User login
Is walking speed following stroke a good predictor of recovery?
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggests new research backed by imaging data.
In secondary analysis of a previous study, training enabled both “good” and “limited” walkers to increase travel distance during a 2-minute walk. However, for “dual-task” walking, good walkers improved their distance by approximately 10 m after training, whereas limited walkers improved by only 1 m. Brain imaging showed increased brain activity in the limited walkers, which could reduce cognitive resources available for performing a second task while walking.
These findings, which were published online May 30 in Clinical Rehabilitation, may explain the apparent lack of superiority, shown previously, of dual-task training compared with single-task training for patients with stroke and impaired walking ability, researchers noted.
“Imaging data were consistent with our hypothesis that walking automaticity might explain these results,” said lead author Johnny Collett, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
At baseline, participants who walked slowly had increased resting state connectivity between contralesional M1 and cortical areas associated with conscious gait control.
“In response to the intervention, we found increased connectivity with the precuneus in those who walked slowly at baseline, an adaptation that might support walking in more complex situations,” Dr. Collett said.
Benefits questioned
After stroke, many patients have difficulty walking while performing a second task, such as holding a conversation. Training in dual-task walking has provided uncertain benefits, according to clinical research.
In healthy individuals, walking is believed to be a largely automatic process that requires minimal executive resources. Previous studies have suggested that a certain minimum walking speed is required to enable automatic control of walking in the brain.
“We know that those with better walking ability after stroke are better able to cope with additional cognitive loads while walking,” said Dr. Collett. “Here, we proposed that increased automatic gait control may provide a mechanism whereby executive resources are freed up to attend to additional tasks,” he added.
The investigators further hypothesized that greater walking speed is required for automatic gait control. To test these hypotheses, they analyzed data from a previously conducted randomized trial of single- and dual-task walking interventions.
Trial participants were aged 18 years or older, had survived a stroke that had occurred at least 6 months before enrollment, had reduced 2-minute walk distance relative to their peers, and had no comorbid neurologic or psychologic disorders.
Over 10 weeks, participants underwent 20 sessions that included 30 minutes of walking on a treadmill. They were randomly assigned to undergo single-task walking or dual-task walking. The latter incorporated cognitive tasks as distractions.
Good versus limited walkers
In the current study, investigators analyzed various assessments that had been conducted at baseline and after completion of the training sessions, including distance on 2-minute walks with and without a distracting task. In addition, participants underwent imaging with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and fMRI.
Using previous research as a basis, the researchers defined good walking speed as 0.8 m/sec. They categorized all participants, regardless of their intervention assignments, as having good walking capacity (0.8 m/sec or more) or limited walking capacity (less than 0.79 m/sec).
A total of 50 participants enrolled in the study (mean age, 62 years), and 45 completed the interventions. Of those who completed the interventions, 22 were randomly assigned to undergo single-task training, and 23 were assigned to dual-task training.
The researchers categorized 21 participants as having good walking capacity and 24 as having limited walking capacity. Participants in each category were divided approximately evenly between treatment assignments.
Barthel index score, which assesses functional independence, was higher in the group of good walkers.
Increased travel distance
Results showed that after the interventions, distance traveled during the single-task 2-minute walk increased by 8.9 m for good walkers and by 5.3 m for limited walkers. For the dual-task 2-minute walk, the distance traveled increased by 10.4 m among good walkers and by 1.3 m for limited walkers. Change from baseline on the dual-task walk was not significant for limited walkers.
There was no significant difference between good walkers and limited walkers in their perceptions of participation in community walking. Neither group increased its walking activity significantly following the interventions.
At baseline, limited walkers, in comparison with good walkers, had significantly greater activation in the contralesional hemisphere during dual-task walking, which consisted of incorporating a planning task.
In contrast, for many good walkers, there was a decrease in activation during dual-task walking. Activation in the contralesional hemisphere correlated negatively with dual-task 2-minute walk distance.
The researchers also found a negative correlation between activation and dual-task 2-minute walk distance when the second task was the Stroop task.
Initial step
“The original trial was never designed or powered to compare groups formed by walking speed or test our automaticity hypothesis, and the results need to be viewed within this context,” said Dr. Collett. The small sample size did not allow the researchers to detect small effects of the intervention, especially in the imaging data, he added.
It also prevented the investigators from comparing limited walking and good walking groups according to whether they underwent the single-task or dual-task intervention, “which would be a superior way to investigate our hypotheses,” Dr. Collett said.
“The result of this study should be seen as exploratory, with further investigation needed,” he noted.
Helping stroke survivors to walk in the community is challenging, and new interventions that enable them to navigate complex surroundings need to be designed, said Dr. Collett. “Research is required to better understand the conscious and automatic contribution to gait control, especially with neurological impairment,” he added.
Overall, “our results suggest that improving automatic walking may be an initial step to improve capacity to respond to more complex walking interventions. However, [future] trials are required to test this,” he concluded.
The next frontier?
Commenting on the findings, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard University and senior neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “recovery and rehab are going to be the next frontier in stroke neurology, because there has to be a limitation in the present emphasis on acute care.”
Some patients do not receive acute care on time, and current treatment is not curative, added Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.
Little scientific attention has been paid to how doctors can enhance recovery after stroke, what interventions delay recovery, and what the natural history of recovery is, he said. “This is a very nice study about that.”
Although the study’s methodology was sound, there were some limitations, including that strokes and underlying brain lesions were heterogeneous and that the study population was relatively small, Dr. Caplan said.
He added that “it’s a difficult study to do” and that it is difficult to organize participants into homogeneous groups.
Another limitation cited was lack of long-term follow-up that could indicate whether training provided sustained improvements in walking.
“It would be nice to revisit the same people later and see if their walking has improved, if they’re doing it differently, and if their subjective responses are different,” said Dr. Caplan.
In addition, the study did not examine whether the interventions made it easier for participants to walk with other people or to socialize more. “It may be that it really requires some time for them to gain confidence and for them to integrate that into their social network,” Dr. Caplan said.
“I would call it a proof-of-principle study, not a final study,” he noted. “It’s a study that shows that you can scientifically study rehab” and indicates the possible methodology that could be used.
The study was funded by the Stroke Association. Dr. Collett and Dr. Caplan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Clinical Rehabilitation
Magnesium is strongly tied to lower risk for intracranial aneurysm
The effects may be partially mediated by magnesium’s influence on systolic blood pressure, new research suggests.
“The modifiable risk factors for intracranial aneurysm are largely unknown. Our findings provided evidence of a causal association between increased serum magnesium levels and reduced risk of intracranial aneurysm,” said Susanna Larsson, PhD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
These results suggest that raising serum magnesium levels – through a magnesium-rich diet or magnesium supplementation – “may play a role in the primary prevention of intracranial aneurysm and associated hemorrhage,” Dr. Larsson added.
The study was published online June 22 in Neurology.
Lower risk for rupture
The researchers leveraged randomly allocated genetic variants related to serum magnesium concentrations in a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to assess whether higher genetically predicted serum magnesium correlates with reduced risk for intracranial aneurysm. They also performed a multivariable MR analysis to assess the role blood pressure might play in this association.
Source data came from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) involving 23,829 individuals that previously identified five single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with serum magnesium. Genetic association estimates for intracranial aneurysm were derived from a GWAS in 79,429 people (7,495 case patients and 71,934 control patients), and genetic association estimates for systolic blood pressure were derived from a GWAS of 757,601 individuals.
The researchers found that higher genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were associated with lower risk for intracranial aneurysm.
The odds ratios per 0.1 mmol/L increment in genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.91) for intracranial aneurysm (unruptured and ruptured combined), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30-1.06) for unruptured intracranial aneurysm, and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.92) for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Adjustment for genetically predicted systolic blood pressure partially attenuated the associations of genetically predicted serum magnesium with all three outcomes, suggesting that magnesium’s influence was at least partially mediated by systolic blood pressure.
“In addition to a blood pressure lowering effect, increased magnesium concentrations may reduce the risk of intracranial aneurysm rupture by improving endothelial function and reducing oxidative stress,” the investigators noted.
They caution that the data were derived from people of European ancestry, which limits the generalizability to other populations. “Caution should be taken when extrapolating findings from MR to infer the effect of a clinical intervention, and clinical trials are warranted to guide optimal practice,” they added.
Critical role in vascular health
In an accompanying editorial, Joanna Pera, MD, PhD, of Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland, and Christopher Anderson, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that the study “adds to our understanding of the importance of magnesium in vascular health particularly related to cerebral aneurysms.”
There is a need for “both mechanistic and potentially therapeutic investigation into the role that magnesium plays in subarachnoid hemorrhage,” they added.
Further, they wrote, the results “raise interesting new questions about the links between circulating magnesium, intracranial aneurysms, and blood pressure. Arterial hypertension is a well-recognized risk factor for intracranial aneurysm development and rupture. Magnesium supplementation may lower blood pressure values.
“Could this mineral prove useful in developing interventions that could prevent intracranial aneurysm development and/or rupture over and above a simple lowering of blood pressure, perhaps through pleiotropic effects on endothelial function or other mechanisms? With these results in hand, work is clearly needed to learn more about the biology of magnesium in the vascular system and in intracranial aneurysm biology in particular,” Dr. Pera and Dr. Anderson concluded.
This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the British Heart Foundation Research Center of Excellence at Imperial College London, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship at St. George’s, University of London. Dr. Larsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Dipender Gill, PhD, is employed part time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Pera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Anderson has received research support from the Bayer AG and has consulted for ApoPharma and Invitae.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The effects may be partially mediated by magnesium’s influence on systolic blood pressure, new research suggests.
“The modifiable risk factors for intracranial aneurysm are largely unknown. Our findings provided evidence of a causal association between increased serum magnesium levels and reduced risk of intracranial aneurysm,” said Susanna Larsson, PhD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
These results suggest that raising serum magnesium levels – through a magnesium-rich diet or magnesium supplementation – “may play a role in the primary prevention of intracranial aneurysm and associated hemorrhage,” Dr. Larsson added.
The study was published online June 22 in Neurology.
Lower risk for rupture
The researchers leveraged randomly allocated genetic variants related to serum magnesium concentrations in a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to assess whether higher genetically predicted serum magnesium correlates with reduced risk for intracranial aneurysm. They also performed a multivariable MR analysis to assess the role blood pressure might play in this association.
Source data came from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) involving 23,829 individuals that previously identified five single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with serum magnesium. Genetic association estimates for intracranial aneurysm were derived from a GWAS in 79,429 people (7,495 case patients and 71,934 control patients), and genetic association estimates for systolic blood pressure were derived from a GWAS of 757,601 individuals.
The researchers found that higher genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were associated with lower risk for intracranial aneurysm.
The odds ratios per 0.1 mmol/L increment in genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.91) for intracranial aneurysm (unruptured and ruptured combined), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30-1.06) for unruptured intracranial aneurysm, and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.92) for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Adjustment for genetically predicted systolic blood pressure partially attenuated the associations of genetically predicted serum magnesium with all three outcomes, suggesting that magnesium’s influence was at least partially mediated by systolic blood pressure.
“In addition to a blood pressure lowering effect, increased magnesium concentrations may reduce the risk of intracranial aneurysm rupture by improving endothelial function and reducing oxidative stress,” the investigators noted.
They caution that the data were derived from people of European ancestry, which limits the generalizability to other populations. “Caution should be taken when extrapolating findings from MR to infer the effect of a clinical intervention, and clinical trials are warranted to guide optimal practice,” they added.
Critical role in vascular health
In an accompanying editorial, Joanna Pera, MD, PhD, of Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland, and Christopher Anderson, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that the study “adds to our understanding of the importance of magnesium in vascular health particularly related to cerebral aneurysms.”
There is a need for “both mechanistic and potentially therapeutic investigation into the role that magnesium plays in subarachnoid hemorrhage,” they added.
Further, they wrote, the results “raise interesting new questions about the links between circulating magnesium, intracranial aneurysms, and blood pressure. Arterial hypertension is a well-recognized risk factor for intracranial aneurysm development and rupture. Magnesium supplementation may lower blood pressure values.
“Could this mineral prove useful in developing interventions that could prevent intracranial aneurysm development and/or rupture over and above a simple lowering of blood pressure, perhaps through pleiotropic effects on endothelial function or other mechanisms? With these results in hand, work is clearly needed to learn more about the biology of magnesium in the vascular system and in intracranial aneurysm biology in particular,” Dr. Pera and Dr. Anderson concluded.
This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the British Heart Foundation Research Center of Excellence at Imperial College London, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship at St. George’s, University of London. Dr. Larsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Dipender Gill, PhD, is employed part time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Pera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Anderson has received research support from the Bayer AG and has consulted for ApoPharma and Invitae.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The effects may be partially mediated by magnesium’s influence on systolic blood pressure, new research suggests.
“The modifiable risk factors for intracranial aneurysm are largely unknown. Our findings provided evidence of a causal association between increased serum magnesium levels and reduced risk of intracranial aneurysm,” said Susanna Larsson, PhD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
These results suggest that raising serum magnesium levels – through a magnesium-rich diet or magnesium supplementation – “may play a role in the primary prevention of intracranial aneurysm and associated hemorrhage,” Dr. Larsson added.
The study was published online June 22 in Neurology.
Lower risk for rupture
The researchers leveraged randomly allocated genetic variants related to serum magnesium concentrations in a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to assess whether higher genetically predicted serum magnesium correlates with reduced risk for intracranial aneurysm. They also performed a multivariable MR analysis to assess the role blood pressure might play in this association.
Source data came from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) involving 23,829 individuals that previously identified five single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with serum magnesium. Genetic association estimates for intracranial aneurysm were derived from a GWAS in 79,429 people (7,495 case patients and 71,934 control patients), and genetic association estimates for systolic blood pressure were derived from a GWAS of 757,601 individuals.
The researchers found that higher genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were associated with lower risk for intracranial aneurysm.
The odds ratios per 0.1 mmol/L increment in genetically predicted serum magnesium concentrations were 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.91) for intracranial aneurysm (unruptured and ruptured combined), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30-1.06) for unruptured intracranial aneurysm, and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.92) for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Adjustment for genetically predicted systolic blood pressure partially attenuated the associations of genetically predicted serum magnesium with all three outcomes, suggesting that magnesium’s influence was at least partially mediated by systolic blood pressure.
“In addition to a blood pressure lowering effect, increased magnesium concentrations may reduce the risk of intracranial aneurysm rupture by improving endothelial function and reducing oxidative stress,” the investigators noted.
They caution that the data were derived from people of European ancestry, which limits the generalizability to other populations. “Caution should be taken when extrapolating findings from MR to infer the effect of a clinical intervention, and clinical trials are warranted to guide optimal practice,” they added.
Critical role in vascular health
In an accompanying editorial, Joanna Pera, MD, PhD, of Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland, and Christopher Anderson, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that the study “adds to our understanding of the importance of magnesium in vascular health particularly related to cerebral aneurysms.”
There is a need for “both mechanistic and potentially therapeutic investigation into the role that magnesium plays in subarachnoid hemorrhage,” they added.
Further, they wrote, the results “raise interesting new questions about the links between circulating magnesium, intracranial aneurysms, and blood pressure. Arterial hypertension is a well-recognized risk factor for intracranial aneurysm development and rupture. Magnesium supplementation may lower blood pressure values.
“Could this mineral prove useful in developing interventions that could prevent intracranial aneurysm development and/or rupture over and above a simple lowering of blood pressure, perhaps through pleiotropic effects on endothelial function or other mechanisms? With these results in hand, work is clearly needed to learn more about the biology of magnesium in the vascular system and in intracranial aneurysm biology in particular,” Dr. Pera and Dr. Anderson concluded.
This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the British Heart Foundation Research Center of Excellence at Imperial College London, and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Lectureship at St. George’s, University of London. Dr. Larsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Study coauthor Dipender Gill, PhD, is employed part time by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Pera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Anderson has received research support from the Bayer AG and has consulted for ApoPharma and Invitae.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Neurology
Two case reports identify Guillain-Barré variants after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare peripheral nerve disorder that can occur after certain types of viral and bacterial infections, has not to date been definitively linked to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or with vaccination against the virus, despite surveillance searching for such associations.
Spikes in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence have previously, but rarely, been associated with outbreaks of other viral diseases, including Zika, but not with vaccination, except for a 1976-1977 swine influenza vaccine campaign in the United States that was seen associated with a slight elevation in risk, and was halted when that risk became known. Since then, all sorts of vaccines in the European Union and United States have come with warnings about Guillain-Barré syndrome in their package inserts – a fact that some Guillain-Barré syndrome experts lament as perpetuating the notion that vaccines cause Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Epidemiologic studies in the United Kingdom and Singapore did not detect increases in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. And as mass vaccination against COVID-19 got underway early this year, experts cautioned against the temptation to attribute incident Guillain-Barré syndrome cases following vaccination to SARS-CoV-2 without careful statistical and epidemiological analysis. Until now reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome have been scant: clinical trials of a viral vector vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson saw one in the placebo arm and another in the intervention arm, while another case was reported following administration of a Pfizer mRNA SARS-Cov-2 vaccine.
Recent case reports
None of the patients had evidence of current SARS-CoV-2 infection.
From India, Boby V. Maramattom, MD, of Aster Medcity in Kochi, India, and colleagues reported on seven severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring between 10 and 14 days after a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. All but one of the patients were women, all had bilateral facial paresis, all progressed to areflexic quadriplegia, and six required respiratory support. Patients’ ages ranged from 43 to 70. Four developed other cranial neuropathies, including abducens palsy and trigeminal sensory nerve involvement, which are rare in reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome from India, Dr. Maramattom and colleagues noted.
The authors argued that their findings “should prompt all physicians to be vigilant in recognizing Guillain-Barré syndrome in patients who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine. While the risk per patient (5.8 per million) may be relatively low, our observations suggest that this clinically distinct [Guillain-Barré syndrome] variant is more severe than usual and may require mechanical ventilation.”
The U.K. cases, reported by Christopher Martin Allen, MD, and colleagues at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, describe bifacial weakness and normal facial sensation in four men between 11 and 22 days after their first doses of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. This type of facial palsy, the authors wrote, was unusual Guillain-Barré syndrome variant that one rapid review found in 3 of 42 European patients diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Dr. Allen and colleagues acknowledged that causality could not be assumed from the temporal relationship of immunization to onset of bifacial weakness in their report, but argued that their findings argued for “robust postvaccination surveillance” and that “the report of a similar syndrome in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests an immunologic response to the spike protein.” If the link is casual, they wrote, “it could be due to a cross-reactive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and components of the peripheral immune system.”
‘The jury is still out’
Asked for comment, neurologist Anthony Amato, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he did not see what the two new studies add to what is already known. “Guillain-Barré syndrome has already been reported temporally following COVID-19 along with accompanying editorials that such temporal occurrences do not imply causation and there is a need for surveillance and epidemiological studies.”
Robert Lisak, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and a longtime adviser to the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, commented that “the relationship between vaccines and association with Guillain-Barré syndrome continues to be controversial in part because Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare disorder, has many reported associated illnesses including infections. Many vaccines have been implicated but with the probable exception of the ‘swine flu’ vaccine in the 1970s, most have not stood up to scrutiny.”
With SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines, “the jury is still out,” Dr. Lisak said. “The report from the U.K. is intriguing since they report several cases of an uncommon variant, but the cases from India seem to be more of the usual forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.”
Dr. Lisak noted that, even if an association turns out to be valid, “we are talking about a very low incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines,” one that would not justify avoiding them because of a possible association with Guillain-Barré syndrome.
The GBS-CIDP Foundation, which supports research into Guillain-Barré syndrome and related diseases, has likewise stressed the low risk presented by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, noting on its website that “the risk of death or long-term complications from COVID in adults still far exceeds the risk of any possible risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome by several orders of magnitude.”
None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest related to their research. Dr. Amato is an adviser to the pharmaceutical firms Alexion and Argenx, while Dr. Lisak has received research support or honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Hoffmann–La Roche, and others.
Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare peripheral nerve disorder that can occur after certain types of viral and bacterial infections, has not to date been definitively linked to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or with vaccination against the virus, despite surveillance searching for such associations.
Spikes in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence have previously, but rarely, been associated with outbreaks of other viral diseases, including Zika, but not with vaccination, except for a 1976-1977 swine influenza vaccine campaign in the United States that was seen associated with a slight elevation in risk, and was halted when that risk became known. Since then, all sorts of vaccines in the European Union and United States have come with warnings about Guillain-Barré syndrome in their package inserts – a fact that some Guillain-Barré syndrome experts lament as perpetuating the notion that vaccines cause Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Epidemiologic studies in the United Kingdom and Singapore did not detect increases in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. And as mass vaccination against COVID-19 got underway early this year, experts cautioned against the temptation to attribute incident Guillain-Barré syndrome cases following vaccination to SARS-CoV-2 without careful statistical and epidemiological analysis. Until now reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome have been scant: clinical trials of a viral vector vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson saw one in the placebo arm and another in the intervention arm, while another case was reported following administration of a Pfizer mRNA SARS-Cov-2 vaccine.
Recent case reports
None of the patients had evidence of current SARS-CoV-2 infection.
From India, Boby V. Maramattom, MD, of Aster Medcity in Kochi, India, and colleagues reported on seven severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring between 10 and 14 days after a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. All but one of the patients were women, all had bilateral facial paresis, all progressed to areflexic quadriplegia, and six required respiratory support. Patients’ ages ranged from 43 to 70. Four developed other cranial neuropathies, including abducens palsy and trigeminal sensory nerve involvement, which are rare in reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome from India, Dr. Maramattom and colleagues noted.
The authors argued that their findings “should prompt all physicians to be vigilant in recognizing Guillain-Barré syndrome in patients who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine. While the risk per patient (5.8 per million) may be relatively low, our observations suggest that this clinically distinct [Guillain-Barré syndrome] variant is more severe than usual and may require mechanical ventilation.”
The U.K. cases, reported by Christopher Martin Allen, MD, and colleagues at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, describe bifacial weakness and normal facial sensation in four men between 11 and 22 days after their first doses of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. This type of facial palsy, the authors wrote, was unusual Guillain-Barré syndrome variant that one rapid review found in 3 of 42 European patients diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Dr. Allen and colleagues acknowledged that causality could not be assumed from the temporal relationship of immunization to onset of bifacial weakness in their report, but argued that their findings argued for “robust postvaccination surveillance” and that “the report of a similar syndrome in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests an immunologic response to the spike protein.” If the link is casual, they wrote, “it could be due to a cross-reactive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and components of the peripheral immune system.”
‘The jury is still out’
Asked for comment, neurologist Anthony Amato, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he did not see what the two new studies add to what is already known. “Guillain-Barré syndrome has already been reported temporally following COVID-19 along with accompanying editorials that such temporal occurrences do not imply causation and there is a need for surveillance and epidemiological studies.”
Robert Lisak, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and a longtime adviser to the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, commented that “the relationship between vaccines and association with Guillain-Barré syndrome continues to be controversial in part because Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare disorder, has many reported associated illnesses including infections. Many vaccines have been implicated but with the probable exception of the ‘swine flu’ vaccine in the 1970s, most have not stood up to scrutiny.”
With SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines, “the jury is still out,” Dr. Lisak said. “The report from the U.K. is intriguing since they report several cases of an uncommon variant, but the cases from India seem to be more of the usual forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.”
Dr. Lisak noted that, even if an association turns out to be valid, “we are talking about a very low incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines,” one that would not justify avoiding them because of a possible association with Guillain-Barré syndrome.
The GBS-CIDP Foundation, which supports research into Guillain-Barré syndrome and related diseases, has likewise stressed the low risk presented by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, noting on its website that “the risk of death or long-term complications from COVID in adults still far exceeds the risk of any possible risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome by several orders of magnitude.”
None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest related to their research. Dr. Amato is an adviser to the pharmaceutical firms Alexion and Argenx, while Dr. Lisak has received research support or honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Hoffmann–La Roche, and others.
Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare peripheral nerve disorder that can occur after certain types of viral and bacterial infections, has not to date been definitively linked to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or with vaccination against the virus, despite surveillance searching for such associations.
Spikes in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence have previously, but rarely, been associated with outbreaks of other viral diseases, including Zika, but not with vaccination, except for a 1976-1977 swine influenza vaccine campaign in the United States that was seen associated with a slight elevation in risk, and was halted when that risk became known. Since then, all sorts of vaccines in the European Union and United States have come with warnings about Guillain-Barré syndrome in their package inserts – a fact that some Guillain-Barré syndrome experts lament as perpetuating the notion that vaccines cause Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Epidemiologic studies in the United Kingdom and Singapore did not detect increases in Guillain-Barré syndrome incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. And as mass vaccination against COVID-19 got underway early this year, experts cautioned against the temptation to attribute incident Guillain-Barré syndrome cases following vaccination to SARS-CoV-2 without careful statistical and epidemiological analysis. Until now reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome have been scant: clinical trials of a viral vector vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson saw one in the placebo arm and another in the intervention arm, while another case was reported following administration of a Pfizer mRNA SARS-Cov-2 vaccine.
Recent case reports
None of the patients had evidence of current SARS-CoV-2 infection.
From India, Boby V. Maramattom, MD, of Aster Medcity in Kochi, India, and colleagues reported on seven severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring between 10 and 14 days after a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. All but one of the patients were women, all had bilateral facial paresis, all progressed to areflexic quadriplegia, and six required respiratory support. Patients’ ages ranged from 43 to 70. Four developed other cranial neuropathies, including abducens palsy and trigeminal sensory nerve involvement, which are rare in reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome from India, Dr. Maramattom and colleagues noted.
The authors argued that their findings “should prompt all physicians to be vigilant in recognizing Guillain-Barré syndrome in patients who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine. While the risk per patient (5.8 per million) may be relatively low, our observations suggest that this clinically distinct [Guillain-Barré syndrome] variant is more severe than usual and may require mechanical ventilation.”
The U.K. cases, reported by Christopher Martin Allen, MD, and colleagues at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust, describe bifacial weakness and normal facial sensation in four men between 11 and 22 days after their first doses of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. This type of facial palsy, the authors wrote, was unusual Guillain-Barré syndrome variant that one rapid review found in 3 of 42 European patients diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Dr. Allen and colleagues acknowledged that causality could not be assumed from the temporal relationship of immunization to onset of bifacial weakness in their report, but argued that their findings argued for “robust postvaccination surveillance” and that “the report of a similar syndrome in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection suggests an immunologic response to the spike protein.” If the link is casual, they wrote, “it could be due to a cross-reactive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and components of the peripheral immune system.”
‘The jury is still out’
Asked for comment, neurologist Anthony Amato, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he did not see what the two new studies add to what is already known. “Guillain-Barré syndrome has already been reported temporally following COVID-19 along with accompanying editorials that such temporal occurrences do not imply causation and there is a need for surveillance and epidemiological studies.”
Robert Lisak, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and a longtime adviser to the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, commented that “the relationship between vaccines and association with Guillain-Barré syndrome continues to be controversial in part because Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare disorder, has many reported associated illnesses including infections. Many vaccines have been implicated but with the probable exception of the ‘swine flu’ vaccine in the 1970s, most have not stood up to scrutiny.”
With SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines, “the jury is still out,” Dr. Lisak said. “The report from the U.K. is intriguing since they report several cases of an uncommon variant, but the cases from India seem to be more of the usual forms of Guillain-Barré syndrome.”
Dr. Lisak noted that, even if an association turns out to be valid, “we are talking about a very low incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines,” one that would not justify avoiding them because of a possible association with Guillain-Barré syndrome.
The GBS-CIDP Foundation, which supports research into Guillain-Barré syndrome and related diseases, has likewise stressed the low risk presented by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, noting on its website that “the risk of death or long-term complications from COVID in adults still far exceeds the risk of any possible risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome by several orders of magnitude.”
None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest related to their research. Dr. Amato is an adviser to the pharmaceutical firms Alexion and Argenx, while Dr. Lisak has received research support or honoraria from Alexion, Novartis, Hoffmann–La Roche, and others.
FROM ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
Potential first-in-class, targeted therapy for myasthenia gravis
(gMG), new research suggests. Results from the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial showed that reduction in disease burden and improvement in strength and quality of life in patients with gMG were consistent across four MG-specific scales for those receiving the novel treatment. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable, the researchers noted.
Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work, and the side effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard, Jr., MD, Distinguished Professor of Neuromuscular Disease, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The ADAPT results are “important for the MG community, and I am hopeful efgartigimod will provide a first-in-class targeted therapy that can be dosed in an individual way for people living with this chronic autoimmune disease,” Dr. Howard added in a news release.
The findings were published online June 17 in Lancet Neurology.
Targeted molecular therapy
The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
Efgartigimod is an investigational antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.
The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.
The ADAPT trial was conducted at 56 neuromuscular academic and community centers in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Japan. The study included 167 adults with gMG, regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of at least 5 (greater than 50% non-ocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.
For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.
ADAPT was designed to allow an individualized treatment approach with an initial treatment cycle followed by a variable number of subsequent treatment cycles, the investigators noted.
Primary endpoint met
The primary efficacy endpoint was number of acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (AChR-Ab+) patients who achieved a clinically meaningful response on the MG-ADL score. This was defined as at least a 2-point improvement from baseline for 4 or more consecutive weeks. Forty-four (68%) of 65 AChR-Ab+ patients treated with efgartigimod met this endpoint versus 19 (30%) of 64 patients treated with placebo (odds ratio, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-11.53; P < .0001).
Many of the patients treated with efgartigimod showed improvement “beyond the clinically meaningful threshold, achieving up to 9-point reductions in MG-ADL,” the investigators reported. In addition, 40% of the efgartigimod group attained an MG-ADL score of 0 or 1 (minimal symptom expression) in cycle 1 versus 11% of the placebo group (P < .0001).
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of AChR-Ab+ patients responded to the first cycle of efgartigimod, and most of these patients (83%) responded to treatment within the first 2 weeks. Among the AChR-Ab+ participants who responded to efgartigimod in cycle 1, the duration of responder status was 6 to 7 weeks in 32% of patients, 8 to 11 weeks in 23% of patients, and 12 weeks or more in 34% of patients.
Safety profile
“Some patients never required retreatment over the 26-week period that they were under observation,” Dr. Howard said. “Patients want to be individuals. They don’t want to be assigned to a regimented therapy, and I think these results show that this therapy can be tailored to the individual patient, rather than simply giving it to them in a cookbook fashion,” he added.
The safety profile of efgartigimod was comparable to placebo. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, nasopharyngitis, nausea, diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.
Four (5%) efgartigimod-treated patients had a serious adverse event, which included thrombocytosis, rectal adenocarcinoma, worsening MG, and depression.
The novel agent is currently under review with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of gMG, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of Dec. 17. If approved, it would become the first FDA-approved FcRn antagonist.
Expanding therapeutic landscape
In a linked commentary, Shigeaki Suzuki, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, noted that the therapeutic landscape for patients with MG is “expanding year by year,” with several additional complement inhibitors and FcRn antagonists now in phase 3 testing.
“Biological drugs should be preferentially used as the treatment for patients with refractory myasthenia gravis, although the definition of refractory myasthenia gravis is different depending on the criteria used,” Dr. Suzuki wrote.
He noted that when “cost-effectiveness is not taken into account, targeted molecular therapy might be used widely” in patients with MG.
“Risks of myasthenic exacerbation and crises should be substantially decreased, particularly in patients with refractory myasthenia gravis,” Dr. Suzuki added.
The ADAPT study was supported by argenx. Dr. Howard has reported receiving research support from argenx, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and Ra Pharmaceuticals; honoraria from argenx, Alexion, Immunovant, Ra, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Viela Bio; and nonfinancial support from argenx, Alexion, Ra, and Toleranzia. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Suzuki has reported relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Japan Blood Products Organization, and Asahi Kasei Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(gMG), new research suggests. Results from the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial showed that reduction in disease burden and improvement in strength and quality of life in patients with gMG were consistent across four MG-specific scales for those receiving the novel treatment. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable, the researchers noted.
Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work, and the side effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard, Jr., MD, Distinguished Professor of Neuromuscular Disease, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The ADAPT results are “important for the MG community, and I am hopeful efgartigimod will provide a first-in-class targeted therapy that can be dosed in an individual way for people living with this chronic autoimmune disease,” Dr. Howard added in a news release.
The findings were published online June 17 in Lancet Neurology.
Targeted molecular therapy
The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
Efgartigimod is an investigational antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.
The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.
The ADAPT trial was conducted at 56 neuromuscular academic and community centers in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Japan. The study included 167 adults with gMG, regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of at least 5 (greater than 50% non-ocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.
For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.
ADAPT was designed to allow an individualized treatment approach with an initial treatment cycle followed by a variable number of subsequent treatment cycles, the investigators noted.
Primary endpoint met
The primary efficacy endpoint was number of acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (AChR-Ab+) patients who achieved a clinically meaningful response on the MG-ADL score. This was defined as at least a 2-point improvement from baseline for 4 or more consecutive weeks. Forty-four (68%) of 65 AChR-Ab+ patients treated with efgartigimod met this endpoint versus 19 (30%) of 64 patients treated with placebo (odds ratio, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-11.53; P < .0001).
Many of the patients treated with efgartigimod showed improvement “beyond the clinically meaningful threshold, achieving up to 9-point reductions in MG-ADL,” the investigators reported. In addition, 40% of the efgartigimod group attained an MG-ADL score of 0 or 1 (minimal symptom expression) in cycle 1 versus 11% of the placebo group (P < .0001).
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of AChR-Ab+ patients responded to the first cycle of efgartigimod, and most of these patients (83%) responded to treatment within the first 2 weeks. Among the AChR-Ab+ participants who responded to efgartigimod in cycle 1, the duration of responder status was 6 to 7 weeks in 32% of patients, 8 to 11 weeks in 23% of patients, and 12 weeks or more in 34% of patients.
Safety profile
“Some patients never required retreatment over the 26-week period that they were under observation,” Dr. Howard said. “Patients want to be individuals. They don’t want to be assigned to a regimented therapy, and I think these results show that this therapy can be tailored to the individual patient, rather than simply giving it to them in a cookbook fashion,” he added.
The safety profile of efgartigimod was comparable to placebo. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, nasopharyngitis, nausea, diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.
Four (5%) efgartigimod-treated patients had a serious adverse event, which included thrombocytosis, rectal adenocarcinoma, worsening MG, and depression.
The novel agent is currently under review with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of gMG, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of Dec. 17. If approved, it would become the first FDA-approved FcRn antagonist.
Expanding therapeutic landscape
In a linked commentary, Shigeaki Suzuki, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, noted that the therapeutic landscape for patients with MG is “expanding year by year,” with several additional complement inhibitors and FcRn antagonists now in phase 3 testing.
“Biological drugs should be preferentially used as the treatment for patients with refractory myasthenia gravis, although the definition of refractory myasthenia gravis is different depending on the criteria used,” Dr. Suzuki wrote.
He noted that when “cost-effectiveness is not taken into account, targeted molecular therapy might be used widely” in patients with MG.
“Risks of myasthenic exacerbation and crises should be substantially decreased, particularly in patients with refractory myasthenia gravis,” Dr. Suzuki added.
The ADAPT study was supported by argenx. Dr. Howard has reported receiving research support from argenx, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and Ra Pharmaceuticals; honoraria from argenx, Alexion, Immunovant, Ra, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Viela Bio; and nonfinancial support from argenx, Alexion, Ra, and Toleranzia. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Suzuki has reported relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Japan Blood Products Organization, and Asahi Kasei Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(gMG), new research suggests. Results from the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial showed that reduction in disease burden and improvement in strength and quality of life in patients with gMG were consistent across four MG-specific scales for those receiving the novel treatment. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable, the researchers noted.
Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work, and the side effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard, Jr., MD, Distinguished Professor of Neuromuscular Disease, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The ADAPT results are “important for the MG community, and I am hopeful efgartigimod will provide a first-in-class targeted therapy that can be dosed in an individual way for people living with this chronic autoimmune disease,” Dr. Howard added in a news release.
The findings were published online June 17 in Lancet Neurology.
Targeted molecular therapy
The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
Efgartigimod is an investigational antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.
The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.
The ADAPT trial was conducted at 56 neuromuscular academic and community centers in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Japan. The study included 167 adults with gMG, regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of at least 5 (greater than 50% non-ocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.
For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.
ADAPT was designed to allow an individualized treatment approach with an initial treatment cycle followed by a variable number of subsequent treatment cycles, the investigators noted.
Primary endpoint met
The primary efficacy endpoint was number of acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (AChR-Ab+) patients who achieved a clinically meaningful response on the MG-ADL score. This was defined as at least a 2-point improvement from baseline for 4 or more consecutive weeks. Forty-four (68%) of 65 AChR-Ab+ patients treated with efgartigimod met this endpoint versus 19 (30%) of 64 patients treated with placebo (odds ratio, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-11.53; P < .0001).
Many of the patients treated with efgartigimod showed improvement “beyond the clinically meaningful threshold, achieving up to 9-point reductions in MG-ADL,” the investigators reported. In addition, 40% of the efgartigimod group attained an MG-ADL score of 0 or 1 (minimal symptom expression) in cycle 1 versus 11% of the placebo group (P < .0001).
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of AChR-Ab+ patients responded to the first cycle of efgartigimod, and most of these patients (83%) responded to treatment within the first 2 weeks. Among the AChR-Ab+ participants who responded to efgartigimod in cycle 1, the duration of responder status was 6 to 7 weeks in 32% of patients, 8 to 11 weeks in 23% of patients, and 12 weeks or more in 34% of patients.
Safety profile
“Some patients never required retreatment over the 26-week period that they were under observation,” Dr. Howard said. “Patients want to be individuals. They don’t want to be assigned to a regimented therapy, and I think these results show that this therapy can be tailored to the individual patient, rather than simply giving it to them in a cookbook fashion,” he added.
The safety profile of efgartigimod was comparable to placebo. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, nasopharyngitis, nausea, diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.
Four (5%) efgartigimod-treated patients had a serious adverse event, which included thrombocytosis, rectal adenocarcinoma, worsening MG, and depression.
The novel agent is currently under review with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of gMG, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of Dec. 17. If approved, it would become the first FDA-approved FcRn antagonist.
Expanding therapeutic landscape
In a linked commentary, Shigeaki Suzuki, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, noted that the therapeutic landscape for patients with MG is “expanding year by year,” with several additional complement inhibitors and FcRn antagonists now in phase 3 testing.
“Biological drugs should be preferentially used as the treatment for patients with refractory myasthenia gravis, although the definition of refractory myasthenia gravis is different depending on the criteria used,” Dr. Suzuki wrote.
He noted that when “cost-effectiveness is not taken into account, targeted molecular therapy might be used widely” in patients with MG.
“Risks of myasthenic exacerbation and crises should be substantially decreased, particularly in patients with refractory myasthenia gravis,” Dr. Suzuki added.
The ADAPT study was supported by argenx. Dr. Howard has reported receiving research support from argenx, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and Ra Pharmaceuticals; honoraria from argenx, Alexion, Immunovant, Ra, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Viela Bio; and nonfinancial support from argenx, Alexion, Ra, and Toleranzia. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Suzuki has reported relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Japan Blood Products Organization, and Asahi Kasei Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Lancet Neurology
Many comatose TBI patients recover consciousness during rehab
according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.
“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.
To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).
Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).
Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope
The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.
“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.
That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?
“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists
“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”
“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”
She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.
“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”
The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.
according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.
“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.
To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).
Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).
Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope
The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.
“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.
That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?
“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists
“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”
“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”
She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.
“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”
The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.
according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.
“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.
To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).
Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).
Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope
The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.
“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.
That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?
“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists
“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”
“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”
She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.
“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”
The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Deep brain stimulation is effective over the long haul
, new research indicates.
“Subthalamic nucleus stimulation is a well recognized treatment used for improving motor conditions and quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease. Our study, for the first time, supports its efficacy in the very long term – 15 years after surgery and 25 years since the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” said Elena Moro, MD, PhD, Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France.
“This information is relevant for physicians, patients, and their families when they need to decide about the surgical option to deal with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Moro.
The study was published online June 2 in Neurology.
‘Don’t delay’
The findings are based on 51 patients with Parkinson’s disease who underwent treatment with bilateral STN-DBS for an average of 17 years (range, 15-24 years). Their average age at diagnosis was 40 years, and the average age at device implantation was 51 years.
The results demonstrate that STN-DBS continues to be effective for motor complications for longer than 15 years, reducing time spent with dyskinesia by 75% and time spent in the off-state by 58.7%. This is similar to the amount of improvement seen 1 year after surgery.
Doses of dopaminergic medications continued to be low at long-term follow-up; dosing was reduced by 50.6% compared with baseline.
There was also continued improvement in quality of life. Scores on the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire in the very long term were 13.8% better compared with baseline.
“Few and mostly manageable device-related adverse events were observed during the follow-up,” the authors reported in their article.
“Deep brain stimulation is already recommended when a patient’s conditions are not optimized by medical treatment. Patients with Parkinson’s disease without dementia and in good general health conditions are the best candidates for this surgery,” said Dr. Moro.
“Taking into account our results and the data available in the literature, DBS surgery should not be delayed when motor conditions and quality of life decline despite medical treatment, if patients meet the inclusion criteria,” she added.
A revolutionary treatment
The authors of an accompanying editorial say these results, which indicate better motor outcomes with less medication, “reinforce why STN-DBS has revolutionized treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease.”
Kelvin Chou, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and David Charles, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that longer disease duration is associated with an increase in the likelihood of cognitive impairment and psychosis, both of which are risk factors for nursing home placement, and they limit the ability to use dopaminergic medications.
Although many of the patients in this cohort experienced hallucinations and psychosis over the long follow-up period, “one can imagine that the number and severity would be higher without DBS therapy,” they wrote.
Key caveats, said Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles, are that the results are based on a highly selected cohort and that the patients were managed by experts in the field of movement disorders and DBS.
Additionally, the patients’ conditions were highly responsive to levodopa; there was a 75.3% baseline improvement in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor scores from the off-state to the on-state. In general, most DBS centers consider a levodopa response of approximately 30% as an acceptable cutoff for moving forward with STN-DBS, they noted.
Despite these caveats and limitations, the results of the study are important with respect to counseling potential candidates for DBS, Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles said.
“A common question that patients have is, ‘How long do the benefits of DBS last?’ We can now reassure them that, at least for STN-DBS, improvement in motor complications lasts beyond 15 years and is often accompanied by improvement in quality of life. In other words, with STN-DBS, we can uncomplicate their motor complications for the long haul,” the editorial writers concluded.
The research had no targeted funding. Moro has received honoraria from Medtronic and Abbott for consulting and lecturing and an educational grant from Boston and Newronika. A complete list of disclosures is available with the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research indicates.
“Subthalamic nucleus stimulation is a well recognized treatment used for improving motor conditions and quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease. Our study, for the first time, supports its efficacy in the very long term – 15 years after surgery and 25 years since the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” said Elena Moro, MD, PhD, Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France.
“This information is relevant for physicians, patients, and their families when they need to decide about the surgical option to deal with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Moro.
The study was published online June 2 in Neurology.
‘Don’t delay’
The findings are based on 51 patients with Parkinson’s disease who underwent treatment with bilateral STN-DBS for an average of 17 years (range, 15-24 years). Their average age at diagnosis was 40 years, and the average age at device implantation was 51 years.
The results demonstrate that STN-DBS continues to be effective for motor complications for longer than 15 years, reducing time spent with dyskinesia by 75% and time spent in the off-state by 58.7%. This is similar to the amount of improvement seen 1 year after surgery.
Doses of dopaminergic medications continued to be low at long-term follow-up; dosing was reduced by 50.6% compared with baseline.
There was also continued improvement in quality of life. Scores on the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire in the very long term were 13.8% better compared with baseline.
“Few and mostly manageable device-related adverse events were observed during the follow-up,” the authors reported in their article.
“Deep brain stimulation is already recommended when a patient’s conditions are not optimized by medical treatment. Patients with Parkinson’s disease without dementia and in good general health conditions are the best candidates for this surgery,” said Dr. Moro.
“Taking into account our results and the data available in the literature, DBS surgery should not be delayed when motor conditions and quality of life decline despite medical treatment, if patients meet the inclusion criteria,” she added.
A revolutionary treatment
The authors of an accompanying editorial say these results, which indicate better motor outcomes with less medication, “reinforce why STN-DBS has revolutionized treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease.”
Kelvin Chou, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and David Charles, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that longer disease duration is associated with an increase in the likelihood of cognitive impairment and psychosis, both of which are risk factors for nursing home placement, and they limit the ability to use dopaminergic medications.
Although many of the patients in this cohort experienced hallucinations and psychosis over the long follow-up period, “one can imagine that the number and severity would be higher without DBS therapy,” they wrote.
Key caveats, said Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles, are that the results are based on a highly selected cohort and that the patients were managed by experts in the field of movement disorders and DBS.
Additionally, the patients’ conditions were highly responsive to levodopa; there was a 75.3% baseline improvement in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor scores from the off-state to the on-state. In general, most DBS centers consider a levodopa response of approximately 30% as an acceptable cutoff for moving forward with STN-DBS, they noted.
Despite these caveats and limitations, the results of the study are important with respect to counseling potential candidates for DBS, Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles said.
“A common question that patients have is, ‘How long do the benefits of DBS last?’ We can now reassure them that, at least for STN-DBS, improvement in motor complications lasts beyond 15 years and is often accompanied by improvement in quality of life. In other words, with STN-DBS, we can uncomplicate their motor complications for the long haul,” the editorial writers concluded.
The research had no targeted funding. Moro has received honoraria from Medtronic and Abbott for consulting and lecturing and an educational grant from Boston and Newronika. A complete list of disclosures is available with the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research indicates.
“Subthalamic nucleus stimulation is a well recognized treatment used for improving motor conditions and quality of life in people with Parkinson’s disease. Our study, for the first time, supports its efficacy in the very long term – 15 years after surgery and 25 years since the Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” said Elena Moro, MD, PhD, Grenoble Alpes University, Grenoble, France.
“This information is relevant for physicians, patients, and their families when they need to decide about the surgical option to deal with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Moro.
The study was published online June 2 in Neurology.
‘Don’t delay’
The findings are based on 51 patients with Parkinson’s disease who underwent treatment with bilateral STN-DBS for an average of 17 years (range, 15-24 years). Their average age at diagnosis was 40 years, and the average age at device implantation was 51 years.
The results demonstrate that STN-DBS continues to be effective for motor complications for longer than 15 years, reducing time spent with dyskinesia by 75% and time spent in the off-state by 58.7%. This is similar to the amount of improvement seen 1 year after surgery.
Doses of dopaminergic medications continued to be low at long-term follow-up; dosing was reduced by 50.6% compared with baseline.
There was also continued improvement in quality of life. Scores on the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire in the very long term were 13.8% better compared with baseline.
“Few and mostly manageable device-related adverse events were observed during the follow-up,” the authors reported in their article.
“Deep brain stimulation is already recommended when a patient’s conditions are not optimized by medical treatment. Patients with Parkinson’s disease without dementia and in good general health conditions are the best candidates for this surgery,” said Dr. Moro.
“Taking into account our results and the data available in the literature, DBS surgery should not be delayed when motor conditions and quality of life decline despite medical treatment, if patients meet the inclusion criteria,” she added.
A revolutionary treatment
The authors of an accompanying editorial say these results, which indicate better motor outcomes with less medication, “reinforce why STN-DBS has revolutionized treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease.”
Kelvin Chou, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and David Charles, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that longer disease duration is associated with an increase in the likelihood of cognitive impairment and psychosis, both of which are risk factors for nursing home placement, and they limit the ability to use dopaminergic medications.
Although many of the patients in this cohort experienced hallucinations and psychosis over the long follow-up period, “one can imagine that the number and severity would be higher without DBS therapy,” they wrote.
Key caveats, said Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles, are that the results are based on a highly selected cohort and that the patients were managed by experts in the field of movement disorders and DBS.
Additionally, the patients’ conditions were highly responsive to levodopa; there was a 75.3% baseline improvement in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor scores from the off-state to the on-state. In general, most DBS centers consider a levodopa response of approximately 30% as an acceptable cutoff for moving forward with STN-DBS, they noted.
Despite these caveats and limitations, the results of the study are important with respect to counseling potential candidates for DBS, Dr. Chou and Dr. Charles said.
“A common question that patients have is, ‘How long do the benefits of DBS last?’ We can now reassure them that, at least for STN-DBS, improvement in motor complications lasts beyond 15 years and is often accompanied by improvement in quality of life. In other words, with STN-DBS, we can uncomplicate their motor complications for the long haul,” the editorial writers concluded.
The research had no targeted funding. Moro has received honoraria from Medtronic and Abbott for consulting and lecturing and an educational grant from Boston and Newronika. A complete list of disclosures is available with the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From Neurology
Neurologists brace and prepare for long-COVID fallout
“If there’s one universal truth amongst all the patients I’ve interviewed, it’s that they’re often brushed aside, pigeonholed, or, frankly, abandoned,” said Greg Vanichkachorn, MD, MPH, a family physician and founder of Mayo Clinic’s COVID-19 Activity Rehabilitation Program (CARP).
Take a nap. Tough it out. Push through it. Dr. Vanichkachorn describes the frustration voiced by thousands of patients whose lives continue to be disrupted and thrown into upheaval.
Brain fog. Cognitive dysfunction. Headaches. These are just a few of the manifestations of what the National Institutes of Health has termed post-acute sequelae of SARS COVID-2 (PASC), more commonly known as long-COVID.
PASC is loosely defined as symptoms and/or sequelae that persist for several weeks to months after the initial infection has cleared.
A total of 33.6% (95% confidence interval, 11.17-34.07) of patients with COVID-19 experience neurologic sequelae in the first 6 months following resolution of the infection. Almost half of cases (12.8%; 95% CI, 12.36-13.33) represented first-time diagnoses.
“Anecdotally, the longer we go into this, and the more people that, in the past, have been infected with COVID-19, the more patients will be seeing neurologists with some of these complaints,” said Ralph Sacco, MD, professor and Olemberg chair of neurology at University of Miami, and past president of the American Academy of Neurology.
Neurologic detritus
Further complicating the epidemiologic picture is the broad array of clinical and functional symptoms. “What we call long-haul COVID is not a single entity,” explained Michel Toledano, MD, a neurology consultant and a member of the CARP team at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients present with persistent or emergent polysymptomatic and multisystemic diseases that often include neurologic symptoms, he said. In many circumstances, they had an acute infection with either very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.
“There’s no doubt that these people are experiencing significant neurologic symptoms, but it remains unclear whether the driving factor is mainly systemic or the nervous system independently of what is happening in the body,” he said.
Like patients with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), patients recovering from confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections experience a variety of self-reported neurologic symptoms that vary in terms of time frame, duration, and severity.
Take Jacqueline Jolly, for example, a 50-year-old single mother and construction permit contractor living outside of Tampa, Florida. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 in January 2021. Jolly explained that she was never sick enough to be admitted to the hospital and yet is still not close to full recovery. Lingering, debilitating symptoms include executive function challenges, anosmia, headaches, and paresthesia that frequently bring her to the edge of losing consciousness. She has not returned to work, despite multiple attempts.
Vicky Nunally, a 35-year-old single mother and medical office assistant who lives in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia, recounted that she landed in the intensive care unit with a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Roughly 6 months later, she continues to experience debilitating headaches, brain fog, and cognitive delays. Her endometriosis has flared up. She says that she is depressed, anxious, and has returned to therapy. “It makes you feel crazy,” she said.
Debilitating, pervasive symptoms
Findings from an international survey of 3,762 respondents that was published on April 21 in medRXiv underscore that PASC occurs predominantly in middle-aged women (78.9% were women; 31% were aged 40-49 years; 25.0% were aged 50-59 years). For the most part, it manifests similarly among people with prior confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections. In the study, symptoms were reported in both cohorts well past the initial infection; symptoms persisted past 90 days in 96% of patients and for at least 6 months in 65.2%.
Similarly, a recent study showed that 68% of patients who were enrolled in Mayo Clinic’s CARP as of June 2020 were women, middle aged (mean age, 45 ± 14.2 years), and presented roughly 3 months (94.4 ± 65 days) post diagnosis. Of these patients, 75% had not been previously hospitalized.
In both studies, fatigue and cognitive dysfunction were consistently cited as the most debilitating and pervasive manifestations lasting more than 6 months. Others included postexertional (physical or mental) malaise, sensorimotor symptoms, headaches, and memory problems.
Reports of even more severe neurologic first-time diagnoses are emerging. Findings from the Lancet Psychiatry study showed there was a small but clinically relevant risk for a range of conditions that included intracranial hemorrhage (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20), ischemic stroke (0.43%; 95% CI, 0.36-0.52), parkinsonism (0.07%; 95% CI, 0.05-0.12), and nerve root/plexus disorders (2.69%; 95% CI, 2.51-2.89).
Dr. Toledano noted that he’s also seen patients who developed autonomic/small-fiber dysfunction. Preliminary data from a retrospective chart review suggest that the most likely diagnosis is orthostatic intolerance without tachycardia or hypotension.
In the study, 63% (17) of the 27 participants who met the inclusion criteria had abnormal results on function testing, but Composite Autonomic Severity Score results indicated mostly mild disease (sudomotor range, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovagal, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovascular adrenergic, 0-4 [median, 0]).
“The pattern that’s emerging is consistent with deconditioning,” Dr. Toledano said. “However, a small proportion of patients do have evidence of damage to the nervous system, which is something we’ve seen with other viruses.”
Proliferation of long-COVID clinics
A few of these patients with orthostatic intolerance developed postural tachycardia syndrome or experienced exacerbations of preexisting sensory or autonomic small-fiber neuropathies. “These post-viral, autonomic neuropathies tend to be self-limiting, but we’re starting to see different levels of involvement,” Dr. Toledano explained. At present, causality and/or underlying mechanisms are unclear.
Speaking on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Sacco acknowledged the challenges that lie ahead. “Like any neurological symptom that continues to affect a patient’s quality of life, you may need to seek the expertise of a neurologist. The only issue is that some may still not be sure exactly what to do; we don’t have all the data yet,” he said.
On the flip side, he pointed to the lessons of the past year and how quickly health care systems were able to pivot to deal with the pandemic and critically ill patients, then pivot again to disseminate vaccines, and how they are pivoting yet again to address PASC.
Across the nation, numerous hospitals and health care systems and even small private clinics have launched clinics that focus on long-COVID, including Mayo.
The program has a multidisciplinary, collaborative framework and offers both face-to-face and video telemedicine consultations. The latter are geared toward ensuring that under-resourced populations can access needed care and assistance.
“At Mayo, we have a centralized triage system to help target patients’ visits so that appropriate subspecialties and studies can be preordered,” explained Dr. Toledano. During these visits, patients are assessed for underlying conditions and possible signs of decompensation, as well as functional and physical needs and psychosocial challenges. Thereafter, patients enter either CARP, which offers active rehabilitation for up to 3 months after resolution of the acute infection, or the Post-COVID Care Center, which focuses on patients whose condition is not improving or who are demonstrating signs of central sensitization.
An uphill battle
Both programs incorporate individually paced occupational and physical therapy aimed at ameliorating symptoms, restoring function, developing psychosocial coping skills, and, ultimately, facilitating a return to work. “The idea is, if we can meet with these patients sooner than later and help them recover in an appropriate fashion, they will exit the program faster,” Dr. Vanichkachorn said. “We do see a group of patients who tend to get better right around the 4-month period.”
Although telemedicine provides an opportunity for clinicians outside these hospital systems to engage patients, Dr. Vanichkachorn pointed out that almost all the initial treatments can be offered in the local community by a provider who has adequate time and knowledge of the condition.
He also acknowledged the potential for an uphill battle, especially among those who cling to the belief that PASC is simply a manifestation of anxiety or depression. “This is something that we’ve seen previously with SARS and MERS, as well as in conjunction with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue, only now with greater magnitude,” he said. “This is a real condition that has important and huge ramifications on a person’s ability to function.”
The silver lining is that last December, the NIH announced that it was allocating $1.1 billion for research through its NIH PASC Initiative. Like other institutions, Mayo is waiting to hear what it has been awarded. In the meantime, it has developed a biorepository of patient samples to better understand pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying PASC and to identify possible biomarkers that differentiate these patients.
Despite the challenges, Dr. Vanichkachorn is hopeful. “If we can get a concrete understanding of what is occurring on the chemical level and develop diagnostic tests, then the education will follow. Providers won’t be able to ignore it any longer,” he said.
The interviewees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“If there’s one universal truth amongst all the patients I’ve interviewed, it’s that they’re often brushed aside, pigeonholed, or, frankly, abandoned,” said Greg Vanichkachorn, MD, MPH, a family physician and founder of Mayo Clinic’s COVID-19 Activity Rehabilitation Program (CARP).
Take a nap. Tough it out. Push through it. Dr. Vanichkachorn describes the frustration voiced by thousands of patients whose lives continue to be disrupted and thrown into upheaval.
Brain fog. Cognitive dysfunction. Headaches. These are just a few of the manifestations of what the National Institutes of Health has termed post-acute sequelae of SARS COVID-2 (PASC), more commonly known as long-COVID.
PASC is loosely defined as symptoms and/or sequelae that persist for several weeks to months after the initial infection has cleared.
A total of 33.6% (95% confidence interval, 11.17-34.07) of patients with COVID-19 experience neurologic sequelae in the first 6 months following resolution of the infection. Almost half of cases (12.8%; 95% CI, 12.36-13.33) represented first-time diagnoses.
“Anecdotally, the longer we go into this, and the more people that, in the past, have been infected with COVID-19, the more patients will be seeing neurologists with some of these complaints,” said Ralph Sacco, MD, professor and Olemberg chair of neurology at University of Miami, and past president of the American Academy of Neurology.
Neurologic detritus
Further complicating the epidemiologic picture is the broad array of clinical and functional symptoms. “What we call long-haul COVID is not a single entity,” explained Michel Toledano, MD, a neurology consultant and a member of the CARP team at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients present with persistent or emergent polysymptomatic and multisystemic diseases that often include neurologic symptoms, he said. In many circumstances, they had an acute infection with either very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.
“There’s no doubt that these people are experiencing significant neurologic symptoms, but it remains unclear whether the driving factor is mainly systemic or the nervous system independently of what is happening in the body,” he said.
Like patients with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), patients recovering from confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections experience a variety of self-reported neurologic symptoms that vary in terms of time frame, duration, and severity.
Take Jacqueline Jolly, for example, a 50-year-old single mother and construction permit contractor living outside of Tampa, Florida. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 in January 2021. Jolly explained that she was never sick enough to be admitted to the hospital and yet is still not close to full recovery. Lingering, debilitating symptoms include executive function challenges, anosmia, headaches, and paresthesia that frequently bring her to the edge of losing consciousness. She has not returned to work, despite multiple attempts.
Vicky Nunally, a 35-year-old single mother and medical office assistant who lives in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia, recounted that she landed in the intensive care unit with a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Roughly 6 months later, she continues to experience debilitating headaches, brain fog, and cognitive delays. Her endometriosis has flared up. She says that she is depressed, anxious, and has returned to therapy. “It makes you feel crazy,” she said.
Debilitating, pervasive symptoms
Findings from an international survey of 3,762 respondents that was published on April 21 in medRXiv underscore that PASC occurs predominantly in middle-aged women (78.9% were women; 31% were aged 40-49 years; 25.0% were aged 50-59 years). For the most part, it manifests similarly among people with prior confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections. In the study, symptoms were reported in both cohorts well past the initial infection; symptoms persisted past 90 days in 96% of patients and for at least 6 months in 65.2%.
Similarly, a recent study showed that 68% of patients who were enrolled in Mayo Clinic’s CARP as of June 2020 were women, middle aged (mean age, 45 ± 14.2 years), and presented roughly 3 months (94.4 ± 65 days) post diagnosis. Of these patients, 75% had not been previously hospitalized.
In both studies, fatigue and cognitive dysfunction were consistently cited as the most debilitating and pervasive manifestations lasting more than 6 months. Others included postexertional (physical or mental) malaise, sensorimotor symptoms, headaches, and memory problems.
Reports of even more severe neurologic first-time diagnoses are emerging. Findings from the Lancet Psychiatry study showed there was a small but clinically relevant risk for a range of conditions that included intracranial hemorrhage (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20), ischemic stroke (0.43%; 95% CI, 0.36-0.52), parkinsonism (0.07%; 95% CI, 0.05-0.12), and nerve root/plexus disorders (2.69%; 95% CI, 2.51-2.89).
Dr. Toledano noted that he’s also seen patients who developed autonomic/small-fiber dysfunction. Preliminary data from a retrospective chart review suggest that the most likely diagnosis is orthostatic intolerance without tachycardia or hypotension.
In the study, 63% (17) of the 27 participants who met the inclusion criteria had abnormal results on function testing, but Composite Autonomic Severity Score results indicated mostly mild disease (sudomotor range, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovagal, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovascular adrenergic, 0-4 [median, 0]).
“The pattern that’s emerging is consistent with deconditioning,” Dr. Toledano said. “However, a small proportion of patients do have evidence of damage to the nervous system, which is something we’ve seen with other viruses.”
Proliferation of long-COVID clinics
A few of these patients with orthostatic intolerance developed postural tachycardia syndrome or experienced exacerbations of preexisting sensory or autonomic small-fiber neuropathies. “These post-viral, autonomic neuropathies tend to be self-limiting, but we’re starting to see different levels of involvement,” Dr. Toledano explained. At present, causality and/or underlying mechanisms are unclear.
Speaking on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Sacco acknowledged the challenges that lie ahead. “Like any neurological symptom that continues to affect a patient’s quality of life, you may need to seek the expertise of a neurologist. The only issue is that some may still not be sure exactly what to do; we don’t have all the data yet,” he said.
On the flip side, he pointed to the lessons of the past year and how quickly health care systems were able to pivot to deal with the pandemic and critically ill patients, then pivot again to disseminate vaccines, and how they are pivoting yet again to address PASC.
Across the nation, numerous hospitals and health care systems and even small private clinics have launched clinics that focus on long-COVID, including Mayo.
The program has a multidisciplinary, collaborative framework and offers both face-to-face and video telemedicine consultations. The latter are geared toward ensuring that under-resourced populations can access needed care and assistance.
“At Mayo, we have a centralized triage system to help target patients’ visits so that appropriate subspecialties and studies can be preordered,” explained Dr. Toledano. During these visits, patients are assessed for underlying conditions and possible signs of decompensation, as well as functional and physical needs and psychosocial challenges. Thereafter, patients enter either CARP, which offers active rehabilitation for up to 3 months after resolution of the acute infection, or the Post-COVID Care Center, which focuses on patients whose condition is not improving or who are demonstrating signs of central sensitization.
An uphill battle
Both programs incorporate individually paced occupational and physical therapy aimed at ameliorating symptoms, restoring function, developing psychosocial coping skills, and, ultimately, facilitating a return to work. “The idea is, if we can meet with these patients sooner than later and help them recover in an appropriate fashion, they will exit the program faster,” Dr. Vanichkachorn said. “We do see a group of patients who tend to get better right around the 4-month period.”
Although telemedicine provides an opportunity for clinicians outside these hospital systems to engage patients, Dr. Vanichkachorn pointed out that almost all the initial treatments can be offered in the local community by a provider who has adequate time and knowledge of the condition.
He also acknowledged the potential for an uphill battle, especially among those who cling to the belief that PASC is simply a manifestation of anxiety or depression. “This is something that we’ve seen previously with SARS and MERS, as well as in conjunction with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue, only now with greater magnitude,” he said. “This is a real condition that has important and huge ramifications on a person’s ability to function.”
The silver lining is that last December, the NIH announced that it was allocating $1.1 billion for research through its NIH PASC Initiative. Like other institutions, Mayo is waiting to hear what it has been awarded. In the meantime, it has developed a biorepository of patient samples to better understand pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying PASC and to identify possible biomarkers that differentiate these patients.
Despite the challenges, Dr. Vanichkachorn is hopeful. “If we can get a concrete understanding of what is occurring on the chemical level and develop diagnostic tests, then the education will follow. Providers won’t be able to ignore it any longer,” he said.
The interviewees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“If there’s one universal truth amongst all the patients I’ve interviewed, it’s that they’re often brushed aside, pigeonholed, or, frankly, abandoned,” said Greg Vanichkachorn, MD, MPH, a family physician and founder of Mayo Clinic’s COVID-19 Activity Rehabilitation Program (CARP).
Take a nap. Tough it out. Push through it. Dr. Vanichkachorn describes the frustration voiced by thousands of patients whose lives continue to be disrupted and thrown into upheaval.
Brain fog. Cognitive dysfunction. Headaches. These are just a few of the manifestations of what the National Institutes of Health has termed post-acute sequelae of SARS COVID-2 (PASC), more commonly known as long-COVID.
PASC is loosely defined as symptoms and/or sequelae that persist for several weeks to months after the initial infection has cleared.
A total of 33.6% (95% confidence interval, 11.17-34.07) of patients with COVID-19 experience neurologic sequelae in the first 6 months following resolution of the infection. Almost half of cases (12.8%; 95% CI, 12.36-13.33) represented first-time diagnoses.
“Anecdotally, the longer we go into this, and the more people that, in the past, have been infected with COVID-19, the more patients will be seeing neurologists with some of these complaints,” said Ralph Sacco, MD, professor and Olemberg chair of neurology at University of Miami, and past president of the American Academy of Neurology.
Neurologic detritus
Further complicating the epidemiologic picture is the broad array of clinical and functional symptoms. “What we call long-haul COVID is not a single entity,” explained Michel Toledano, MD, a neurology consultant and a member of the CARP team at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients present with persistent or emergent polysymptomatic and multisystemic diseases that often include neurologic symptoms, he said. In many circumstances, they had an acute infection with either very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.
“There’s no doubt that these people are experiencing significant neurologic symptoms, but it remains unclear whether the driving factor is mainly systemic or the nervous system independently of what is happening in the body,” he said.
Like patients with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), patients recovering from confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections experience a variety of self-reported neurologic symptoms that vary in terms of time frame, duration, and severity.
Take Jacqueline Jolly, for example, a 50-year-old single mother and construction permit contractor living outside of Tampa, Florida. She was diagnosed with COVID-19 in January 2021. Jolly explained that she was never sick enough to be admitted to the hospital and yet is still not close to full recovery. Lingering, debilitating symptoms include executive function challenges, anosmia, headaches, and paresthesia that frequently bring her to the edge of losing consciousness. She has not returned to work, despite multiple attempts.
Vicky Nunally, a 35-year-old single mother and medical office assistant who lives in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia, recounted that she landed in the intensive care unit with a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Roughly 6 months later, she continues to experience debilitating headaches, brain fog, and cognitive delays. Her endometriosis has flared up. She says that she is depressed, anxious, and has returned to therapy. “It makes you feel crazy,” she said.
Debilitating, pervasive symptoms
Findings from an international survey of 3,762 respondents that was published on April 21 in medRXiv underscore that PASC occurs predominantly in middle-aged women (78.9% were women; 31% were aged 40-49 years; 25.0% were aged 50-59 years). For the most part, it manifests similarly among people with prior confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections. In the study, symptoms were reported in both cohorts well past the initial infection; symptoms persisted past 90 days in 96% of patients and for at least 6 months in 65.2%.
Similarly, a recent study showed that 68% of patients who were enrolled in Mayo Clinic’s CARP as of June 2020 were women, middle aged (mean age, 45 ± 14.2 years), and presented roughly 3 months (94.4 ± 65 days) post diagnosis. Of these patients, 75% had not been previously hospitalized.
In both studies, fatigue and cognitive dysfunction were consistently cited as the most debilitating and pervasive manifestations lasting more than 6 months. Others included postexertional (physical or mental) malaise, sensorimotor symptoms, headaches, and memory problems.
Reports of even more severe neurologic first-time diagnoses are emerging. Findings from the Lancet Psychiatry study showed there was a small but clinically relevant risk for a range of conditions that included intracranial hemorrhage (0.14%; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20), ischemic stroke (0.43%; 95% CI, 0.36-0.52), parkinsonism (0.07%; 95% CI, 0.05-0.12), and nerve root/plexus disorders (2.69%; 95% CI, 2.51-2.89).
Dr. Toledano noted that he’s also seen patients who developed autonomic/small-fiber dysfunction. Preliminary data from a retrospective chart review suggest that the most likely diagnosis is orthostatic intolerance without tachycardia or hypotension.
In the study, 63% (17) of the 27 participants who met the inclusion criteria had abnormal results on function testing, but Composite Autonomic Severity Score results indicated mostly mild disease (sudomotor range, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovagal, 0-3 [median, 0]; cardiovascular adrenergic, 0-4 [median, 0]).
“The pattern that’s emerging is consistent with deconditioning,” Dr. Toledano said. “However, a small proportion of patients do have evidence of damage to the nervous system, which is something we’ve seen with other viruses.”
Proliferation of long-COVID clinics
A few of these patients with orthostatic intolerance developed postural tachycardia syndrome or experienced exacerbations of preexisting sensory or autonomic small-fiber neuropathies. “These post-viral, autonomic neuropathies tend to be self-limiting, but we’re starting to see different levels of involvement,” Dr. Toledano explained. At present, causality and/or underlying mechanisms are unclear.
Speaking on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Sacco acknowledged the challenges that lie ahead. “Like any neurological symptom that continues to affect a patient’s quality of life, you may need to seek the expertise of a neurologist. The only issue is that some may still not be sure exactly what to do; we don’t have all the data yet,” he said.
On the flip side, he pointed to the lessons of the past year and how quickly health care systems were able to pivot to deal with the pandemic and critically ill patients, then pivot again to disseminate vaccines, and how they are pivoting yet again to address PASC.
Across the nation, numerous hospitals and health care systems and even small private clinics have launched clinics that focus on long-COVID, including Mayo.
The program has a multidisciplinary, collaborative framework and offers both face-to-face and video telemedicine consultations. The latter are geared toward ensuring that under-resourced populations can access needed care and assistance.
“At Mayo, we have a centralized triage system to help target patients’ visits so that appropriate subspecialties and studies can be preordered,” explained Dr. Toledano. During these visits, patients are assessed for underlying conditions and possible signs of decompensation, as well as functional and physical needs and psychosocial challenges. Thereafter, patients enter either CARP, which offers active rehabilitation for up to 3 months after resolution of the acute infection, or the Post-COVID Care Center, which focuses on patients whose condition is not improving or who are demonstrating signs of central sensitization.
An uphill battle
Both programs incorporate individually paced occupational and physical therapy aimed at ameliorating symptoms, restoring function, developing psychosocial coping skills, and, ultimately, facilitating a return to work. “The idea is, if we can meet with these patients sooner than later and help them recover in an appropriate fashion, they will exit the program faster,” Dr. Vanichkachorn said. “We do see a group of patients who tend to get better right around the 4-month period.”
Although telemedicine provides an opportunity for clinicians outside these hospital systems to engage patients, Dr. Vanichkachorn pointed out that almost all the initial treatments can be offered in the local community by a provider who has adequate time and knowledge of the condition.
He also acknowledged the potential for an uphill battle, especially among those who cling to the belief that PASC is simply a manifestation of anxiety or depression. “This is something that we’ve seen previously with SARS and MERS, as well as in conjunction with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue, only now with greater magnitude,” he said. “This is a real condition that has important and huge ramifications on a person’s ability to function.”
The silver lining is that last December, the NIH announced that it was allocating $1.1 billion for research through its NIH PASC Initiative. Like other institutions, Mayo is waiting to hear what it has been awarded. In the meantime, it has developed a biorepository of patient samples to better understand pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying PASC and to identify possible biomarkers that differentiate these patients.
Despite the challenges, Dr. Vanichkachorn is hopeful. “If we can get a concrete understanding of what is occurring on the chemical level and develop diagnostic tests, then the education will follow. Providers won’t be able to ignore it any longer,” he said.
The interviewees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sustained long-term benefit of gene therapy for SMA
, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.
The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
Single infusion
SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.
In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.
Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.
In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.
The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.
Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.
All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.
These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen).
Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).
Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.
The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said.
The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.
The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
Single infusion
SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.
In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.
Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.
In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.
The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.
Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.
All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.
These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen).
Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).
Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.
The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said.
The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.
The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
Single infusion
SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.
In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.
Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.
In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.
The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.
Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.
All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.
These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen).
Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).
Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.
The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said.
The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Large vessel stroke linked to AstraZeneca COVID vaccine
The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.
They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.
“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.
“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.
Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.
Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.
“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.
Three cases
The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.
Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.
The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.
Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.
The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
High index of suspicion required
In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.
“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
Risk/benefit unaltered
Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.
Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”
“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.
“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.
“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”
Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”
Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.
They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.
“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.
“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.
Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.
Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.
“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.
Three cases
The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.
Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.
The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.
Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.
The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
High index of suspicion required
In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.
“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
Risk/benefit unaltered
Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.
Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”
“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.
“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.
“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”
Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”
Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The three cases (one of which was fatal) occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s and involved blockages of the carotid and middle cerebral artery. Two of the three patients also had venous thrombosis involving the portal and cerebral venous system. All three also had extremely low platelet counts, confirmed antibodies to platelet factor 4, and raised D-dimer levels, all characteristic of the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.
They are described in detail in a letter published online on May 25 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
“These are [the] first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” said senior author David Werring, PhD, FRCP.
“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST [Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis] which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” explained Dr. Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London.
“In patients who present with ischemic stroke, especially younger patients, and who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine within the past month, clinicians need to consider VITT as a possible cause, as there is a specific treatment needed for this syndrome,” he said.
Young patients presenting with ischemic stroke after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT with laboratory tests, including platelet count, D-dimers, fibrinogen, and anti-PF4 antibodies, the authors wrote, and then managed by a multidisciplinary team, including hematology, neurology, stroke, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology, for rapid access to treatments including intravenous immune globulin, methylprednisolone, plasmapheresis, and nonheparin anticoagulants such as fondaparinux, argatroban, or direct oral anticoagulants.
Dr. Werring noted that these reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are only describing three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said. “Around 40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience some sort of thrombosis and about 1.5% have an ischemic stroke. Whereas latest figures from the U.K. estimate the incidence of VITT with the AstraZeneca vaccine of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000.
“Our report doesn’t suggest that VITT is more common than these latest figures estimate, but we are just drawing attention to an alternative presentation,” he added.
Three cases
The first patient in the current case series, a woman in her 30s, experienced an intermittent headache on the right side and around her eyes 6 days after the vaccine. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm, and leg.
Imaging revealed a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and received the anticoagulant fondaparinux, but she still unfortunately died.
The second patient, a woman in her late 30s, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm, and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after having received the vaccine. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as pulmonary embolism and a left cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.
Her platelet count increased following plasma removal and replacement and intravenous corticosteroids, and her condition improved after fondaparinux treatment.
The third patient, a man in his early 40s, presented 3 weeks after receiving his vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery, but there was no evidence of clots in the cerebral venous sinuses. He received a platelet and plasma transfusion, and fondaparinux, and remains stable.
High index of suspicion required
In a linked commentary, Hugh Markus, PhD, FRCP, professor of stroke medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, wrote: “This report emphasizes that the immune mediated coagulopathy can also cause arterial thrombosis, including ischemic stroke, although venous thrombosis and especially cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear more frequent.
“During the current period of COVID vaccination, a high index of suspicion is required to identify thrombotic episodes following vaccination,” he added. “However, it is important to remember that these side effects are rare and much less common than both cerebral venous thrombosis and ischemic stroke associated with COVID-19 infection itself.”
Risk/benefit unaltered
Several experts who commented on these reports for the Science Media Centre all agreed with Dr. Werring and Dr. Markus that these reports do not alter the current risk/benefit estimates with the vaccine.
Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who sits on the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Expert Advisory Group, said: “The picture regarding the rare syndrome of blood clots combined with low platelet counts associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine is becoming clearer. Until now, the cases described have tended to involve clots in veins such as cerebral vein thrombosis. In this series of three case reports, we now have some evidence that the types of blood vessels affected include arteries as well as veins.”
“It’s important to stress that such cases remain very rare, and it’s certainly much rarer in people who have had the AstraZeneca vaccine than it is in people affected by COVID-19 itself,” Dr. Douglas emphasized.
“The description of the cases suggests the patients involved presented with the same kind of symptoms as already described in cases involving cerebral vein thrombosis, and they don’t suggest patients need to be on the alert for anything different,” he added.
“However, the emergence of details like this will help guide health professionals who may be faced with similar cases in future; the sooner such cases are recognized, the more chance they will quickly receive the right kind of treatment, hopefully leading to better outcomes.”
Will Lester, MBChB, PhD, consultant hematologist, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, said: “VITT remains a rare complication, and patients with a history of thrombosis, including stroke, should not consider themselves to be at any higher risk of this type of rare thrombosis after vaccination, and COVID infection itself is a significant risk for stroke and other types of thrombosis.”
Many countries have paused use of the AstraZeneca vaccine because of its link to the VITT syndrome or restricted its use to older people as the VITT reaction appears to be slightly more common in younger people. In the United Kingdom, the current recommendation is that individuals under 40 years of age should be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine where possible.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Risk factors identified for late seizure relapse after epilepsy surgery
according to a new study on the factors most associated with seizure recurrence in drug-resistant epilepsy.
“As our study analyzed late seizure relapse, our results are not applicable for short‐term seizure control. Vice versa, results for short‐term outcomes should not be transferred to long‐term outcomes,” Stephan Petrik of the Epilepsy Center at the University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues wrote. The study was published in the May 2021 issue of Epilepsia.
To assess the variables that increase risk of late seizure recurrence following surgery, the researchers retrospectively studied the medical records of patients who underwent resective epilepsy surgery at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany) between 1999 and 2015. Of the 1,278 initial patients, a group of 99 participants (7.7%) with seizure relapses after at least 2 years of complete seizure freedom were matched with controls experiencing long-term seizure freedom. The two groups had similar mean durations of epilepsy from onset to surgery: 13.9 years in the relapse group and 13.0 years in the control group.
The mean follow-up was 9.7 years (standard deviation, 4.0; range, 2.9-18.5) in the relapse group and 8.2 years (SD, 3.5; range, 2.2-18.3) in the control group. The mean time to late seizure recurrence was 56.6 months, and two-thirds of patients relapsed in the 5 years after surgery. Twenty of the relapse patients only experienced a single seizure, and 41% of the patients who reported more than one seizure had a frequency of less than one per month.
The type of resection had no discernible impact on outcomes, although anterior temporal lobe resection did trend toward being associated with recurrence (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-8.89; P = .06). Incomplete resection was significantly associated with late relapse but did not seem to affect timing: the mean duration of seizure freedom was 56.5 months with complete resection and 58.5 months with incomplete resection (P = .62). Additional preoperative PET scans were performed on 45% of patients in the relapse group, compared with 29% in the control group.
After multivariate analysis, predictors for late relapse included incomplete resection (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.79-8.53; P < .001); the existence of additional, potentially epileptogenic lesions in the contralateral hemisphere on presurgical MRI (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.18-10.62; P = .03); epilepsy onset during the first year of life (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.4-15.89; P = .02); and preoperative PET scans being performed (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.25-4.97; P = .01). Though use of preoperative and postoperative antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was higher in the relapse group, along with complete withdrawal being more common in the control group (68%, compared with 51%), neither was deemed significant in multivariate analysis.
What to do about seizure relapse risk factors
“This is one of the best analyses of the factors that contribute to late seizure relapse,” Gregory K. Bergey, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Epilepsy Center in Baltimore, said in an interview. “Am I surprised by their results? Not necessarily.”
What did jump out, he said, was AED use not being a predictor of recurrence, as well as all the patients with late relapse having lesional epilepsy. “As they point out, you can have relapse with nonlesional epilepsy, but very often it happens in the first year or 2. If someone is 2 years out and doesn’t have a lesion, they’re probably more likely to remain seizure free.”
Despite the researchers’ comprehensive review of risk factors, the question remains: What to do with this information?
“They’ve done a very good job of identifying that 7.7% of 1,200 who are at risk of a late relapse,” he said. “Now, take those patients with high-risk factors and launch a trial where you keep medicines the same or do something that would alter that outcome.”
“The problem is,” he added, “that’s a 10-year study. It’s easy for me to sit here and call for one of those. But still, as valuable as this was, it’s a retrospective study. Now you have to say, what are the implications of this? What can we do in the prospective fashion?”
The authors acknowledged their study’s other limitations, including a lack of information on the reasons for an incomplete resection, a notable decrease in follow-up visits more than 5 years after surgery, and potential selection bias. They added, however, that “matching by age at surgery, gender, and time to relapse/last follow‐up” should have helped reduce any significant bias.
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
according to a new study on the factors most associated with seizure recurrence in drug-resistant epilepsy.
“As our study analyzed late seizure relapse, our results are not applicable for short‐term seizure control. Vice versa, results for short‐term outcomes should not be transferred to long‐term outcomes,” Stephan Petrik of the Epilepsy Center at the University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues wrote. The study was published in the May 2021 issue of Epilepsia.
To assess the variables that increase risk of late seizure recurrence following surgery, the researchers retrospectively studied the medical records of patients who underwent resective epilepsy surgery at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany) between 1999 and 2015. Of the 1,278 initial patients, a group of 99 participants (7.7%) with seizure relapses after at least 2 years of complete seizure freedom were matched with controls experiencing long-term seizure freedom. The two groups had similar mean durations of epilepsy from onset to surgery: 13.9 years in the relapse group and 13.0 years in the control group.
The mean follow-up was 9.7 years (standard deviation, 4.0; range, 2.9-18.5) in the relapse group and 8.2 years (SD, 3.5; range, 2.2-18.3) in the control group. The mean time to late seizure recurrence was 56.6 months, and two-thirds of patients relapsed in the 5 years after surgery. Twenty of the relapse patients only experienced a single seizure, and 41% of the patients who reported more than one seizure had a frequency of less than one per month.
The type of resection had no discernible impact on outcomes, although anterior temporal lobe resection did trend toward being associated with recurrence (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-8.89; P = .06). Incomplete resection was significantly associated with late relapse but did not seem to affect timing: the mean duration of seizure freedom was 56.5 months with complete resection and 58.5 months with incomplete resection (P = .62). Additional preoperative PET scans were performed on 45% of patients in the relapse group, compared with 29% in the control group.
After multivariate analysis, predictors for late relapse included incomplete resection (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.79-8.53; P < .001); the existence of additional, potentially epileptogenic lesions in the contralateral hemisphere on presurgical MRI (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.18-10.62; P = .03); epilepsy onset during the first year of life (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.4-15.89; P = .02); and preoperative PET scans being performed (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.25-4.97; P = .01). Though use of preoperative and postoperative antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was higher in the relapse group, along with complete withdrawal being more common in the control group (68%, compared with 51%), neither was deemed significant in multivariate analysis.
What to do about seizure relapse risk factors
“This is one of the best analyses of the factors that contribute to late seizure relapse,” Gregory K. Bergey, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Epilepsy Center in Baltimore, said in an interview. “Am I surprised by their results? Not necessarily.”
What did jump out, he said, was AED use not being a predictor of recurrence, as well as all the patients with late relapse having lesional epilepsy. “As they point out, you can have relapse with nonlesional epilepsy, but very often it happens in the first year or 2. If someone is 2 years out and doesn’t have a lesion, they’re probably more likely to remain seizure free.”
Despite the researchers’ comprehensive review of risk factors, the question remains: What to do with this information?
“They’ve done a very good job of identifying that 7.7% of 1,200 who are at risk of a late relapse,” he said. “Now, take those patients with high-risk factors and launch a trial where you keep medicines the same or do something that would alter that outcome.”
“The problem is,” he added, “that’s a 10-year study. It’s easy for me to sit here and call for one of those. But still, as valuable as this was, it’s a retrospective study. Now you have to say, what are the implications of this? What can we do in the prospective fashion?”
The authors acknowledged their study’s other limitations, including a lack of information on the reasons for an incomplete resection, a notable decrease in follow-up visits more than 5 years after surgery, and potential selection bias. They added, however, that “matching by age at surgery, gender, and time to relapse/last follow‐up” should have helped reduce any significant bias.
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
according to a new study on the factors most associated with seizure recurrence in drug-resistant epilepsy.
“As our study analyzed late seizure relapse, our results are not applicable for short‐term seizure control. Vice versa, results for short‐term outcomes should not be transferred to long‐term outcomes,” Stephan Petrik of the Epilepsy Center at the University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues wrote. The study was published in the May 2021 issue of Epilepsia.
To assess the variables that increase risk of late seizure recurrence following surgery, the researchers retrospectively studied the medical records of patients who underwent resective epilepsy surgery at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany) between 1999 and 2015. Of the 1,278 initial patients, a group of 99 participants (7.7%) with seizure relapses after at least 2 years of complete seizure freedom were matched with controls experiencing long-term seizure freedom. The two groups had similar mean durations of epilepsy from onset to surgery: 13.9 years in the relapse group and 13.0 years in the control group.
The mean follow-up was 9.7 years (standard deviation, 4.0; range, 2.9-18.5) in the relapse group and 8.2 years (SD, 3.5; range, 2.2-18.3) in the control group. The mean time to late seizure recurrence was 56.6 months, and two-thirds of patients relapsed in the 5 years after surgery. Twenty of the relapse patients only experienced a single seizure, and 41% of the patients who reported more than one seizure had a frequency of less than one per month.
The type of resection had no discernible impact on outcomes, although anterior temporal lobe resection did trend toward being associated with recurrence (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-8.89; P = .06). Incomplete resection was significantly associated with late relapse but did not seem to affect timing: the mean duration of seizure freedom was 56.5 months with complete resection and 58.5 months with incomplete resection (P = .62). Additional preoperative PET scans were performed on 45% of patients in the relapse group, compared with 29% in the control group.
After multivariate analysis, predictors for late relapse included incomplete resection (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.79-8.53; P < .001); the existence of additional, potentially epileptogenic lesions in the contralateral hemisphere on presurgical MRI (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.18-10.62; P = .03); epilepsy onset during the first year of life (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.4-15.89; P = .02); and preoperative PET scans being performed (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.25-4.97; P = .01). Though use of preoperative and postoperative antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) was higher in the relapse group, along with complete withdrawal being more common in the control group (68%, compared with 51%), neither was deemed significant in multivariate analysis.
What to do about seizure relapse risk factors
“This is one of the best analyses of the factors that contribute to late seizure relapse,” Gregory K. Bergey, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Epilepsy Center in Baltimore, said in an interview. “Am I surprised by their results? Not necessarily.”
What did jump out, he said, was AED use not being a predictor of recurrence, as well as all the patients with late relapse having lesional epilepsy. “As they point out, you can have relapse with nonlesional epilepsy, but very often it happens in the first year or 2. If someone is 2 years out and doesn’t have a lesion, they’re probably more likely to remain seizure free.”
Despite the researchers’ comprehensive review of risk factors, the question remains: What to do with this information?
“They’ve done a very good job of identifying that 7.7% of 1,200 who are at risk of a late relapse,” he said. “Now, take those patients with high-risk factors and launch a trial where you keep medicines the same or do something that would alter that outcome.”
“The problem is,” he added, “that’s a 10-year study. It’s easy for me to sit here and call for one of those. But still, as valuable as this was, it’s a retrospective study. Now you have to say, what are the implications of this? What can we do in the prospective fashion?”
The authors acknowledged their study’s other limitations, including a lack of information on the reasons for an incomplete resection, a notable decrease in follow-up visits more than 5 years after surgery, and potential selection bias. They added, however, that “matching by age at surgery, gender, and time to relapse/last follow‐up” should have helped reduce any significant bias.
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
FROM EPILEPSIA