quality balancing on patients’ clinical and demographic features,” wrote Erin Longbrake, MD, PhD, of the department of neurology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, of the Neuroimmunology Centre, department of neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and the CORe unit, department of medicine, University of Melbourne.

Despite growing evidence pointing to improved outcomes from administering DMTs soon after diagnosis, the timing and sequence of therapy remains an area of controversy, they added.

“While these uncertain diagnostic scenarios may tempt neurologists to ‘wait and see,’ the data presented here remind us that these patients remain at risk of accumulating disability,” the authors wrote. “Neurologists must therefore remain vigilant to ensure that diagnosis is made promptly, that patients are followed up effectively and that effective treatments are used liberally.”

The study was funded by the European Regional Development Fund, Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Cobo-Calvo has received a grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Longbrake has consulted for Genentech and NGM Bio and received research support from Biogen & Genentech. Dr. Kalincik has received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL, and Merck, and has received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene, and Merck.

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

Initiating treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS) within 6 months of the first symptoms is associated with a significantly lower risk for severe disability 1 decade later, a new study suggests.

Patients who received early treatment had a 45% lower risk of reaching a disability score of 3 and a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS compared with those who began treatment 18 months or more after symptoms presented.

Those with a score of 3 can still walk unassisted but have moderate disability in one of eight areas, such as motor function, vision or thinking skills, or mild disability in three or four areas.

“With a very early treatment, within 6 months from the first symptoms and even before the MS diagnosis, we are now able to decrease long-term disability. This means the earlier the better – time is brain,” lead author Alvaro Cobo-Calvo, MD, PhD, clinical neurologists and researcher with the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Catalonia in Barcelona and the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Measuring disability

The observational, retrospective study included people aged 50 years or younger who received MS treatment within 6 months of their first clinical demyelinating event (n = 194), 6-16 months later (n = 192), or more than 16 months after the initial symptoms presented (n = 194).

The investigators noted that this cohort is one of the few that is considered “deeply phenotyped,” meaning it is followed prospectively over time with strict quality controls and systematic data collection methods.

MRIs were done within 3-5 months of the first symptoms, again at 12 months after the first event, and every 5 years over a median 11.2-year follow-up.

Disability levels were measured using the Expanded Disability Status Scale, with scores ranging from 0-10 and higher scores indicating more disability.

Patients who received treatment within 6 months of first symptoms were 45% less likely to have a disability score of 3 by the end of the study than did those who received treatment more than 16 months after that first event (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.97).

The earliest-treatment group also had a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS than did people in the latest-treatment group (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.85).
 

Better disease stability

The researchers also found that earlier treatment was associated with a 53% better chance of disease stability 1 year after initial treatment (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.80).

The early-treatment group also had a lower disability progression rate and lower severe disability in a self-reported test, compared with those who were treated later.

The investigators also found that patients who received early treatment were at lower risk for disability, even those with a higher baseline radiologic burden.

Current guidelines recommend early treatment of MS, but it is unclear whether disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) should be prescribed after the first MS symptoms or after a definitive MS diagnosis.

Earlier studies often evaluated treatment efficacy after MS diagnosis. This study began tracking efficacy when therapy began after the first symptoms. In some cases, that was before a diagnosis was given.

“It is important to be cautious when starting treatment and we need to know if the patient will evolve to MS or if the patient is diagnosed with MS based on current McDonald criteria.

“In our study, 70% of patients had MS at the time of the first symptoms according to McDonald 201, but the remainder started treatment without an ‘official’ diagnosis but with an event highly suggestive of MS,” Dr. Cobo-Calvo said.

He added that very early treatment after first symptoms is key to preserving neurologic functionality.
 

Controversy remains

Adding MRI results as a clinical variable is a novel approach, but the MRI risk score used in the study is a new tool that has not yet been validated, the authors of an accompanying editorial noted.

“The results of this study show that in order to achieve a balance between compared groups, matching on MRI has little to add to good-quality balancing on patients’ clinical and demographic features,” wrote Erin Longbrake, MD, PhD, of the department of neurology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, of the Neuroimmunology Centre, department of neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and the CORe unit, department of medicine, University of Melbourne.

Despite growing evidence pointing to improved outcomes from administering DMTs soon after diagnosis, the timing and sequence of therapy remains an area of controversy, they added.

“While these uncertain diagnostic scenarios may tempt neurologists to ‘wait and see,’ the data presented here remind us that these patients remain at risk of accumulating disability,” the authors wrote. “Neurologists must therefore remain vigilant to ensure that diagnosis is made promptly, that patients are followed up effectively and that effective treatments are used liberally.”

The study was funded by the European Regional Development Fund, Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Cobo-Calvo has received a grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Longbrake has consulted for Genentech and NGM Bio and received research support from Biogen & Genentech. Dr. Kalincik has received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL, and Merck, and has received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene, and Merck.

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

Initiating treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS) within 6 months of the first symptoms is associated with a significantly lower risk for severe disability 1 decade later, a new study suggests.

Patients who received early treatment had a 45% lower risk of reaching a disability score of 3 and a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS compared with those who began treatment 18 months or more after symptoms presented.

Those with a score of 3 can still walk unassisted but have moderate disability in one of eight areas, such as motor function, vision or thinking skills, or mild disability in three or four areas.

“With a very early treatment, within 6 months from the first symptoms and even before the MS diagnosis, we are now able to decrease long-term disability. This means the earlier the better – time is brain,” lead author Alvaro Cobo-Calvo, MD, PhD, clinical neurologists and researcher with the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Catalonia in Barcelona and the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Measuring disability

The observational, retrospective study included people aged 50 years or younger who received MS treatment within 6 months of their first clinical demyelinating event (n = 194), 6-16 months later (n = 192), or more than 16 months after the initial symptoms presented (n = 194).

The investigators noted that this cohort is one of the few that is considered “deeply phenotyped,” meaning it is followed prospectively over time with strict quality controls and systematic data collection methods.

MRIs were done within 3-5 months of the first symptoms, again at 12 months after the first event, and every 5 years over a median 11.2-year follow-up.

Disability levels were measured using the Expanded Disability Status Scale, with scores ranging from 0-10 and higher scores indicating more disability.

Patients who received treatment within 6 months of first symptoms were 45% less likely to have a disability score of 3 by the end of the study than did those who received treatment more than 16 months after that first event (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.97).

The earliest-treatment group also had a 60% lower risk of advancing to secondary progressive MS than did people in the latest-treatment group (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.85).
 

Better disease stability

The researchers also found that earlier treatment was associated with a 53% better chance of disease stability 1 year after initial treatment (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.80).

The early-treatment group also had a lower disability progression rate and lower severe disability in a self-reported test, compared with those who were treated later.

The investigators also found that patients who received early treatment were at lower risk for disability, even those with a higher baseline radiologic burden.

Current guidelines recommend early treatment of MS, but it is unclear whether disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) should be prescribed after the first MS symptoms or after a definitive MS diagnosis.

Earlier studies often evaluated treatment efficacy after MS diagnosis. This study began tracking efficacy when therapy began after the first symptoms. In some cases, that was before a diagnosis was given.

“It is important to be cautious when starting treatment and we need to know if the patient will evolve to MS or if the patient is diagnosed with MS based on current McDonald criteria.

“In our study, 70% of patients had MS at the time of the first symptoms according to McDonald 201, but the remainder started treatment without an ‘official’ diagnosis but with an event highly suggestive of MS,” Dr. Cobo-Calvo said.

He added that very early treatment after first symptoms is key to preserving neurologic functionality.
 

Controversy remains

Adding MRI results as a clinical variable is a novel approach, but the MRI risk score used in the study is a new tool that has not yet been validated, the authors of an accompanying editorial noted.

“The results of this study show that in order to achieve a balance between compared groups, matching on MRI has little to add to good-quality balancing on patients’ clinical and demographic features,” wrote Erin Longbrake, MD, PhD, of the department of neurology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Tomas Kalincik, MD, PhD, of the Neuroimmunology Centre, department of neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and the CORe unit, department of medicine, University of Melbourne.

Despite growing evidence pointing to improved outcomes from administering DMTs soon after diagnosis, the timing and sequence of therapy remains an area of controversy, they added.

“While these uncertain diagnostic scenarios may tempt neurologists to ‘wait and see,’ the data presented here remind us that these patients remain at risk of accumulating disability,” the authors wrote. “Neurologists must therefore remain vigilant to ensure that diagnosis is made promptly, that patients are followed up effectively and that effective treatments are used liberally.”

The study was funded by the European Regional Development Fund, Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Cobo-Calvo has received a grant from Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Dr. Longbrake has consulted for Genentech and NGM Bio and received research support from Biogen & Genentech. Dr. Kalincik has received conference travel support and/or speaker honoraria from WebMD Global, Eisai, Novartis, Biogen, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva, BioCSL, and Merck, and has received research or educational event support from Biogen, Novartis, Genzyme, Roche, Celgene, and Merck.

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with an experimental oral tau aggregation inhibitor, hydromethylthionine mesylate (HMTM), led to a statistically significant reduction in an established biomarker of neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in the LUCIDITY phase 3 trial.
 

Blood concentrations of neurofilament light chain (NfL) showed a 93% reduction in change over 12 months in participants receiving HMTM at the target dose of 16 mg/day relative to the control group, which correlated significantly with a tau biomarker (p-tau 181) in blood and changes in cognitive test scores.

“This is the first tau aggregation inhibitor to reach the phase 3 stage of development and to produce results like this,” Claude Wischik, PhD, executive chairman of TauRx Therapeutics, which is developing the drug, noted in an interview.

“NfL is one of the best studied biomarkers in the business because it goes off the rails in a range of neurodegenerative disorders. In AD, it correlates with disease severity, and it tracks ongoing damage to neurons,” Dr. Wischik explained.

Oral HMTM was designed to reduce tau pathology in AD, and the noted changes in NfL concentration by HMTM indicate a “direct impact on disease pathology,” Dr. Wischik said.

The findings, from a prespecified blood biomarker analysis of the LUCIDITY phase 3 trial, were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Support for tau inhibitor

Topline results from the LUCIDITY trial showed improvement in cognition over 18 months in participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) caused by AD who were treated with a 16-mg/day dose of HMTM.

However, in an odd twist, participants in the control group who received a low dose of methylthioninium chloride (MTC) also showed cognitive improvement.

As a result, HMTM 16 mg/day failed to reach its two primary endpoints – change from baseline on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study/Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL23) – relative to the MTC control group.

That’s likely because treatment with MTC, which is a variant of HMTM, unexpectedly achieved blood levels of active drug above the threshold needed to produce a clinical effect.

For the prespecified biomarker analysis reported at AAIC 2023, baseline and 12-month NfL plasma levels were available in 161 of 185 participants receiving HMTM 16 mg/day, 38 of 48 receiving HMTM 8 mg/day and 136 of 185 receiving MTC 8 mg/week.

Blood concentrations of NfL showed a statistically significant 93% reduction in change over 12 months in participants receiving HMTM at a dose of 16 mg/day relative to the control group (P = .0278), Dr. Wischik reported.

In addition, the p-tau 181 increase over 12 months “reduced to zero” with HMTM 16 mg/day and there was significant correlation between change in NfL and p-tau 181 concentration, he noted.

NfL reductions were significantly correlated with change in ADAS-Cog11 (P = .0038) and whole brain volume (P = .0359) over 24 months.
 

‘Exciting’ biomarker data

Commenting on the new data in an interview, Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the phase 3 LUCIDITY results “suggest that HMTM could be a potential therapeutic for slowing down neurodegenerative processes in Alzheimer’s disease.”

“Plasma NfL is an interesting biomarker which is used more and more in clinical trials because it’s noninvasive, accessible, and can assist in diagnosing and monitoring the disease in the early stages. Elevated NfL levels suggest that neurons are being affected in the brain, which could indicate the presence or progression of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Weber said in an interview.

He said the biomarker data from the LUCIDITY study are “exciting.”

“However, due to the relatively small sample size, we look forward to seeing additional research on HMTM in larger, and even more diverse cohorts to better understand the performance of this treatment and the role of NfL in Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Weber said.

Also providing outside perspective, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that currently “there is a lot of effort in trying to address the abnormal tau that occurs in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The biomarker data from LUCIDITY show that HMTM “seems to markedly decrease the amount of NfL in plasma and there is some correlation with cognitive scores. The obvious unknown is whether these changes in plasma NfL will predict clinical benefit,” Dr. Fillit said in an interview.

“This is an oral drug that has a good safety profile, and the mechanism of action makes sense, but we need to see the clinical data,” Dr. Fillit said.

Final 2-year data from the LUCIDITY trial are expected to be released later in 2023.

In the United Kingdom, TauRx has entered an accelerated approval process for the drug, and the company said it plans to seek regulatory approval in the United States and Canada in 2023.

The study was funded by TauRx Therapeutics. Dr. Wischik is an employee of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and TauRx Therapeutics. Dr. Weber and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with an experimental oral tau aggregation inhibitor, hydromethylthionine mesylate (HMTM), led to a statistically significant reduction in an established biomarker of neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in the LUCIDITY phase 3 trial.
 

Blood concentrations of neurofilament light chain (NfL) showed a 93% reduction in change over 12 months in participants receiving HMTM at the target dose of 16 mg/day relative to the control group, which correlated significantly with a tau biomarker (p-tau 181) in blood and changes in cognitive test scores.

“This is the first tau aggregation inhibitor to reach the phase 3 stage of development and to produce results like this,” Claude Wischik, PhD, executive chairman of TauRx Therapeutics, which is developing the drug, noted in an interview.

“NfL is one of the best studied biomarkers in the business because it goes off the rails in a range of neurodegenerative disorders. In AD, it correlates with disease severity, and it tracks ongoing damage to neurons,” Dr. Wischik explained.

Oral HMTM was designed to reduce tau pathology in AD, and the noted changes in NfL concentration by HMTM indicate a “direct impact on disease pathology,” Dr. Wischik said.

The findings, from a prespecified blood biomarker analysis of the LUCIDITY phase 3 trial, were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Support for tau inhibitor

Topline results from the LUCIDITY trial showed improvement in cognition over 18 months in participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) caused by AD who were treated with a 16-mg/day dose of HMTM.

However, in an odd twist, participants in the control group who received a low dose of methylthioninium chloride (MTC) also showed cognitive improvement.

As a result, HMTM 16 mg/day failed to reach its two primary endpoints – change from baseline on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study/Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL23) – relative to the MTC control group.

That’s likely because treatment with MTC, which is a variant of HMTM, unexpectedly achieved blood levels of active drug above the threshold needed to produce a clinical effect.

For the prespecified biomarker analysis reported at AAIC 2023, baseline and 12-month NfL plasma levels were available in 161 of 185 participants receiving HMTM 16 mg/day, 38 of 48 receiving HMTM 8 mg/day and 136 of 185 receiving MTC 8 mg/week.

Blood concentrations of NfL showed a statistically significant 93% reduction in change over 12 months in participants receiving HMTM at a dose of 16 mg/day relative to the control group (P = .0278), Dr. Wischik reported.

In addition, the p-tau 181 increase over 12 months “reduced to zero” with HMTM 16 mg/day and there was significant correlation between change in NfL and p-tau 181 concentration, he noted.

NfL reductions were significantly correlated with change in ADAS-Cog11 (P = .0038) and whole brain volume (P = .0359) over 24 months.
 

‘Exciting’ biomarker data

Commenting on the new data in an interview, Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the phase 3 LUCIDITY results “suggest that HMTM could be a potential therapeutic for slowing down neurodegenerative processes in Alzheimer’s disease.”

“Plasma NfL is an interesting biomarker which is used more and more in clinical trials because it’s noninvasive, accessible, and can assist in diagnosing and monitoring the disease in the early stages. Elevated NfL levels suggest that neurons are being affected in the brain, which could indicate the presence or progression of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Weber said in an interview.

He said the biomarker data from the LUCIDITY study are “exciting.”

“However, due to the relatively small sample size, we look forward to seeing additional research on HMTM in larger, and even more diverse cohorts to better understand the performance of this treatment and the role of NfL in Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Weber said.

Also providing outside perspective, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that currently “there is a lot of effort in trying to address the abnormal tau that occurs in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The biomarker data from LUCIDITY show that HMTM “seems to markedly decrease the amount of NfL in plasma and there is some correlation with cognitive scores. The obvious unknown is whether these changes in plasma NfL will predict clinical benefit,” Dr. Fillit said in an interview.

“This is an oral drug that has a good safety profile, and the mechanism of action makes sense, but we need to see the clinical data,” Dr. Fillit said.

Final 2-year data from the LUCIDITY trial are expected to be released later in 2023.

In the United Kingdom, TauRx has entered an accelerated approval process for the drug, and the company said it plans to seek regulatory approval in the United States and Canada in 2023.

The study was funded by TauRx Therapeutics. Dr. Wischik is an employee of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and TauRx Therapeutics. Dr. Weber and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with an experimental oral tau aggregation inhibitor, hydromethylthionine mesylate (HMTM), led to a statistically significant reduction in an established biomarker of neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in the LUCIDITY phase 3 trial.
 

Blood concentrations of neurofilament light chain (NfL) showed a 93% reduction in change over 12 months in participants receiving HMTM at the target dose of 16 mg/day relative to the control group, which correlated significantly with a tau biomarker (p-tau 181) in blood and changes in cognitive test scores.

“This is the first tau aggregation inhibitor to reach the phase 3 stage of development and to produce results like this,” Claude Wischik, PhD, executive chairman of TauRx Therapeutics, which is developing the drug, noted in an interview.

“NfL is one of the best studied biomarkers in the business because it goes off the rails in a range of neurodegenerative disorders. In AD, it correlates with disease severity, and it tracks ongoing damage to neurons,” Dr. Wischik explained.

Oral HMTM was designed to reduce tau pathology in AD, and the noted changes in NfL concentration by HMTM indicate a “direct impact on disease pathology,” Dr. Wischik said.

The findings, from a prespecified blood biomarker analysis of the LUCIDITY phase 3 trial, were presented at the annual Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Support for tau inhibitor

Topline results from the LUCIDITY trial showed improvement in cognition over 18 months in participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) caused by AD who were treated with a 16-mg/day dose of HMTM.

However, in an odd twist, participants in the control group who received a low dose of methylthioninium chloride (MTC) also showed cognitive improvement.

As a result, HMTM 16 mg/day failed to reach its two primary endpoints – change from baseline on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog11) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study/Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL23) – relative to the MTC control group.

That’s likely because treatment with MTC, which is a variant of HMTM, unexpectedly achieved blood levels of active drug above the threshold needed to produce a clinical effect.

For the prespecified biomarker analysis reported at AAIC 2023, baseline and 12-month NfL plasma levels were available in 161 of 185 participants receiving HMTM 16 mg/day, 38 of 48 receiving HMTM 8 mg/day and 136 of 185 receiving MTC 8 mg/week.

Blood concentrations of NfL showed a statistically significant 93% reduction in change over 12 months in participants receiving HMTM at a dose of 16 mg/day relative to the control group (P = .0278), Dr. Wischik reported.

In addition, the p-tau 181 increase over 12 months “reduced to zero” with HMTM 16 mg/day and there was significant correlation between change in NfL and p-tau 181 concentration, he noted.

NfL reductions were significantly correlated with change in ADAS-Cog11 (P = .0038) and whole brain volume (P = .0359) over 24 months.
 

‘Exciting’ biomarker data

Commenting on the new data in an interview, Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the phase 3 LUCIDITY results “suggest that HMTM could be a potential therapeutic for slowing down neurodegenerative processes in Alzheimer’s disease.”

“Plasma NfL is an interesting biomarker which is used more and more in clinical trials because it’s noninvasive, accessible, and can assist in diagnosing and monitoring the disease in the early stages. Elevated NfL levels suggest that neurons are being affected in the brain, which could indicate the presence or progression of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Weber said in an interview.

He said the biomarker data from the LUCIDITY study are “exciting.”

“However, due to the relatively small sample size, we look forward to seeing additional research on HMTM in larger, and even more diverse cohorts to better understand the performance of this treatment and the role of NfL in Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Weber said.

Also providing outside perspective, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that currently “there is a lot of effort in trying to address the abnormal tau that occurs in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The biomarker data from LUCIDITY show that HMTM “seems to markedly decrease the amount of NfL in plasma and there is some correlation with cognitive scores. The obvious unknown is whether these changes in plasma NfL will predict clinical benefit,” Dr. Fillit said in an interview.

“This is an oral drug that has a good safety profile, and the mechanism of action makes sense, but we need to see the clinical data,” Dr. Fillit said.

Final 2-year data from the LUCIDITY trial are expected to be released later in 2023.

In the United Kingdom, TauRx has entered an accelerated approval process for the drug, and the company said it plans to seek regulatory approval in the United States and Canada in 2023.

The study was funded by TauRx Therapeutics. Dr. Wischik is an employee of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and TauRx Therapeutics. Dr. Weber and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.

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