User login
Ticagrelor/aspirin combo: Fewer repeat strokes and deaths, but more bleeds
, new data show. However, severe bleeding was more common in the ticagrelor/aspirin group than in the aspirin-only group.
“We found that ticagrelor plus aspirin reduced the risk of stroke or death, compared to aspirin alone in patients presenting acutely with stroke or TIA,” reported lead author S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD, dean and vice president for medical affairs, Dell Medical School, the University of Texas, Austin.
Although the combination also increased the risk for major hemorrhage, that increase was small and would not overwhelm the benefit, he said.
The study was published online July 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Attractive properties
“Lots of patients have stroke in the days to weeks after first presenting with a stroke or TIA,” said Dr. Johnston, who is also the Frank and Charmaine Denius Distinguished Dean’s Chair at Dell Medical School. “Aspirin has been the standard of care but is only partially effective. Clopidogrel plus aspirin is another option that has recently been proven, [but] ticagrelor has attractive properties as an antiplatelet agent and works synergistically with aspirin,” he added.
Ticagrelor is a direct-acting antiplatelet agent that does not depend on metabolic activation and that “reversibly binds” and inhibits the P2Y12 receptor on platelets. Previous research has evaluated clopidogrel and aspirin for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke or TIA. In an earlier trial, ticagrelor was no better than aspirin in preventing these subsequent events. However, the investigators noted that the combination of the two drugs has not been well studied.
The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involved 11,016 patients at 414 sites in 28 countries. Patients who had experienced mild to moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (mean age, 65 years; 39% women; roughly 54% White) were randomly assigned to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin (n = 5,523) or aspirin alone (n = 5,493) for 30 days. Of these patients, 91% had sustained a stroke, and 9% had sustained a TIA.
Thirty days was chosen as the treatment period because the risk for subsequent stroke tends to occur mainly in the first month after an acute ischemic stroke or TIA. The primary outcome was “a composite of stroke or death in a time-to-first-event analysis from randomization to 30 days of follow-up.” For the study, “stroke” encompassed ischemic, hemorrhagic, or stroke of undetermined type, and “death” included deaths of all causes. Secondary outcomes included first subsequent ischemic stroke and disability (defined as a score of >1 on the Rankin Scale).
Almost all patients (99.5%) were taking aspirin during the treatment period, and most were also taking an antihypertensive and a statin (74% and 83%, respectively).
Patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group had fewer primary-outcome events in comparison with those in the aspirin-only group (303 patients [5.5%] vs. 362 patients [6.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.96; P = 0.02). Incidence of subsequent ischemic stroke were similarly lower in the ticagrelor/aspirin group in comparison with the aspirin-only group (276 patients [5.0%] vs. 345 patients [6.3%]; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93; P = .004).
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of overall disability (23.8% of the patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in 24.1% of the patients in the aspirin group; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P = .61).
There were differences between the groups in severe bleeding, which occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in seven patients (0.15) in the ticagrelor group (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.74-9.14; P = .001). Moreover, more patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group experienced a composite of intracranial hemorrhage or fatal bleeding compared with the aspirin-only group (0.4% vs 0.1%). Fatal bleeding occurred in 0.2% of patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group versus 0.1% of patients in the aspirin group. More patients in the ticagrelor-aspirin group permanently discontinued the treatment because of bleeding than in the aspirin-only group (2.8% vs. 0.6%).
“The benefit from treatment with ticagrelor/aspirin, as compared with aspirin alone, would be expected to result in a number needed to treat of 92 to prevent one primary outcome event, and a number needed to harm of 263 for severe bleeding,” the authors noted.
Risks versus benefits
Commenting on the study, Konark Malhotra, MD, a vascular neurologist at Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, noted that ticagrelor is an antiplatelet medication “that adds to the armamentarium of stroke neurologists for the treatment of mild acute ischemic or high-risk TIA patients.” Dr. Malhotra, who was not involved with the study, added that the “combined use of ticagrelor and aspirin is effective in the reduction of ischemic events, however, at the expense of increased risk of bleeding events.”
In an accompanying editorial, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, of the Wolfson Center for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Oxford (England) who was not involved with the study, suggested that the “bleeding risk associated with ticagrelor and aspirin might exceed the benefit among lower-risk patients who make up the majority in practice, and so the results should not be overgeneralized.” Moreover, “regardless of which combination of antiplatelet therapy is favored for the high-risk minority, all patients should receive aspirin immediately after TIA, unless aspirin is contraindicated.”
He noted that “too many patients are sent home from emergency departments without this simple treatment that substantially reduces the risk and severity of early recurrent stroke.”
The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnston has received a grant from AstraZeneca and nonfinancial support from SANOFI. Dr. Rothwell has received personal fees from Bayer and BMS. Dr. Malhotra has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data show. However, severe bleeding was more common in the ticagrelor/aspirin group than in the aspirin-only group.
“We found that ticagrelor plus aspirin reduced the risk of stroke or death, compared to aspirin alone in patients presenting acutely with stroke or TIA,” reported lead author S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD, dean and vice president for medical affairs, Dell Medical School, the University of Texas, Austin.
Although the combination also increased the risk for major hemorrhage, that increase was small and would not overwhelm the benefit, he said.
The study was published online July 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Attractive properties
“Lots of patients have stroke in the days to weeks after first presenting with a stroke or TIA,” said Dr. Johnston, who is also the Frank and Charmaine Denius Distinguished Dean’s Chair at Dell Medical School. “Aspirin has been the standard of care but is only partially effective. Clopidogrel plus aspirin is another option that has recently been proven, [but] ticagrelor has attractive properties as an antiplatelet agent and works synergistically with aspirin,” he added.
Ticagrelor is a direct-acting antiplatelet agent that does not depend on metabolic activation and that “reversibly binds” and inhibits the P2Y12 receptor on platelets. Previous research has evaluated clopidogrel and aspirin for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke or TIA. In an earlier trial, ticagrelor was no better than aspirin in preventing these subsequent events. However, the investigators noted that the combination of the two drugs has not been well studied.
The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involved 11,016 patients at 414 sites in 28 countries. Patients who had experienced mild to moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (mean age, 65 years; 39% women; roughly 54% White) were randomly assigned to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin (n = 5,523) or aspirin alone (n = 5,493) for 30 days. Of these patients, 91% had sustained a stroke, and 9% had sustained a TIA.
Thirty days was chosen as the treatment period because the risk for subsequent stroke tends to occur mainly in the first month after an acute ischemic stroke or TIA. The primary outcome was “a composite of stroke or death in a time-to-first-event analysis from randomization to 30 days of follow-up.” For the study, “stroke” encompassed ischemic, hemorrhagic, or stroke of undetermined type, and “death” included deaths of all causes. Secondary outcomes included first subsequent ischemic stroke and disability (defined as a score of >1 on the Rankin Scale).
Almost all patients (99.5%) were taking aspirin during the treatment period, and most were also taking an antihypertensive and a statin (74% and 83%, respectively).
Patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group had fewer primary-outcome events in comparison with those in the aspirin-only group (303 patients [5.5%] vs. 362 patients [6.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.96; P = 0.02). Incidence of subsequent ischemic stroke were similarly lower in the ticagrelor/aspirin group in comparison with the aspirin-only group (276 patients [5.0%] vs. 345 patients [6.3%]; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93; P = .004).
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of overall disability (23.8% of the patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in 24.1% of the patients in the aspirin group; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P = .61).
There were differences between the groups in severe bleeding, which occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in seven patients (0.15) in the ticagrelor group (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.74-9.14; P = .001). Moreover, more patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group experienced a composite of intracranial hemorrhage or fatal bleeding compared with the aspirin-only group (0.4% vs 0.1%). Fatal bleeding occurred in 0.2% of patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group versus 0.1% of patients in the aspirin group. More patients in the ticagrelor-aspirin group permanently discontinued the treatment because of bleeding than in the aspirin-only group (2.8% vs. 0.6%).
“The benefit from treatment with ticagrelor/aspirin, as compared with aspirin alone, would be expected to result in a number needed to treat of 92 to prevent one primary outcome event, and a number needed to harm of 263 for severe bleeding,” the authors noted.
Risks versus benefits
Commenting on the study, Konark Malhotra, MD, a vascular neurologist at Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, noted that ticagrelor is an antiplatelet medication “that adds to the armamentarium of stroke neurologists for the treatment of mild acute ischemic or high-risk TIA patients.” Dr. Malhotra, who was not involved with the study, added that the “combined use of ticagrelor and aspirin is effective in the reduction of ischemic events, however, at the expense of increased risk of bleeding events.”
In an accompanying editorial, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, of the Wolfson Center for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Oxford (England) who was not involved with the study, suggested that the “bleeding risk associated with ticagrelor and aspirin might exceed the benefit among lower-risk patients who make up the majority in practice, and so the results should not be overgeneralized.” Moreover, “regardless of which combination of antiplatelet therapy is favored for the high-risk minority, all patients should receive aspirin immediately after TIA, unless aspirin is contraindicated.”
He noted that “too many patients are sent home from emergency departments without this simple treatment that substantially reduces the risk and severity of early recurrent stroke.”
The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnston has received a grant from AstraZeneca and nonfinancial support from SANOFI. Dr. Rothwell has received personal fees from Bayer and BMS. Dr. Malhotra has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data show. However, severe bleeding was more common in the ticagrelor/aspirin group than in the aspirin-only group.
“We found that ticagrelor plus aspirin reduced the risk of stroke or death, compared to aspirin alone in patients presenting acutely with stroke or TIA,” reported lead author S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD, dean and vice president for medical affairs, Dell Medical School, the University of Texas, Austin.
Although the combination also increased the risk for major hemorrhage, that increase was small and would not overwhelm the benefit, he said.
The study was published online July 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Attractive properties
“Lots of patients have stroke in the days to weeks after first presenting with a stroke or TIA,” said Dr. Johnston, who is also the Frank and Charmaine Denius Distinguished Dean’s Chair at Dell Medical School. “Aspirin has been the standard of care but is only partially effective. Clopidogrel plus aspirin is another option that has recently been proven, [but] ticagrelor has attractive properties as an antiplatelet agent and works synergistically with aspirin,” he added.
Ticagrelor is a direct-acting antiplatelet agent that does not depend on metabolic activation and that “reversibly binds” and inhibits the P2Y12 receptor on platelets. Previous research has evaluated clopidogrel and aspirin for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke or TIA. In an earlier trial, ticagrelor was no better than aspirin in preventing these subsequent events. However, the investigators noted that the combination of the two drugs has not been well studied.
The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involved 11,016 patients at 414 sites in 28 countries. Patients who had experienced mild to moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (mean age, 65 years; 39% women; roughly 54% White) were randomly assigned to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin (n = 5,523) or aspirin alone (n = 5,493) for 30 days. Of these patients, 91% had sustained a stroke, and 9% had sustained a TIA.
Thirty days was chosen as the treatment period because the risk for subsequent stroke tends to occur mainly in the first month after an acute ischemic stroke or TIA. The primary outcome was “a composite of stroke or death in a time-to-first-event analysis from randomization to 30 days of follow-up.” For the study, “stroke” encompassed ischemic, hemorrhagic, or stroke of undetermined type, and “death” included deaths of all causes. Secondary outcomes included first subsequent ischemic stroke and disability (defined as a score of >1 on the Rankin Scale).
Almost all patients (99.5%) were taking aspirin during the treatment period, and most were also taking an antihypertensive and a statin (74% and 83%, respectively).
Patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group had fewer primary-outcome events in comparison with those in the aspirin-only group (303 patients [5.5%] vs. 362 patients [6.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.96; P = 0.02). Incidence of subsequent ischemic stroke were similarly lower in the ticagrelor/aspirin group in comparison with the aspirin-only group (276 patients [5.0%] vs. 345 patients [6.3%]; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93; P = .004).
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of overall disability (23.8% of the patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in 24.1% of the patients in the aspirin group; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P = .61).
There were differences between the groups in severe bleeding, which occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in seven patients (0.15) in the ticagrelor group (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.74-9.14; P = .001). Moreover, more patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group experienced a composite of intracranial hemorrhage or fatal bleeding compared with the aspirin-only group (0.4% vs 0.1%). Fatal bleeding occurred in 0.2% of patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group versus 0.1% of patients in the aspirin group. More patients in the ticagrelor-aspirin group permanently discontinued the treatment because of bleeding than in the aspirin-only group (2.8% vs. 0.6%).
“The benefit from treatment with ticagrelor/aspirin, as compared with aspirin alone, would be expected to result in a number needed to treat of 92 to prevent one primary outcome event, and a number needed to harm of 263 for severe bleeding,” the authors noted.
Risks versus benefits
Commenting on the study, Konark Malhotra, MD, a vascular neurologist at Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, noted that ticagrelor is an antiplatelet medication “that adds to the armamentarium of stroke neurologists for the treatment of mild acute ischemic or high-risk TIA patients.” Dr. Malhotra, who was not involved with the study, added that the “combined use of ticagrelor and aspirin is effective in the reduction of ischemic events, however, at the expense of increased risk of bleeding events.”
In an accompanying editorial, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, of the Wolfson Center for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Oxford (England) who was not involved with the study, suggested that the “bleeding risk associated with ticagrelor and aspirin might exceed the benefit among lower-risk patients who make up the majority in practice, and so the results should not be overgeneralized.” Moreover, “regardless of which combination of antiplatelet therapy is favored for the high-risk minority, all patients should receive aspirin immediately after TIA, unless aspirin is contraindicated.”
He noted that “too many patients are sent home from emergency departments without this simple treatment that substantially reduces the risk and severity of early recurrent stroke.”
The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnston has received a grant from AstraZeneca and nonfinancial support from SANOFI. Dr. Rothwell has received personal fees from Bayer and BMS. Dr. Malhotra has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
From New England Journal of Medicine
Cardiovascular risk factors tied to midlife cognitive decline
new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.
“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.
The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
New insight
Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.
To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.
The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.
Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
Dose-dependent effect
Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.
The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.
Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).
The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”
The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.
Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
More to explore
Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”
She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.
“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.
“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.
“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”
CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.
“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.
The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
New insight
Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.
To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.
The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.
Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
Dose-dependent effect
Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.
The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.
Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).
The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”
The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.
Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
More to explore
Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”
She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.
“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.
“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.
“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”
CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.
“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.
The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
New insight
Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.
To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.
The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.
Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
Dose-dependent effect
Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.
The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.
Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).
The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”
The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.
Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
More to explore
Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”
She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.
“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.
“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.
“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”
CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Still no clear answer on intranasal insulin for MCI and Alzheimer’s disease
The randomized trial of nearly 300 patients showed that, although one insulin administration device produced marked benefit in terms of change in mean score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12) over 12 months, reliability was inconsistent. A second device, used on the majority of patients in the study’s intention-to-treat population, showed no difference in these measures between patients who did and those who did not receive intranasal insulin.
“The primary analysis of the study showed no benefit of intranasal insulin on any measures of cognition or cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers when using the new device,” said principal investigator Suzanne Craft, PhD.
“But when we looked at our planned secondary analysis with the original device – which has been successful in previous studies – we saw quite a different picture,” added Dr. Craft, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
“We found a pronounced benefit with that device, such that after 18 months of administration, participants who had been receiving insulin from the beginning of the study had a large and clinically significant advantage in the primary outcome measure.”
Dr. Craft described the findings as complex. “The primary results were negative,” she added. “But the secondary results replicated those of several earlier studies when we used the same device that was used in those.”
The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Neurology.
Important for brain function
Insulin has been shown to play several important roles in brain function. The hormone is associated with a variety of cognitive functions, including memory. Through its association with vasoreactivity, lipid metabolism, and inflammation, insulin also plays an important role in vascular function.
“In the normal brain in healthy individuals, insulin is very important for synaptic function and viability. Insulin also promotes dendritic growth and facilitates synaptic health. Through this role, it plays an important part in memory,” said Dr. Craft. Given these connections, it is not surprising that reduced insulin levels or activity in brain and cerebrospinal fluid have been documented in some, but not all, studies of Alzheimer’s disease. Markers of insulin resistance also have been detected in both neuronally derived exosomes and brain tissue from adults with Alzheimer’s disease.
In light of the several important roles that insulin plays in the brain – coupled with the evidence connecting dysregulation of brain insulin and AD pathology – restoring brain insulin function may offer therapeutic benefit for adults suffering either Alzheimer’s disease or MCI. “There are a number of ways to do this,” said Dr. Craft. “But one of the approaches that we’ve focused on is providing insulin directly to the brain through intranasal administration. “By doing this, you circumvent potential issues if you administered insulin systemically.”
Previous research has shown that through this mode of administration, insulin can bypass the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain through olfactory and trigeminal perivascular channels, with little effect on peripheral insulin or blood glucose levels.
As previously reported, an earlier pilot study, also conducted by Dr. Craft and her team, showed that 4 months of daily intranasal administration of 20 IU or 40 IU of insulin preserved cognitive performance in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease or MCI.
Deeper dive
In the current investigation, the researchers wanted to broaden these findings in a larger, longer, randomized double-blinded clinical trial. The investigators assessed the efficacy of intranasal insulin on cognition, function, and biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as the safety and feasibility of the delivery method. The multicenter trial was conducted from 2014 to 2018 and included 27 sites.
Study participants were between the ages of 55 and 85 years and had been diagnosed with amnestic MCI or Alzheimer’s disease on the basis of National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer Association criteria, a score of 20 or higher on the Mini–Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, or a delayed logical memory score within a specified range.
In total, 289 participants were randomly assigned to receive 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The first 49 participants (32 men; mean age, 71.9 years) underwent insulin administration with the same device the investigators used in previous trials.
Of these, 45 completed the blinded phase, and 42 completed the open-label extension. When this device, which uses an electronic nebulizer-like delivery system, proved unreliable, the researchers switched to a second device, which uses a liquid hydrofluoroalkane propellant to deliver a metered dose of insulin through a nose tip without electronic assistance. Device 2 was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men; mean age, 70.8 years). These patients became the study’s primary intention-to-treat population.
The study’s primary outcome was the mean change in score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12), which was evaluated at 3-month intervals.
Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. These included the mean change in scores for the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes.
Safety and adherence were also assessed during each study visit. Physical and neurologic examinations were performed at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 18.
Of the primary intention-to-treat population of 240 patients, 121 were randomly assigned to receive intranasal insulin. The remaining 119 received placebo and served as controls. The two groups were demographically comparable.
Better cognitive performance
A total of 215 participants completed the blinded phase; 198 participants completed the open-label extension. Discontinuation rates were comparable in both arms. The researchers found no differences between groups with respect to mean change in ADAS-cog-12 score from baseline to month 12 (0.0258 points; 95% confidence interval, –1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98). The two groups also proved comparable in terms of performance on all other cognitive tests.
The open-label portion yielded similar results. Participants originally assigned to the insulin arm and their counterparts in the placebo arm did not differ with respect to mean score change on the ADAS-cog-12 test (or any other outcome) at either month 15 or 18.
Cerebrospinal fluid insulin levels were unchanged between groups, as were blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c values. Indeed, levels of A-beta42, A-beta40, total tau protein, and tau p-181 were comparable for the patients who received intranasal insulin and those who received placebo.
The most common adverse events were infections, injuries, respiratory disorders, and nervous system disorders, though these did not differ between groups. In addition, there were no differences between groups with respect to severity of adverse events; most were rated as mild.
In contrast with the intention-to-treat population, the study’s secondary analysis – using data from the original administration device – yielded markedly different results. In the blinded phase, patients who received insulin had better ADAS-cog-12 performance at 12 months (−2.81 points; 95% CI, −6.09 to 0.45 points; P = .09) and nominally significant effects at 6 months (−3.78 points; 95% CI, −6.79 to −0.78 points; P = .01).
Device type critical
These effects persisted in the open-label analyses. Patients who received intranasal insulin had superior ADAS-cog-12 scores at month 15 (−5.70 points; 95% CI, −9.62 to −1.79 points; P = .004) and month 18 (−5.78 points; 95% CI, −10.55 to −1.01 points; P = .02), compared with their counterparts who received insulin via the second device. This part of the study also showed that, although individual biomarkers did not differ significantly between the two arms, the ratios of A-beta42 to A-beta40 (P = .01) and A-beta42 to total tau (P = .03) increased with use of the first device. The number, type, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the insulin and placebo groups in this arm of the study.
The mixed results revealed by the trial demonstrate that the device used for intranasal insulin administration is paramount in determining the therapy’s potential efficacy. “Our take-home message is that the device is a very important factor for these studies and that one needs to validate their ability to effectively deliver insulin to the CNS,” said Dr. Craft.
“We were quite confident that the first device was able to do that. On the other hand, the second device has never been tested in that way, and we still don’t know whether or not that device was able to successfully deliver insulin,” she said.
The investigators recognize the need for more research in the field. Such studies, Dr. Craft noted, will utilize administration devices that have been previously verified to have the ability to deliver insulin to the central nervous system. “We’re currently testing several devices,” she noted. “We’re using a protocol where we administer insulin with the devices and then conduct a lumbar puncture about 30 minutes later to verify that it is actually raising insulin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid.”
Not a failure
Commenting on the findings, Samuel E. Gandy, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the research illustrates the challenge when a new therapy, a new delivery device, and a cohort of cognitively impaired patients collide. “The result is not quite a slam dunk but is also by no means a failure,” commented Dr. Gandy, Mount Sinai Chair in Alzheimer’s Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.
“One looks forward to future iterations of the Craft et al. approach, wherein the trialists tweak the ligand and/or the delivery schedule and/or the device and/or the disease and/or the disease stage,” Dr. Gandy added. “Another ligand, VGF, also holds promise for intranasal delivery, based on work from Steve Salton, Michelle Ehrlich, and Eric Schadt, all from Mount Sinai. Perhaps the nose knows!”
For Dr. Craft, the potential upside of intranasal insulin for these patients is significant and warrants further investigation. “I understand why people who are not familiar with prior research in this area might be skeptical of our enthusiasm, given the results in the intention-to-treat population,” she said. “But those of us who have been working along with this for a while now, we feel like we’ve got to do the next study. But we need to have a device that we know works,” Dr. Craft added.
“If this is real, then there may be a very large clinical benefit in symptomatic patients, and there’s nothing so far that has really improved symptomatic disease.”
The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Eli Lilly provided diluent placebo for the blinded phase and insulin for the open-label phase of the clinical trial at no cost. Dr. Craft received grants from the National Institute on Aging and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from T3D Therapeutics and vTv Therapeutics outside the submitted work.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The randomized trial of nearly 300 patients showed that, although one insulin administration device produced marked benefit in terms of change in mean score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12) over 12 months, reliability was inconsistent. A second device, used on the majority of patients in the study’s intention-to-treat population, showed no difference in these measures between patients who did and those who did not receive intranasal insulin.
“The primary analysis of the study showed no benefit of intranasal insulin on any measures of cognition or cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers when using the new device,” said principal investigator Suzanne Craft, PhD.
“But when we looked at our planned secondary analysis with the original device – which has been successful in previous studies – we saw quite a different picture,” added Dr. Craft, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
“We found a pronounced benefit with that device, such that after 18 months of administration, participants who had been receiving insulin from the beginning of the study had a large and clinically significant advantage in the primary outcome measure.”
Dr. Craft described the findings as complex. “The primary results were negative,” she added. “But the secondary results replicated those of several earlier studies when we used the same device that was used in those.”
The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Neurology.
Important for brain function
Insulin has been shown to play several important roles in brain function. The hormone is associated with a variety of cognitive functions, including memory. Through its association with vasoreactivity, lipid metabolism, and inflammation, insulin also plays an important role in vascular function.
“In the normal brain in healthy individuals, insulin is very important for synaptic function and viability. Insulin also promotes dendritic growth and facilitates synaptic health. Through this role, it plays an important part in memory,” said Dr. Craft. Given these connections, it is not surprising that reduced insulin levels or activity in brain and cerebrospinal fluid have been documented in some, but not all, studies of Alzheimer’s disease. Markers of insulin resistance also have been detected in both neuronally derived exosomes and brain tissue from adults with Alzheimer’s disease.
In light of the several important roles that insulin plays in the brain – coupled with the evidence connecting dysregulation of brain insulin and AD pathology – restoring brain insulin function may offer therapeutic benefit for adults suffering either Alzheimer’s disease or MCI. “There are a number of ways to do this,” said Dr. Craft. “But one of the approaches that we’ve focused on is providing insulin directly to the brain through intranasal administration. “By doing this, you circumvent potential issues if you administered insulin systemically.”
Previous research has shown that through this mode of administration, insulin can bypass the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain through olfactory and trigeminal perivascular channels, with little effect on peripheral insulin or blood glucose levels.
As previously reported, an earlier pilot study, also conducted by Dr. Craft and her team, showed that 4 months of daily intranasal administration of 20 IU or 40 IU of insulin preserved cognitive performance in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease or MCI.
Deeper dive
In the current investigation, the researchers wanted to broaden these findings in a larger, longer, randomized double-blinded clinical trial. The investigators assessed the efficacy of intranasal insulin on cognition, function, and biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as the safety and feasibility of the delivery method. The multicenter trial was conducted from 2014 to 2018 and included 27 sites.
Study participants were between the ages of 55 and 85 years and had been diagnosed with amnestic MCI or Alzheimer’s disease on the basis of National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer Association criteria, a score of 20 or higher on the Mini–Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, or a delayed logical memory score within a specified range.
In total, 289 participants were randomly assigned to receive 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The first 49 participants (32 men; mean age, 71.9 years) underwent insulin administration with the same device the investigators used in previous trials.
Of these, 45 completed the blinded phase, and 42 completed the open-label extension. When this device, which uses an electronic nebulizer-like delivery system, proved unreliable, the researchers switched to a second device, which uses a liquid hydrofluoroalkane propellant to deliver a metered dose of insulin through a nose tip without electronic assistance. Device 2 was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men; mean age, 70.8 years). These patients became the study’s primary intention-to-treat population.
The study’s primary outcome was the mean change in score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12), which was evaluated at 3-month intervals.
Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. These included the mean change in scores for the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes.
Safety and adherence were also assessed during each study visit. Physical and neurologic examinations were performed at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 18.
Of the primary intention-to-treat population of 240 patients, 121 were randomly assigned to receive intranasal insulin. The remaining 119 received placebo and served as controls. The two groups were demographically comparable.
Better cognitive performance
A total of 215 participants completed the blinded phase; 198 participants completed the open-label extension. Discontinuation rates were comparable in both arms. The researchers found no differences between groups with respect to mean change in ADAS-cog-12 score from baseline to month 12 (0.0258 points; 95% confidence interval, –1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98). The two groups also proved comparable in terms of performance on all other cognitive tests.
The open-label portion yielded similar results. Participants originally assigned to the insulin arm and their counterparts in the placebo arm did not differ with respect to mean score change on the ADAS-cog-12 test (or any other outcome) at either month 15 or 18.
Cerebrospinal fluid insulin levels were unchanged between groups, as were blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c values. Indeed, levels of A-beta42, A-beta40, total tau protein, and tau p-181 were comparable for the patients who received intranasal insulin and those who received placebo.
The most common adverse events were infections, injuries, respiratory disorders, and nervous system disorders, though these did not differ between groups. In addition, there were no differences between groups with respect to severity of adverse events; most were rated as mild.
In contrast with the intention-to-treat population, the study’s secondary analysis – using data from the original administration device – yielded markedly different results. In the blinded phase, patients who received insulin had better ADAS-cog-12 performance at 12 months (−2.81 points; 95% CI, −6.09 to 0.45 points; P = .09) and nominally significant effects at 6 months (−3.78 points; 95% CI, −6.79 to −0.78 points; P = .01).
Device type critical
These effects persisted in the open-label analyses. Patients who received intranasal insulin had superior ADAS-cog-12 scores at month 15 (−5.70 points; 95% CI, −9.62 to −1.79 points; P = .004) and month 18 (−5.78 points; 95% CI, −10.55 to −1.01 points; P = .02), compared with their counterparts who received insulin via the second device. This part of the study also showed that, although individual biomarkers did not differ significantly between the two arms, the ratios of A-beta42 to A-beta40 (P = .01) and A-beta42 to total tau (P = .03) increased with use of the first device. The number, type, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the insulin and placebo groups in this arm of the study.
The mixed results revealed by the trial demonstrate that the device used for intranasal insulin administration is paramount in determining the therapy’s potential efficacy. “Our take-home message is that the device is a very important factor for these studies and that one needs to validate their ability to effectively deliver insulin to the CNS,” said Dr. Craft.
“We were quite confident that the first device was able to do that. On the other hand, the second device has never been tested in that way, and we still don’t know whether or not that device was able to successfully deliver insulin,” she said.
The investigators recognize the need for more research in the field. Such studies, Dr. Craft noted, will utilize administration devices that have been previously verified to have the ability to deliver insulin to the central nervous system. “We’re currently testing several devices,” she noted. “We’re using a protocol where we administer insulin with the devices and then conduct a lumbar puncture about 30 minutes later to verify that it is actually raising insulin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid.”
Not a failure
Commenting on the findings, Samuel E. Gandy, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the research illustrates the challenge when a new therapy, a new delivery device, and a cohort of cognitively impaired patients collide. “The result is not quite a slam dunk but is also by no means a failure,” commented Dr. Gandy, Mount Sinai Chair in Alzheimer’s Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.
“One looks forward to future iterations of the Craft et al. approach, wherein the trialists tweak the ligand and/or the delivery schedule and/or the device and/or the disease and/or the disease stage,” Dr. Gandy added. “Another ligand, VGF, also holds promise for intranasal delivery, based on work from Steve Salton, Michelle Ehrlich, and Eric Schadt, all from Mount Sinai. Perhaps the nose knows!”
For Dr. Craft, the potential upside of intranasal insulin for these patients is significant and warrants further investigation. “I understand why people who are not familiar with prior research in this area might be skeptical of our enthusiasm, given the results in the intention-to-treat population,” she said. “But those of us who have been working along with this for a while now, we feel like we’ve got to do the next study. But we need to have a device that we know works,” Dr. Craft added.
“If this is real, then there may be a very large clinical benefit in symptomatic patients, and there’s nothing so far that has really improved symptomatic disease.”
The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Eli Lilly provided diluent placebo for the blinded phase and insulin for the open-label phase of the clinical trial at no cost. Dr. Craft received grants from the National Institute on Aging and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from T3D Therapeutics and vTv Therapeutics outside the submitted work.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The randomized trial of nearly 300 patients showed that, although one insulin administration device produced marked benefit in terms of change in mean score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12) over 12 months, reliability was inconsistent. A second device, used on the majority of patients in the study’s intention-to-treat population, showed no difference in these measures between patients who did and those who did not receive intranasal insulin.
“The primary analysis of the study showed no benefit of intranasal insulin on any measures of cognition or cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers when using the new device,” said principal investigator Suzanne Craft, PhD.
“But when we looked at our planned secondary analysis with the original device – which has been successful in previous studies – we saw quite a different picture,” added Dr. Craft, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
“We found a pronounced benefit with that device, such that after 18 months of administration, participants who had been receiving insulin from the beginning of the study had a large and clinically significant advantage in the primary outcome measure.”
Dr. Craft described the findings as complex. “The primary results were negative,” she added. “But the secondary results replicated those of several earlier studies when we used the same device that was used in those.”
The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Neurology.
Important for brain function
Insulin has been shown to play several important roles in brain function. The hormone is associated with a variety of cognitive functions, including memory. Through its association with vasoreactivity, lipid metabolism, and inflammation, insulin also plays an important role in vascular function.
“In the normal brain in healthy individuals, insulin is very important for synaptic function and viability. Insulin also promotes dendritic growth and facilitates synaptic health. Through this role, it plays an important part in memory,” said Dr. Craft. Given these connections, it is not surprising that reduced insulin levels or activity in brain and cerebrospinal fluid have been documented in some, but not all, studies of Alzheimer’s disease. Markers of insulin resistance also have been detected in both neuronally derived exosomes and brain tissue from adults with Alzheimer’s disease.
In light of the several important roles that insulin plays in the brain – coupled with the evidence connecting dysregulation of brain insulin and AD pathology – restoring brain insulin function may offer therapeutic benefit for adults suffering either Alzheimer’s disease or MCI. “There are a number of ways to do this,” said Dr. Craft. “But one of the approaches that we’ve focused on is providing insulin directly to the brain through intranasal administration. “By doing this, you circumvent potential issues if you administered insulin systemically.”
Previous research has shown that through this mode of administration, insulin can bypass the blood-brain barrier and reach the brain through olfactory and trigeminal perivascular channels, with little effect on peripheral insulin or blood glucose levels.
As previously reported, an earlier pilot study, also conducted by Dr. Craft and her team, showed that 4 months of daily intranasal administration of 20 IU or 40 IU of insulin preserved cognitive performance in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease or MCI.
Deeper dive
In the current investigation, the researchers wanted to broaden these findings in a larger, longer, randomized double-blinded clinical trial. The investigators assessed the efficacy of intranasal insulin on cognition, function, and biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease, as well as the safety and feasibility of the delivery method. The multicenter trial was conducted from 2014 to 2018 and included 27 sites.
Study participants were between the ages of 55 and 85 years and had been diagnosed with amnestic MCI or Alzheimer’s disease on the basis of National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer Association criteria, a score of 20 or higher on the Mini–Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, or a delayed logical memory score within a specified range.
In total, 289 participants were randomly assigned to receive 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months, followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The first 49 participants (32 men; mean age, 71.9 years) underwent insulin administration with the same device the investigators used in previous trials.
Of these, 45 completed the blinded phase, and 42 completed the open-label extension. When this device, which uses an electronic nebulizer-like delivery system, proved unreliable, the researchers switched to a second device, which uses a liquid hydrofluoroalkane propellant to deliver a metered dose of insulin through a nose tip without electronic assistance. Device 2 was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men; mean age, 70.8 years). These patients became the study’s primary intention-to-treat population.
The study’s primary outcome was the mean change in score on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale 12 (ADAS-cog-12), which was evaluated at 3-month intervals.
Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. These included the mean change in scores for the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes.
Safety and adherence were also assessed during each study visit. Physical and neurologic examinations were performed at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 18.
Of the primary intention-to-treat population of 240 patients, 121 were randomly assigned to receive intranasal insulin. The remaining 119 received placebo and served as controls. The two groups were demographically comparable.
Better cognitive performance
A total of 215 participants completed the blinded phase; 198 participants completed the open-label extension. Discontinuation rates were comparable in both arms. The researchers found no differences between groups with respect to mean change in ADAS-cog-12 score from baseline to month 12 (0.0258 points; 95% confidence interval, –1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98). The two groups also proved comparable in terms of performance on all other cognitive tests.
The open-label portion yielded similar results. Participants originally assigned to the insulin arm and their counterparts in the placebo arm did not differ with respect to mean score change on the ADAS-cog-12 test (or any other outcome) at either month 15 or 18.
Cerebrospinal fluid insulin levels were unchanged between groups, as were blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c values. Indeed, levels of A-beta42, A-beta40, total tau protein, and tau p-181 were comparable for the patients who received intranasal insulin and those who received placebo.
The most common adverse events were infections, injuries, respiratory disorders, and nervous system disorders, though these did not differ between groups. In addition, there were no differences between groups with respect to severity of adverse events; most were rated as mild.
In contrast with the intention-to-treat population, the study’s secondary analysis – using data from the original administration device – yielded markedly different results. In the blinded phase, patients who received insulin had better ADAS-cog-12 performance at 12 months (−2.81 points; 95% CI, −6.09 to 0.45 points; P = .09) and nominally significant effects at 6 months (−3.78 points; 95% CI, −6.79 to −0.78 points; P = .01).
Device type critical
These effects persisted in the open-label analyses. Patients who received intranasal insulin had superior ADAS-cog-12 scores at month 15 (−5.70 points; 95% CI, −9.62 to −1.79 points; P = .004) and month 18 (−5.78 points; 95% CI, −10.55 to −1.01 points; P = .02), compared with their counterparts who received insulin via the second device. This part of the study also showed that, although individual biomarkers did not differ significantly between the two arms, the ratios of A-beta42 to A-beta40 (P = .01) and A-beta42 to total tau (P = .03) increased with use of the first device. The number, type, and severity of adverse events were comparable between the insulin and placebo groups in this arm of the study.
The mixed results revealed by the trial demonstrate that the device used for intranasal insulin administration is paramount in determining the therapy’s potential efficacy. “Our take-home message is that the device is a very important factor for these studies and that one needs to validate their ability to effectively deliver insulin to the CNS,” said Dr. Craft.
“We were quite confident that the first device was able to do that. On the other hand, the second device has never been tested in that way, and we still don’t know whether or not that device was able to successfully deliver insulin,” she said.
The investigators recognize the need for more research in the field. Such studies, Dr. Craft noted, will utilize administration devices that have been previously verified to have the ability to deliver insulin to the central nervous system. “We’re currently testing several devices,” she noted. “We’re using a protocol where we administer insulin with the devices and then conduct a lumbar puncture about 30 minutes later to verify that it is actually raising insulin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid.”
Not a failure
Commenting on the findings, Samuel E. Gandy, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the research illustrates the challenge when a new therapy, a new delivery device, and a cohort of cognitively impaired patients collide. “The result is not quite a slam dunk but is also by no means a failure,” commented Dr. Gandy, Mount Sinai Chair in Alzheimer’s Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.
“One looks forward to future iterations of the Craft et al. approach, wherein the trialists tweak the ligand and/or the delivery schedule and/or the device and/or the disease and/or the disease stage,” Dr. Gandy added. “Another ligand, VGF, also holds promise for intranasal delivery, based on work from Steve Salton, Michelle Ehrlich, and Eric Schadt, all from Mount Sinai. Perhaps the nose knows!”
For Dr. Craft, the potential upside of intranasal insulin for these patients is significant and warrants further investigation. “I understand why people who are not familiar with prior research in this area might be skeptical of our enthusiasm, given the results in the intention-to-treat population,” she said. “But those of us who have been working along with this for a while now, we feel like we’ve got to do the next study. But we need to have a device that we know works,” Dr. Craft added.
“If this is real, then there may be a very large clinical benefit in symptomatic patients, and there’s nothing so far that has really improved symptomatic disease.”
The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Eli Lilly provided diluent placebo for the blinded phase and insulin for the open-label phase of the clinical trial at no cost. Dr. Craft received grants from the National Institute on Aging and nonfinancial support from Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study and personal fees from T3D Therapeutics and vTv Therapeutics outside the submitted work.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Blood biomarker detects concussion, shows severity, predicts recovery
(TBI), new research indicates.
“Blood NfL may be used to aid in the diagnosis of patients with concussion or mild TBI [and] to identify individuals at increased risk of developing persistent postconcussive symptoms following TBI,” said lead author Pashtun Shahim, MD, PhD, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md.
“This study is the first to do a detailed assessment of serum NfL chain and advanced brain imaging in multiple cohorts, brain injury severities, and time points after injury. The cohorts included professional athletes and nonathletes, and over time up to 5 years after TBI,” Dr. Shahim added.
The study was published online July 8 in Neurology.
Rapid indicator of neuronal damage
The researchers studied two cohorts of patients with head injuries. In the first, they determined serum and CSF NfL chain levels in professional Swedish ice hockey players (median age, 27 years), including 45 with acute concussion, 31 with repetitive concussions and persistent post-concussive symptoms (PCS), 28 who contributed samples during preseason with no recent concussion, and 14 healthy nonathletes.
CSF and serum NfL concentrations were closely correlated (r = 0.71; P < .0001). Serum NfL distinguished players with persistent PCS due to repetitive concussions from preseason concussion-free players, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.97. Higher CSF and serum NfL levels were associated with a higher number of concussions and severity of PCS after 1 year.
The second cohort involved 230 clinic-based adults (mean age, 43 years), including 162 with TBI and 68 healthy controls. In this cohort, patients with TBI had increased serum NfL concentrations compared with controls for up to 5 years, and these concentrations were able to distinguish between mild, moderate, and severe TBI. Serum NfL also correlated with measures of functional outcome, MRI brain atrophy, and diffusion tensor imaging estimates of traumatic axonal injury.
“Our findings suggest that NfL concentrations in serum offer rapid and accessible means of assessing and predicting neuronal damage in patients with TBI,” the investigators wrote.
What’s needed going forward, said Dr. Shahim, is “validation in larger cohorts for determining what levels of NfL in blood may be associated with a specific type of TBI, and what the levels are in healthy individuals of different ages.”
Not ready for prime time
In an accompanying editorial, Christopher Filley, MD, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, noted that NfL “may prove useful in identifying TBI patients at risk for prolonged symptoms and in enabling more focused treatment for these individuals.”
“These reports are richly laden with acute and longitudinal data that not only support the use of NfL as a convenient diagnostic test for TBI, but plausibly correlate with the neuropathology of TBI that is thought to play a major role in immediate and lasting cognitive disability,” he wrote.
Although the origin of TBI-induced cognitive decline is not entirely explained by traumatic axonal injury, “NfL appears to have much promise as a blood test that relates directly to the ubiquitous white matter damage of TBI, revealing a great deal about not only whether a TBI occurred, but also the extent of injury sustained, and how this injury may affect patient outcome for years thereafter,” Dr. Filley wrote.
However, he cautioned more research is needed before the blood test can be routinely applied to TBI diagnosis in clinical practice. “Among the hurdles still ahead are the standardization of measurement techniques across analytical platforms, and the determination of precise cutoffs between normal and abnormal values in different ages groups and at varying levels of TBI severity,” Dr. Filley noted.
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, the Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine at the Uniformed Services University, and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Shahim and Dr. Filley have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(TBI), new research indicates.
“Blood NfL may be used to aid in the diagnosis of patients with concussion or mild TBI [and] to identify individuals at increased risk of developing persistent postconcussive symptoms following TBI,” said lead author Pashtun Shahim, MD, PhD, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md.
“This study is the first to do a detailed assessment of serum NfL chain and advanced brain imaging in multiple cohorts, brain injury severities, and time points after injury. The cohorts included professional athletes and nonathletes, and over time up to 5 years after TBI,” Dr. Shahim added.
The study was published online July 8 in Neurology.
Rapid indicator of neuronal damage
The researchers studied two cohorts of patients with head injuries. In the first, they determined serum and CSF NfL chain levels in professional Swedish ice hockey players (median age, 27 years), including 45 with acute concussion, 31 with repetitive concussions and persistent post-concussive symptoms (PCS), 28 who contributed samples during preseason with no recent concussion, and 14 healthy nonathletes.
CSF and serum NfL concentrations were closely correlated (r = 0.71; P < .0001). Serum NfL distinguished players with persistent PCS due to repetitive concussions from preseason concussion-free players, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.97. Higher CSF and serum NfL levels were associated with a higher number of concussions and severity of PCS after 1 year.
The second cohort involved 230 clinic-based adults (mean age, 43 years), including 162 with TBI and 68 healthy controls. In this cohort, patients with TBI had increased serum NfL concentrations compared with controls for up to 5 years, and these concentrations were able to distinguish between mild, moderate, and severe TBI. Serum NfL also correlated with measures of functional outcome, MRI brain atrophy, and diffusion tensor imaging estimates of traumatic axonal injury.
“Our findings suggest that NfL concentrations in serum offer rapid and accessible means of assessing and predicting neuronal damage in patients with TBI,” the investigators wrote.
What’s needed going forward, said Dr. Shahim, is “validation in larger cohorts for determining what levels of NfL in blood may be associated with a specific type of TBI, and what the levels are in healthy individuals of different ages.”
Not ready for prime time
In an accompanying editorial, Christopher Filley, MD, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, noted that NfL “may prove useful in identifying TBI patients at risk for prolonged symptoms and in enabling more focused treatment for these individuals.”
“These reports are richly laden with acute and longitudinal data that not only support the use of NfL as a convenient diagnostic test for TBI, but plausibly correlate with the neuropathology of TBI that is thought to play a major role in immediate and lasting cognitive disability,” he wrote.
Although the origin of TBI-induced cognitive decline is not entirely explained by traumatic axonal injury, “NfL appears to have much promise as a blood test that relates directly to the ubiquitous white matter damage of TBI, revealing a great deal about not only whether a TBI occurred, but also the extent of injury sustained, and how this injury may affect patient outcome for years thereafter,” Dr. Filley wrote.
However, he cautioned more research is needed before the blood test can be routinely applied to TBI diagnosis in clinical practice. “Among the hurdles still ahead are the standardization of measurement techniques across analytical platforms, and the determination of precise cutoffs between normal and abnormal values in different ages groups and at varying levels of TBI severity,” Dr. Filley noted.
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, the Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine at the Uniformed Services University, and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Shahim and Dr. Filley have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(TBI), new research indicates.
“Blood NfL may be used to aid in the diagnosis of patients with concussion or mild TBI [and] to identify individuals at increased risk of developing persistent postconcussive symptoms following TBI,” said lead author Pashtun Shahim, MD, PhD, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md.
“This study is the first to do a detailed assessment of serum NfL chain and advanced brain imaging in multiple cohorts, brain injury severities, and time points after injury. The cohorts included professional athletes and nonathletes, and over time up to 5 years after TBI,” Dr. Shahim added.
The study was published online July 8 in Neurology.
Rapid indicator of neuronal damage
The researchers studied two cohorts of patients with head injuries. In the first, they determined serum and CSF NfL chain levels in professional Swedish ice hockey players (median age, 27 years), including 45 with acute concussion, 31 with repetitive concussions and persistent post-concussive symptoms (PCS), 28 who contributed samples during preseason with no recent concussion, and 14 healthy nonathletes.
CSF and serum NfL concentrations were closely correlated (r = 0.71; P < .0001). Serum NfL distinguished players with persistent PCS due to repetitive concussions from preseason concussion-free players, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.97. Higher CSF and serum NfL levels were associated with a higher number of concussions and severity of PCS after 1 year.
The second cohort involved 230 clinic-based adults (mean age, 43 years), including 162 with TBI and 68 healthy controls. In this cohort, patients with TBI had increased serum NfL concentrations compared with controls for up to 5 years, and these concentrations were able to distinguish between mild, moderate, and severe TBI. Serum NfL also correlated with measures of functional outcome, MRI brain atrophy, and diffusion tensor imaging estimates of traumatic axonal injury.
“Our findings suggest that NfL concentrations in serum offer rapid and accessible means of assessing and predicting neuronal damage in patients with TBI,” the investigators wrote.
What’s needed going forward, said Dr. Shahim, is “validation in larger cohorts for determining what levels of NfL in blood may be associated with a specific type of TBI, and what the levels are in healthy individuals of different ages.”
Not ready for prime time
In an accompanying editorial, Christopher Filley, MD, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, noted that NfL “may prove useful in identifying TBI patients at risk for prolonged symptoms and in enabling more focused treatment for these individuals.”
“These reports are richly laden with acute and longitudinal data that not only support the use of NfL as a convenient diagnostic test for TBI, but plausibly correlate with the neuropathology of TBI that is thought to play a major role in immediate and lasting cognitive disability,” he wrote.
Although the origin of TBI-induced cognitive decline is not entirely explained by traumatic axonal injury, “NfL appears to have much promise as a blood test that relates directly to the ubiquitous white matter damage of TBI, revealing a great deal about not only whether a TBI occurred, but also the extent of injury sustained, and how this injury may affect patient outcome for years thereafter,” Dr. Filley wrote.
However, he cautioned more research is needed before the blood test can be routinely applied to TBI diagnosis in clinical practice. “Among the hurdles still ahead are the standardization of measurement techniques across analytical platforms, and the determination of precise cutoffs between normal and abnormal values in different ages groups and at varying levels of TBI severity,” Dr. Filley noted.
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, the Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine at the Uniformed Services University, and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Shahim and Dr. Filley have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New hope for ALS
. Both studies investigated potential benefits of suppressing the toxic activity in cells of a mutant gene (SOD1) that encodes superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) in patients with ALS.
One study investigated the antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) tofersen (Biogen); the other study examined viral vector–mediated gene suppression.
The studies’ promising results signal “the beginning of a new precision medicine–based approach towards treating ALS,” said Orla Hardiman, BSc, MB, BCh, BAO, MD, a consultant neurologist and professor of neurology at Trinity College and Beaumont Hospital in Dublin, Ireland. Dr. Hardiman co-authored an editorial that accompanied the two studies, which were published July 9 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Genetic culprits
ALS is a disorder of progressive degeneration of upper and lower motor neurons. It typically leads to death from ventilatory failure within 5 years of symptom onset.
Genetic factors are responsible for about half the risk variance of ALS. In populations of European origin, variants in SOD1 account for an estimated 13% to 20% of familial ALS, although this rate varies around the world. Although SOD1 is not the most common variant in ALS, it is the one that researchers are most familiar with and has been studied in an animal model.
In the first study, investigators evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the ASO tofersen in adults with ALS.
An ASO is a small piece of nucleic acid that enters neurons in the spinal cord and brain, explained co-investigator Toby A. Ferguson, MD, PhD, vice president and head of the neuromuscular development unit at Biogen.
ASO binds to the SOD1 gene and knocks down the SOD1 protein, which is the “toxic engine [that] drives the disease, kills neurons, and causes patients to have loss of function and eventually to die,” said Dr. Ferguson. “The ASO turns off the motor that produces that toxic protein,” he added.
Animal studies have shown that ASOs that target SOD1 messenger RNA transcripts prolong survival, improve motor performance, and reduce SOD1 protein concentrations.
The new phase 1/2 double-blind study included 50 adults at 18 sites in the United States, Canada, and four European countries. All had muscle weakness attributed to ALS and a documented SOD1 mutation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four doses of tofersen—20, 40, 60, or 100 mg—or placebo. Treatment was administered via a lumbar intrathecal bolus injection. The study included a screening period followed by a 12-week intervention period and a 12-week follow-up.
Adverse events
A primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Results showed that all participants reported one or more AEs. The most common AEs were headache, pain at the injection site, post–lumbar puncture syndrome, and falls. Three deaths occurred, one in the placebo group, one in the 20-mg dose group, and one in the 60-mg dose group. There were no serious AEs in the 100-mg group.
Although the investigators found an increase in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein and white cell counts, there was no clear association between these observations and higher doses of tofersen or longer duration of exposure.
“We don’t know the implications of this, and it’s something we need to keep an eye on as we move these studies forward,” Dr. Ferguson said.
None of the AEs or CSF abnormalities led to trial discontinuation.
A secondary outcome was change in SOD1 protein concentration in CSF at day 85. The study showed that SOD1 concentrations decreased by 36% among the participants who received tofersen 100 mg and by lesser amounts in the patients who received lower doses. Concentrations in the placebo group were reduced by 3%.
The 36% reduction in the highest dose group is likely meaningful and “foundational to the concept of what this molecule can do,” Dr. Ferguson said.
“If the number one cause of SOD1 ALS is accumulation of toxic SOD1 protein, then the demonstration that we can reduce SOD1 protein in the CSF ... is saying that’s the first step on the way to showing the molecule is doing what it should do,” he added.
Emerging tool
In patients with ALS, neurofilament concentrations typically increase as the disease progresses. However, this study documented a reduction in these CSF concentrations. “One interpretation of that could be that there is less neurodegeneration or neuro injury” in patients treated with tofersen, Dr. Ferguson said.
He noted that neurofilament is “an emerging tool” for understanding neurodegeneration. It could also “be another sort of biochemical signal that the molecule is doing something important,” he added.
However, he noted that neurofilament concentration is still an exploratory marker.
Exploratory analyses suggested a possible slowing of functional loss, as measured by the ALS Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score and the handheld dynamometry megascore. The latter assesses strength in 16 muscle groups in the arms and legs. The investigators noted that no conclusions can be drawn from these outcomes.
A post hoc analysis showed that among patients with SOD1 mutations associated with a fast-progressing disease course, the slope of clinical decline might have been gentler, and there was a greater decrease in CSF neurofilament concentration compared among those whose disease followed a slower course.
This suggests that “if you pick the right target,” even patients with severe disease can be treated, Dr. Ferguson said.
He acknowledged that in a relatively short study such as this one, it may be easier to see benefits in patients whose disease is progressing rapidly. However, he’s convinced that the treatment “would work for all SOD1 ALS patients, not just fast patients.”
Dr. Ferguson said the study investigators are encouraged by the new data, which “really suggest that we may be developing a meaningful treatment for SOD1 ALS.” However, “it’s still early” in terms of rolling out this therapy for patients with ALS, he said.
The safety and efficacy of tofersen are currently being evaluated in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Limitations of the current study were the small number of participants, the short duration of treatment and follow-up, the exploratory nature of efficacy outcomes, and the post hoc methods for defining the fast-progressing subgroup.
Although an advantage of tofersen is that it can enter the nucleus of the cell, perhaps boosting effectiveness, a drawback might be that patients need several treatments administered via lumbar puncture. Following three initial doses, the drug is given every month.
An alternative approach might be a viral vector approach.
“Stunning” finding
In the second study, investigators assessed the safety of a single intrathecal infusion of a viral vector therapy designed to target SOD1 in two patients with familial ALS. The two patients were a 22-year-old man whose mother had died of ALS at age 45 and a 56-year-old man who had a family history of ALS.
The aim of the viral vector therapy is to continually suppress mutant gene activity, said study co-investigator Robert H. Brown, Jr, MD, professor of neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.
“The virus essentially drops off a piece of DNA, and that DNA keeps making the agent that suppresses the gene,” Dr. Brown said.
He noted that the first patient had a mutation that causes a rapidly developing, “horribly devastating” disease.
Initially, the patient’s right leg, in which movement had been worsening over several weeks, “seemed to get stronger and remain strong for quite a long time. I’ve never seen that in this kind of mutation,” said Dr. Brown.
The patient died of ALS. At autopsy, there was evidence of suppression of SOD1 in the spinal cord. There was some preservation of motor neurons on the right side of the spinal cord, which Dr. Brown called a “stunning” finding.
“We have never seen preservation of motor neurons in an autopsy of a patient with this kind of mutation before,” he said.
Prior to the patient’s death, there were some initial signs of a decrease of SOD1 in CSF. However, the patient developed an inflammatory response in the lining of the CSF known as meningoradiculitis.
“In that setting, the SOD1 level went back up, so we could not say that we produced a significant lasting decrease,” Dr. Brown said.
One and done
Because meningoradiculitis occurred in the first patient, immunosuppressive drugs were administered to the second patient.
The functional status and vital capacity of the second patient were relatively stable during a 60-week period, a course that could be typical of the slow disease progression in patients with this SOD1 genotype.
As with the first patient, this man did not experience a substantial change in SOD1 protein levels in CSF, and he did not show clinical improvement.
The main advantage of a viral gene therapy is that it could be a one-time treatment; ideally, it could be used to replace a single missing gene in conditions such as cystic fibrosis. “The hope is that the virus will drop off the gene modulator or the gene itself of interest, depending on the disease, and that the gene will be there more or less indefinitely,” said Dr. Brown. “So the cliché is, ‘one and done’—if all goes well.”
This small study illustrates that gene therapy safely “turns off genes and that the extent of suppression of genes can be significant,” said Dr. Brown.
Most SOD1 mutations could be treated with this microRNA viral vector, he added. More than 180 such mutations have been identified in ALS.
Additional studies are now needed to determine the results of this method in a larger number of patients who have ALS with SOD1 mutations, the investigators wrote.
Within reach
Both studies are encouraging in that they show that a precision-medicine approach to ALS associated with single mutated genes “may be within reach,” said Dr. Hardiman.
She noted that gene therapies have been used successfully in other motor neuron conditions. For example, an ASO and a viral vector have “very significant efficacy” in a form of spinal muscular atrophy that occurs in infants. “So the underlying proof of principle is already there.”
The reduction in SOD1 levels among the highest-dose tofersen group in the first study indicates “target engagement,” Dr. Hardiman said.
In that study, the documented decreased protein in the CSF appeared to be dose related, as was the effect for neurofilaments, which is biomarker evidence of neuronal damage, she noted.
In the second study, the pathologic evidence from the first patient also suggests “evidence of target engagement,” Dr. Hardiman said.
However, she added, “We don’t know very much about the outcome of the second case other than immunosuppression seemed to be beneficial.”
New hope
Both studies have caveats, said Dr. Hardiman. For example, it is unclear whether the treatments would be beneficial for every variant in SOD1.
“These are very expensive therapies, and we will need to have some level of certainty in order to be able to determine whether this should be a treatment for a patient or not,” said Dr. Hardiman.
She also noted that the studies were not powered to provide evidence of efficacy and that they raise questions about the accuracy of the ALSFRS-R.
One issue is that the respiratory part of that scale is “very insensitive”; another is that the scale doesn’t capture nonmotor elements, such as cognition and behavior, she said.
Utilizing a combination of the ALSFRS-R slope and survival would “probably be more beneficial,” Dr. Hardiman said.
Understanding how to alter the genetic influence in a disorder is important to be able to identify successful treatments, Dr. Hardiman added. For example, the discovery of the BRCA gene led oncologists to develop a precision medicine approach to the treatment of breast cancer.
In regard to ALS, by starting with subgroups that have specific genomic features, “investigators are providing new hope for patients at genetic risk for this devastating fatal disease,” said Dr. Hardiman.
The first study was funded by Biogen. The second study was funded by a fellowship grant from the Alzheimer’s Association, a Jack Satter Foundation Award, the ALS Association, the Angel Fund for ALS Research, ALS Finding a Cure, ALS-One, Project ALS, the Massachusetts General Hospital, the Max Rosenfeld and Cellucci Funds for ALS Research, and several senior members of Bain Capital. Dr. Ferguson is employed by and holds stock in Biogen. Dr. Brown receives grant support from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. He is also co-founder of Apic Bio. Dr. Hardiman is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degenerations, has consulted for Cytokinetics, Mitsubishi, and Wave, and holds research grants from Novartis and Merck. During the past 2 years, she has also been a principal investigator on ALS clinical trials sponsored by Orion and Cytokinetics and is currently on the data and safety monitoring board of Accelsior.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
. Both studies investigated potential benefits of suppressing the toxic activity in cells of a mutant gene (SOD1) that encodes superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) in patients with ALS.
One study investigated the antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) tofersen (Biogen); the other study examined viral vector–mediated gene suppression.
The studies’ promising results signal “the beginning of a new precision medicine–based approach towards treating ALS,” said Orla Hardiman, BSc, MB, BCh, BAO, MD, a consultant neurologist and professor of neurology at Trinity College and Beaumont Hospital in Dublin, Ireland. Dr. Hardiman co-authored an editorial that accompanied the two studies, which were published July 9 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Genetic culprits
ALS is a disorder of progressive degeneration of upper and lower motor neurons. It typically leads to death from ventilatory failure within 5 years of symptom onset.
Genetic factors are responsible for about half the risk variance of ALS. In populations of European origin, variants in SOD1 account for an estimated 13% to 20% of familial ALS, although this rate varies around the world. Although SOD1 is not the most common variant in ALS, it is the one that researchers are most familiar with and has been studied in an animal model.
In the first study, investigators evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the ASO tofersen in adults with ALS.
An ASO is a small piece of nucleic acid that enters neurons in the spinal cord and brain, explained co-investigator Toby A. Ferguson, MD, PhD, vice president and head of the neuromuscular development unit at Biogen.
ASO binds to the SOD1 gene and knocks down the SOD1 protein, which is the “toxic engine [that] drives the disease, kills neurons, and causes patients to have loss of function and eventually to die,” said Dr. Ferguson. “The ASO turns off the motor that produces that toxic protein,” he added.
Animal studies have shown that ASOs that target SOD1 messenger RNA transcripts prolong survival, improve motor performance, and reduce SOD1 protein concentrations.
The new phase 1/2 double-blind study included 50 adults at 18 sites in the United States, Canada, and four European countries. All had muscle weakness attributed to ALS and a documented SOD1 mutation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four doses of tofersen—20, 40, 60, or 100 mg—or placebo. Treatment was administered via a lumbar intrathecal bolus injection. The study included a screening period followed by a 12-week intervention period and a 12-week follow-up.
Adverse events
A primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Results showed that all participants reported one or more AEs. The most common AEs were headache, pain at the injection site, post–lumbar puncture syndrome, and falls. Three deaths occurred, one in the placebo group, one in the 20-mg dose group, and one in the 60-mg dose group. There were no serious AEs in the 100-mg group.
Although the investigators found an increase in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein and white cell counts, there was no clear association between these observations and higher doses of tofersen or longer duration of exposure.
“We don’t know the implications of this, and it’s something we need to keep an eye on as we move these studies forward,” Dr. Ferguson said.
None of the AEs or CSF abnormalities led to trial discontinuation.
A secondary outcome was change in SOD1 protein concentration in CSF at day 85. The study showed that SOD1 concentrations decreased by 36% among the participants who received tofersen 100 mg and by lesser amounts in the patients who received lower doses. Concentrations in the placebo group were reduced by 3%.
The 36% reduction in the highest dose group is likely meaningful and “foundational to the concept of what this molecule can do,” Dr. Ferguson said.
“If the number one cause of SOD1 ALS is accumulation of toxic SOD1 protein, then the demonstration that we can reduce SOD1 protein in the CSF ... is saying that’s the first step on the way to showing the molecule is doing what it should do,” he added.
Emerging tool
In patients with ALS, neurofilament concentrations typically increase as the disease progresses. However, this study documented a reduction in these CSF concentrations. “One interpretation of that could be that there is less neurodegeneration or neuro injury” in patients treated with tofersen, Dr. Ferguson said.
He noted that neurofilament is “an emerging tool” for understanding neurodegeneration. It could also “be another sort of biochemical signal that the molecule is doing something important,” he added.
However, he noted that neurofilament concentration is still an exploratory marker.
Exploratory analyses suggested a possible slowing of functional loss, as measured by the ALS Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score and the handheld dynamometry megascore. The latter assesses strength in 16 muscle groups in the arms and legs. The investigators noted that no conclusions can be drawn from these outcomes.
A post hoc analysis showed that among patients with SOD1 mutations associated with a fast-progressing disease course, the slope of clinical decline might have been gentler, and there was a greater decrease in CSF neurofilament concentration compared among those whose disease followed a slower course.
This suggests that “if you pick the right target,” even patients with severe disease can be treated, Dr. Ferguson said.
He acknowledged that in a relatively short study such as this one, it may be easier to see benefits in patients whose disease is progressing rapidly. However, he’s convinced that the treatment “would work for all SOD1 ALS patients, not just fast patients.”
Dr. Ferguson said the study investigators are encouraged by the new data, which “really suggest that we may be developing a meaningful treatment for SOD1 ALS.” However, “it’s still early” in terms of rolling out this therapy for patients with ALS, he said.
The safety and efficacy of tofersen are currently being evaluated in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Limitations of the current study were the small number of participants, the short duration of treatment and follow-up, the exploratory nature of efficacy outcomes, and the post hoc methods for defining the fast-progressing subgroup.
Although an advantage of tofersen is that it can enter the nucleus of the cell, perhaps boosting effectiveness, a drawback might be that patients need several treatments administered via lumbar puncture. Following three initial doses, the drug is given every month.
An alternative approach might be a viral vector approach.
“Stunning” finding
In the second study, investigators assessed the safety of a single intrathecal infusion of a viral vector therapy designed to target SOD1 in two patients with familial ALS. The two patients were a 22-year-old man whose mother had died of ALS at age 45 and a 56-year-old man who had a family history of ALS.
The aim of the viral vector therapy is to continually suppress mutant gene activity, said study co-investigator Robert H. Brown, Jr, MD, professor of neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.
“The virus essentially drops off a piece of DNA, and that DNA keeps making the agent that suppresses the gene,” Dr. Brown said.
He noted that the first patient had a mutation that causes a rapidly developing, “horribly devastating” disease.
Initially, the patient’s right leg, in which movement had been worsening over several weeks, “seemed to get stronger and remain strong for quite a long time. I’ve never seen that in this kind of mutation,” said Dr. Brown.
The patient died of ALS. At autopsy, there was evidence of suppression of SOD1 in the spinal cord. There was some preservation of motor neurons on the right side of the spinal cord, which Dr. Brown called a “stunning” finding.
“We have never seen preservation of motor neurons in an autopsy of a patient with this kind of mutation before,” he said.
Prior to the patient’s death, there were some initial signs of a decrease of SOD1 in CSF. However, the patient developed an inflammatory response in the lining of the CSF known as meningoradiculitis.
“In that setting, the SOD1 level went back up, so we could not say that we produced a significant lasting decrease,” Dr. Brown said.
One and done
Because meningoradiculitis occurred in the first patient, immunosuppressive drugs were administered to the second patient.
The functional status and vital capacity of the second patient were relatively stable during a 60-week period, a course that could be typical of the slow disease progression in patients with this SOD1 genotype.
As with the first patient, this man did not experience a substantial change in SOD1 protein levels in CSF, and he did not show clinical improvement.
The main advantage of a viral gene therapy is that it could be a one-time treatment; ideally, it could be used to replace a single missing gene in conditions such as cystic fibrosis. “The hope is that the virus will drop off the gene modulator or the gene itself of interest, depending on the disease, and that the gene will be there more or less indefinitely,” said Dr. Brown. “So the cliché is, ‘one and done’—if all goes well.”
This small study illustrates that gene therapy safely “turns off genes and that the extent of suppression of genes can be significant,” said Dr. Brown.
Most SOD1 mutations could be treated with this microRNA viral vector, he added. More than 180 such mutations have been identified in ALS.
Additional studies are now needed to determine the results of this method in a larger number of patients who have ALS with SOD1 mutations, the investigators wrote.
Within reach
Both studies are encouraging in that they show that a precision-medicine approach to ALS associated with single mutated genes “may be within reach,” said Dr. Hardiman.
She noted that gene therapies have been used successfully in other motor neuron conditions. For example, an ASO and a viral vector have “very significant efficacy” in a form of spinal muscular atrophy that occurs in infants. “So the underlying proof of principle is already there.”
The reduction in SOD1 levels among the highest-dose tofersen group in the first study indicates “target engagement,” Dr. Hardiman said.
In that study, the documented decreased protein in the CSF appeared to be dose related, as was the effect for neurofilaments, which is biomarker evidence of neuronal damage, she noted.
In the second study, the pathologic evidence from the first patient also suggests “evidence of target engagement,” Dr. Hardiman said.
However, she added, “We don’t know very much about the outcome of the second case other than immunosuppression seemed to be beneficial.”
New hope
Both studies have caveats, said Dr. Hardiman. For example, it is unclear whether the treatments would be beneficial for every variant in SOD1.
“These are very expensive therapies, and we will need to have some level of certainty in order to be able to determine whether this should be a treatment for a patient or not,” said Dr. Hardiman.
She also noted that the studies were not powered to provide evidence of efficacy and that they raise questions about the accuracy of the ALSFRS-R.
One issue is that the respiratory part of that scale is “very insensitive”; another is that the scale doesn’t capture nonmotor elements, such as cognition and behavior, she said.
Utilizing a combination of the ALSFRS-R slope and survival would “probably be more beneficial,” Dr. Hardiman said.
Understanding how to alter the genetic influence in a disorder is important to be able to identify successful treatments, Dr. Hardiman added. For example, the discovery of the BRCA gene led oncologists to develop a precision medicine approach to the treatment of breast cancer.
In regard to ALS, by starting with subgroups that have specific genomic features, “investigators are providing new hope for patients at genetic risk for this devastating fatal disease,” said Dr. Hardiman.
The first study was funded by Biogen. The second study was funded by a fellowship grant from the Alzheimer’s Association, a Jack Satter Foundation Award, the ALS Association, the Angel Fund for ALS Research, ALS Finding a Cure, ALS-One, Project ALS, the Massachusetts General Hospital, the Max Rosenfeld and Cellucci Funds for ALS Research, and several senior members of Bain Capital. Dr. Ferguson is employed by and holds stock in Biogen. Dr. Brown receives grant support from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. He is also co-founder of Apic Bio. Dr. Hardiman is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degenerations, has consulted for Cytokinetics, Mitsubishi, and Wave, and holds research grants from Novartis and Merck. During the past 2 years, she has also been a principal investigator on ALS clinical trials sponsored by Orion and Cytokinetics and is currently on the data and safety monitoring board of Accelsior.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
. Both studies investigated potential benefits of suppressing the toxic activity in cells of a mutant gene (SOD1) that encodes superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) in patients with ALS.
One study investigated the antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) tofersen (Biogen); the other study examined viral vector–mediated gene suppression.
The studies’ promising results signal “the beginning of a new precision medicine–based approach towards treating ALS,” said Orla Hardiman, BSc, MB, BCh, BAO, MD, a consultant neurologist and professor of neurology at Trinity College and Beaumont Hospital in Dublin, Ireland. Dr. Hardiman co-authored an editorial that accompanied the two studies, which were published July 9 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Genetic culprits
ALS is a disorder of progressive degeneration of upper and lower motor neurons. It typically leads to death from ventilatory failure within 5 years of symptom onset.
Genetic factors are responsible for about half the risk variance of ALS. In populations of European origin, variants in SOD1 account for an estimated 13% to 20% of familial ALS, although this rate varies around the world. Although SOD1 is not the most common variant in ALS, it is the one that researchers are most familiar with and has been studied in an animal model.
In the first study, investigators evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the ASO tofersen in adults with ALS.
An ASO is a small piece of nucleic acid that enters neurons in the spinal cord and brain, explained co-investigator Toby A. Ferguson, MD, PhD, vice president and head of the neuromuscular development unit at Biogen.
ASO binds to the SOD1 gene and knocks down the SOD1 protein, which is the “toxic engine [that] drives the disease, kills neurons, and causes patients to have loss of function and eventually to die,” said Dr. Ferguson. “The ASO turns off the motor that produces that toxic protein,” he added.
Animal studies have shown that ASOs that target SOD1 messenger RNA transcripts prolong survival, improve motor performance, and reduce SOD1 protein concentrations.
The new phase 1/2 double-blind study included 50 adults at 18 sites in the United States, Canada, and four European countries. All had muscle weakness attributed to ALS and a documented SOD1 mutation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four doses of tofersen—20, 40, 60, or 100 mg—or placebo. Treatment was administered via a lumbar intrathecal bolus injection. The study included a screening period followed by a 12-week intervention period and a 12-week follow-up.
Adverse events
A primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Results showed that all participants reported one or more AEs. The most common AEs were headache, pain at the injection site, post–lumbar puncture syndrome, and falls. Three deaths occurred, one in the placebo group, one in the 20-mg dose group, and one in the 60-mg dose group. There were no serious AEs in the 100-mg group.
Although the investigators found an increase in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein and white cell counts, there was no clear association between these observations and higher doses of tofersen or longer duration of exposure.
“We don’t know the implications of this, and it’s something we need to keep an eye on as we move these studies forward,” Dr. Ferguson said.
None of the AEs or CSF abnormalities led to trial discontinuation.
A secondary outcome was change in SOD1 protein concentration in CSF at day 85. The study showed that SOD1 concentrations decreased by 36% among the participants who received tofersen 100 mg and by lesser amounts in the patients who received lower doses. Concentrations in the placebo group were reduced by 3%.
The 36% reduction in the highest dose group is likely meaningful and “foundational to the concept of what this molecule can do,” Dr. Ferguson said.
“If the number one cause of SOD1 ALS is accumulation of toxic SOD1 protein, then the demonstration that we can reduce SOD1 protein in the CSF ... is saying that’s the first step on the way to showing the molecule is doing what it should do,” he added.
Emerging tool
In patients with ALS, neurofilament concentrations typically increase as the disease progresses. However, this study documented a reduction in these CSF concentrations. “One interpretation of that could be that there is less neurodegeneration or neuro injury” in patients treated with tofersen, Dr. Ferguson said.
He noted that neurofilament is “an emerging tool” for understanding neurodegeneration. It could also “be another sort of biochemical signal that the molecule is doing something important,” he added.
However, he noted that neurofilament concentration is still an exploratory marker.
Exploratory analyses suggested a possible slowing of functional loss, as measured by the ALS Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score and the handheld dynamometry megascore. The latter assesses strength in 16 muscle groups in the arms and legs. The investigators noted that no conclusions can be drawn from these outcomes.
A post hoc analysis showed that among patients with SOD1 mutations associated with a fast-progressing disease course, the slope of clinical decline might have been gentler, and there was a greater decrease in CSF neurofilament concentration compared among those whose disease followed a slower course.
This suggests that “if you pick the right target,” even patients with severe disease can be treated, Dr. Ferguson said.
He acknowledged that in a relatively short study such as this one, it may be easier to see benefits in patients whose disease is progressing rapidly. However, he’s convinced that the treatment “would work for all SOD1 ALS patients, not just fast patients.”
Dr. Ferguson said the study investigators are encouraged by the new data, which “really suggest that we may be developing a meaningful treatment for SOD1 ALS.” However, “it’s still early” in terms of rolling out this therapy for patients with ALS, he said.
The safety and efficacy of tofersen are currently being evaluated in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Limitations of the current study were the small number of participants, the short duration of treatment and follow-up, the exploratory nature of efficacy outcomes, and the post hoc methods for defining the fast-progressing subgroup.
Although an advantage of tofersen is that it can enter the nucleus of the cell, perhaps boosting effectiveness, a drawback might be that patients need several treatments administered via lumbar puncture. Following three initial doses, the drug is given every month.
An alternative approach might be a viral vector approach.
“Stunning” finding
In the second study, investigators assessed the safety of a single intrathecal infusion of a viral vector therapy designed to target SOD1 in two patients with familial ALS. The two patients were a 22-year-old man whose mother had died of ALS at age 45 and a 56-year-old man who had a family history of ALS.
The aim of the viral vector therapy is to continually suppress mutant gene activity, said study co-investigator Robert H. Brown, Jr, MD, professor of neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.
“The virus essentially drops off a piece of DNA, and that DNA keeps making the agent that suppresses the gene,” Dr. Brown said.
He noted that the first patient had a mutation that causes a rapidly developing, “horribly devastating” disease.
Initially, the patient’s right leg, in which movement had been worsening over several weeks, “seemed to get stronger and remain strong for quite a long time. I’ve never seen that in this kind of mutation,” said Dr. Brown.
The patient died of ALS. At autopsy, there was evidence of suppression of SOD1 in the spinal cord. There was some preservation of motor neurons on the right side of the spinal cord, which Dr. Brown called a “stunning” finding.
“We have never seen preservation of motor neurons in an autopsy of a patient with this kind of mutation before,” he said.
Prior to the patient’s death, there were some initial signs of a decrease of SOD1 in CSF. However, the patient developed an inflammatory response in the lining of the CSF known as meningoradiculitis.
“In that setting, the SOD1 level went back up, so we could not say that we produced a significant lasting decrease,” Dr. Brown said.
One and done
Because meningoradiculitis occurred in the first patient, immunosuppressive drugs were administered to the second patient.
The functional status and vital capacity of the second patient were relatively stable during a 60-week period, a course that could be typical of the slow disease progression in patients with this SOD1 genotype.
As with the first patient, this man did not experience a substantial change in SOD1 protein levels in CSF, and he did not show clinical improvement.
The main advantage of a viral gene therapy is that it could be a one-time treatment; ideally, it could be used to replace a single missing gene in conditions such as cystic fibrosis. “The hope is that the virus will drop off the gene modulator or the gene itself of interest, depending on the disease, and that the gene will be there more or less indefinitely,” said Dr. Brown. “So the cliché is, ‘one and done’—if all goes well.”
This small study illustrates that gene therapy safely “turns off genes and that the extent of suppression of genes can be significant,” said Dr. Brown.
Most SOD1 mutations could be treated with this microRNA viral vector, he added. More than 180 such mutations have been identified in ALS.
Additional studies are now needed to determine the results of this method in a larger number of patients who have ALS with SOD1 mutations, the investigators wrote.
Within reach
Both studies are encouraging in that they show that a precision-medicine approach to ALS associated with single mutated genes “may be within reach,” said Dr. Hardiman.
She noted that gene therapies have been used successfully in other motor neuron conditions. For example, an ASO and a viral vector have “very significant efficacy” in a form of spinal muscular atrophy that occurs in infants. “So the underlying proof of principle is already there.”
The reduction in SOD1 levels among the highest-dose tofersen group in the first study indicates “target engagement,” Dr. Hardiman said.
In that study, the documented decreased protein in the CSF appeared to be dose related, as was the effect for neurofilaments, which is biomarker evidence of neuronal damage, she noted.
In the second study, the pathologic evidence from the first patient also suggests “evidence of target engagement,” Dr. Hardiman said.
However, she added, “We don’t know very much about the outcome of the second case other than immunosuppression seemed to be beneficial.”
New hope
Both studies have caveats, said Dr. Hardiman. For example, it is unclear whether the treatments would be beneficial for every variant in SOD1.
“These are very expensive therapies, and we will need to have some level of certainty in order to be able to determine whether this should be a treatment for a patient or not,” said Dr. Hardiman.
She also noted that the studies were not powered to provide evidence of efficacy and that they raise questions about the accuracy of the ALSFRS-R.
One issue is that the respiratory part of that scale is “very insensitive”; another is that the scale doesn’t capture nonmotor elements, such as cognition and behavior, she said.
Utilizing a combination of the ALSFRS-R slope and survival would “probably be more beneficial,” Dr. Hardiman said.
Understanding how to alter the genetic influence in a disorder is important to be able to identify successful treatments, Dr. Hardiman added. For example, the discovery of the BRCA gene led oncologists to develop a precision medicine approach to the treatment of breast cancer.
In regard to ALS, by starting with subgroups that have specific genomic features, “investigators are providing new hope for patients at genetic risk for this devastating fatal disease,” said Dr. Hardiman.
The first study was funded by Biogen. The second study was funded by a fellowship grant from the Alzheimer’s Association, a Jack Satter Foundation Award, the ALS Association, the Angel Fund for ALS Research, ALS Finding a Cure, ALS-One, Project ALS, the Massachusetts General Hospital, the Max Rosenfeld and Cellucci Funds for ALS Research, and several senior members of Bain Capital. Dr. Ferguson is employed by and holds stock in Biogen. Dr. Brown receives grant support from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. He is also co-founder of Apic Bio. Dr. Hardiman is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degenerations, has consulted for Cytokinetics, Mitsubishi, and Wave, and holds research grants from Novartis and Merck. During the past 2 years, she has also been a principal investigator on ALS clinical trials sponsored by Orion and Cytokinetics and is currently on the data and safety monitoring board of Accelsior.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Does moderate drinking slow cognitive decline?
new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.
Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Slower cognitive decline
The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.
The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.
Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.
For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.
Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.
One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.
Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.
Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.
Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).
Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
Heavy drinking ‘risky’
Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”
“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.
The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.
A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”
There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.
Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’
The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”
Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.
The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.
The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.
Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.
Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
Balancing act
However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.
“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.
Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.
The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.
A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.
“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
Interpret with caution
Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.
“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.
He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”
With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.
Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.
He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.
He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.
Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.
Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.
Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.
“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.
The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.
Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Slower cognitive decline
The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.
The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.
Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.
For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.
Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.
One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.
Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.
Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.
Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).
Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
Heavy drinking ‘risky’
Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”
“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.
The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.
A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”
There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.
Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’
The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”
Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.
The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.
The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.
Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.
Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
Balancing act
However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.
“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.
Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.
The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.
A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.
“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
Interpret with caution
Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.
“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.
He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”
With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.
Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.
He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.
He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.
Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.
Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.
Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.
“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.
The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.
Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Slower cognitive decline
The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.
The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.
Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.
For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.
Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.
One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.
Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.
Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.
Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).
Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
Heavy drinking ‘risky’
Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”
“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.
The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.
A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”
There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.
Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’
The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”
Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.
The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.
The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.
Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.
Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
Balancing act
However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.
“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.
Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.
The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.
A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.
“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
Interpret with caution
Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.
“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.
He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”
With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.
Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.
He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.
He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.
Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.
Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.
Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.
“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.
The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Can DBS in early Parkinson’s disease reduce disease progression?
According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.
Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.
“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
An extension of a pilot trial
Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.
Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.
Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
DBS may slow progression of rest tremor
Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.
At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.
Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.
In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.
In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.
The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.
The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.
The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”
Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
Effect on dyskinesia is unclear
“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.
“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”
Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.
SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.
According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.
Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.
“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
An extension of a pilot trial
Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.
Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.
Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
DBS may slow progression of rest tremor
Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.
At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.
Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.
In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.
In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.
The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.
The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.
The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”
Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
Effect on dyskinesia is unclear
“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.
“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”
Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.
SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.
According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.
Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.
“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
An extension of a pilot trial
Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.
Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.
Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
DBS may slow progression of rest tremor
Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.
Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.
At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.
Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.
In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.
In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.
The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.
The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.
The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”
Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
Effect on dyskinesia is unclear
“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.
“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.
“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”
Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.
SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Higher stroke rates seen among patients with COVID-19 compared with influenza
, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.
While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
An increased risk of stroke
The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.
Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.
The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).
This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”
The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).
In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).
The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
COVID or conventional risk factors?
Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”
Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).
He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”
SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.
, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.
While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
An increased risk of stroke
The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.
Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.
The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).
This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”
The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).
In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).
The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
COVID or conventional risk factors?
Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”
Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).
He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”
SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.
, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.
While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
An increased risk of stroke
The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.
Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.
The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).
This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”
The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).
In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).
The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
COVID or conventional risk factors?
Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”
Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).
He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”
SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Three stages to COVID-19 brain damage, new review suggests
In stage 1, viral damage is limited to epithelial cells of the nose and mouth, and in stage 2 blood clots that form in the lungs may travel to the brain, leading to stroke. In stage 3, the virus crosses the blood-brain barrier and invades the brain.
“Our major take-home points are that patients with COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath, headache, or dizziness, may have neurological symptoms that, at the time of hospitalization, might not be noticed or prioritized, or whose neurological symptoms may become apparent only after they leave the hospital,” lead author Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center in McLean, Va., said.
“Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should have a neurological evaluation and ideally a brain MRI before leaving the hospital; and, if there are abnormalities, they should follow up with a neurologist in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Fotuhi, who is also affiliate staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
The review was published online June 8 in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Wreaks CNS havoc
It has become “increasingly evident” that SARS-CoV-2 can cause neurologic manifestations, including anosmia, seizures, stroke, confusion, encephalopathy, and total paralysis, the authors wrote.
They noted that SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2, which facilitates the conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin. After ACE2 has bound to respiratory epithelial cells and then to epithelial cells in blood vessels, SARS-CoV-2 triggers the formation of a “cytokine storm.”
These cytokines, in turn, increase vascular permeability, edema, and widespread inflammation, as well as triggering “hypercoagulation cascades,” which cause small and large blood clots that affect multiple organs.
If SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain barrier, directly entering the brain, it can contribute to demyelination or neurodegeneration.
“We very thoroughly reviewed the literature published between Jan. 1 and May 1, 2020, about neurological issues [in COVID-19] and what I found interesting is that so many neurological things can happen due to a virus which is so small,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“This virus’ DNA has such limited information, and yet it can wreak havoc on our nervous system because it kicks off such a potent defense system in our body that damages our nervous system,” he said.
Three-stage classification
- Stage 1: The extent of SARS-CoV-2 binding to the ACE2 receptors is limited to the nasal and gustatory epithelial cells, with the cytokine storm remaining “low and controlled.” During this stage, patients may experience smell or taste impairments, but often recover without any interventions.
- Stage 2: A “robust immune response” is activated by the virus, leading to inflammation in the blood vessels, increased hypercoagulability factors, and the formation of blood clots in cerebral arteries and veins. The patient may therefore experience either large or small strokes. Additional stage 2 symptoms include fatigue, hemiplegia, sensory loss, , tetraplegia, , or ataxia.
- Stage 3: The cytokine storm in the blood vessels is so severe that it causes an “explosive inflammatory response” and penetrates the blood-brain barrier, leading to the entry of cytokines, blood components, and viral particles into the brain parenchyma and causing neuronal cell death and encephalitis. This stage can be characterized by seizures, confusion, , coma, loss of consciousness, or death.
“Patients in stage 3 are more likely to have long-term consequences, because there is evidence that the virus particles have actually penetrated the brain, and we know that SARS-CoV-2 can remain dormant in neurons for many years,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“Studies of coronaviruses have shown a link between the viruses and the risk of multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease even decades later,” he added.
“Based on several reports in recent months, between 36% to 55% of patients with COVID-19 that are hospitalized have some neurological symptoms, but if you don’t look for them, you won’t see them,” Dr. Fotuhi noted.
As a result, patients should be monitored over time after discharge, as they may develop cognitive dysfunction down the road.
Additionally, “it is imperative for patients [hospitalized with COVID-19] to get a baseline MRI before leaving the hospital so that we have a starting point for future evaluation and treatment,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“The good news is that neurological manifestations of COVID-19 are treatable,” and “can improve with intensive training,” including lifestyle changes – such as a heart-healthy diet, regular physical activity, stress reduction, improved sleep, biofeedback, and brain rehabilitation, Dr. Fotuhi added.
Routine MRI not necessary
Kenneth Tyler, MD, chair of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, disagreed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should routinely receive an MRI.
“Whenever you are using a piece of equipment on patients who are COVID-19 infected, you risk introducing the infection to uninfected patients,” he said. Instead, “the indication is in patients who develop unexplained neurological manifestations – altered mental status or focal seizures, for example – because in those cases, you do need to understand whether there are underlying structural abnormalities,” said Dr. Tyler, who was not involved in the review.
Also commenting on the review, Vanja Douglas, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology, University of California, San Francisco, described the review as “thorough” and suggested it may “help us understand how to design observational studies to test whether the associations are due to severe respiratory illness or are specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Dr. Douglas, who was not involved in the review, added that it is “helpful in giving us a sense of which neurologic syndromes have been observed in COVID-19 patients, and therefore which patients neurologists may want to screen more carefully during the pandemic.”
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Fotuhi disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor reported receiving consulting fees as a member of the scientific advisory board for Brainreader and reports royalties for expert witness consultation in conjunction with Neurevolution. Dr. Tyler and Dr. Douglas disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In stage 1, viral damage is limited to epithelial cells of the nose and mouth, and in stage 2 blood clots that form in the lungs may travel to the brain, leading to stroke. In stage 3, the virus crosses the blood-brain barrier and invades the brain.
“Our major take-home points are that patients with COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath, headache, or dizziness, may have neurological symptoms that, at the time of hospitalization, might not be noticed or prioritized, or whose neurological symptoms may become apparent only after they leave the hospital,” lead author Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center in McLean, Va., said.
“Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should have a neurological evaluation and ideally a brain MRI before leaving the hospital; and, if there are abnormalities, they should follow up with a neurologist in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Fotuhi, who is also affiliate staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
The review was published online June 8 in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Wreaks CNS havoc
It has become “increasingly evident” that SARS-CoV-2 can cause neurologic manifestations, including anosmia, seizures, stroke, confusion, encephalopathy, and total paralysis, the authors wrote.
They noted that SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2, which facilitates the conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin. After ACE2 has bound to respiratory epithelial cells and then to epithelial cells in blood vessels, SARS-CoV-2 triggers the formation of a “cytokine storm.”
These cytokines, in turn, increase vascular permeability, edema, and widespread inflammation, as well as triggering “hypercoagulation cascades,” which cause small and large blood clots that affect multiple organs.
If SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain barrier, directly entering the brain, it can contribute to demyelination or neurodegeneration.
“We very thoroughly reviewed the literature published between Jan. 1 and May 1, 2020, about neurological issues [in COVID-19] and what I found interesting is that so many neurological things can happen due to a virus which is so small,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“This virus’ DNA has such limited information, and yet it can wreak havoc on our nervous system because it kicks off such a potent defense system in our body that damages our nervous system,” he said.
Three-stage classification
- Stage 1: The extent of SARS-CoV-2 binding to the ACE2 receptors is limited to the nasal and gustatory epithelial cells, with the cytokine storm remaining “low and controlled.” During this stage, patients may experience smell or taste impairments, but often recover without any interventions.
- Stage 2: A “robust immune response” is activated by the virus, leading to inflammation in the blood vessels, increased hypercoagulability factors, and the formation of blood clots in cerebral arteries and veins. The patient may therefore experience either large or small strokes. Additional stage 2 symptoms include fatigue, hemiplegia, sensory loss, , tetraplegia, , or ataxia.
- Stage 3: The cytokine storm in the blood vessels is so severe that it causes an “explosive inflammatory response” and penetrates the blood-brain barrier, leading to the entry of cytokines, blood components, and viral particles into the brain parenchyma and causing neuronal cell death and encephalitis. This stage can be characterized by seizures, confusion, , coma, loss of consciousness, or death.
“Patients in stage 3 are more likely to have long-term consequences, because there is evidence that the virus particles have actually penetrated the brain, and we know that SARS-CoV-2 can remain dormant in neurons for many years,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“Studies of coronaviruses have shown a link between the viruses and the risk of multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease even decades later,” he added.
“Based on several reports in recent months, between 36% to 55% of patients with COVID-19 that are hospitalized have some neurological symptoms, but if you don’t look for them, you won’t see them,” Dr. Fotuhi noted.
As a result, patients should be monitored over time after discharge, as they may develop cognitive dysfunction down the road.
Additionally, “it is imperative for patients [hospitalized with COVID-19] to get a baseline MRI before leaving the hospital so that we have a starting point for future evaluation and treatment,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“The good news is that neurological manifestations of COVID-19 are treatable,” and “can improve with intensive training,” including lifestyle changes – such as a heart-healthy diet, regular physical activity, stress reduction, improved sleep, biofeedback, and brain rehabilitation, Dr. Fotuhi added.
Routine MRI not necessary
Kenneth Tyler, MD, chair of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, disagreed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should routinely receive an MRI.
“Whenever you are using a piece of equipment on patients who are COVID-19 infected, you risk introducing the infection to uninfected patients,” he said. Instead, “the indication is in patients who develop unexplained neurological manifestations – altered mental status or focal seizures, for example – because in those cases, you do need to understand whether there are underlying structural abnormalities,” said Dr. Tyler, who was not involved in the review.
Also commenting on the review, Vanja Douglas, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology, University of California, San Francisco, described the review as “thorough” and suggested it may “help us understand how to design observational studies to test whether the associations are due to severe respiratory illness or are specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Dr. Douglas, who was not involved in the review, added that it is “helpful in giving us a sense of which neurologic syndromes have been observed in COVID-19 patients, and therefore which patients neurologists may want to screen more carefully during the pandemic.”
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Fotuhi disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor reported receiving consulting fees as a member of the scientific advisory board for Brainreader and reports royalties for expert witness consultation in conjunction with Neurevolution. Dr. Tyler and Dr. Douglas disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In stage 1, viral damage is limited to epithelial cells of the nose and mouth, and in stage 2 blood clots that form in the lungs may travel to the brain, leading to stroke. In stage 3, the virus crosses the blood-brain barrier and invades the brain.
“Our major take-home points are that patients with COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath, headache, or dizziness, may have neurological symptoms that, at the time of hospitalization, might not be noticed or prioritized, or whose neurological symptoms may become apparent only after they leave the hospital,” lead author Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center in McLean, Va., said.
“Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should have a neurological evaluation and ideally a brain MRI before leaving the hospital; and, if there are abnormalities, they should follow up with a neurologist in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Fotuhi, who is also affiliate staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
The review was published online June 8 in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Wreaks CNS havoc
It has become “increasingly evident” that SARS-CoV-2 can cause neurologic manifestations, including anosmia, seizures, stroke, confusion, encephalopathy, and total paralysis, the authors wrote.
They noted that SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2, which facilitates the conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin. After ACE2 has bound to respiratory epithelial cells and then to epithelial cells in blood vessels, SARS-CoV-2 triggers the formation of a “cytokine storm.”
These cytokines, in turn, increase vascular permeability, edema, and widespread inflammation, as well as triggering “hypercoagulation cascades,” which cause small and large blood clots that affect multiple organs.
If SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain barrier, directly entering the brain, it can contribute to demyelination or neurodegeneration.
“We very thoroughly reviewed the literature published between Jan. 1 and May 1, 2020, about neurological issues [in COVID-19] and what I found interesting is that so many neurological things can happen due to a virus which is so small,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“This virus’ DNA has such limited information, and yet it can wreak havoc on our nervous system because it kicks off such a potent defense system in our body that damages our nervous system,” he said.
Three-stage classification
- Stage 1: The extent of SARS-CoV-2 binding to the ACE2 receptors is limited to the nasal and gustatory epithelial cells, with the cytokine storm remaining “low and controlled.” During this stage, patients may experience smell or taste impairments, but often recover without any interventions.
- Stage 2: A “robust immune response” is activated by the virus, leading to inflammation in the blood vessels, increased hypercoagulability factors, and the formation of blood clots in cerebral arteries and veins. The patient may therefore experience either large or small strokes. Additional stage 2 symptoms include fatigue, hemiplegia, sensory loss, , tetraplegia, , or ataxia.
- Stage 3: The cytokine storm in the blood vessels is so severe that it causes an “explosive inflammatory response” and penetrates the blood-brain barrier, leading to the entry of cytokines, blood components, and viral particles into the brain parenchyma and causing neuronal cell death and encephalitis. This stage can be characterized by seizures, confusion, , coma, loss of consciousness, or death.
“Patients in stage 3 are more likely to have long-term consequences, because there is evidence that the virus particles have actually penetrated the brain, and we know that SARS-CoV-2 can remain dormant in neurons for many years,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“Studies of coronaviruses have shown a link between the viruses and the risk of multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease even decades later,” he added.
“Based on several reports in recent months, between 36% to 55% of patients with COVID-19 that are hospitalized have some neurological symptoms, but if you don’t look for them, you won’t see them,” Dr. Fotuhi noted.
As a result, patients should be monitored over time after discharge, as they may develop cognitive dysfunction down the road.
Additionally, “it is imperative for patients [hospitalized with COVID-19] to get a baseline MRI before leaving the hospital so that we have a starting point for future evaluation and treatment,” said Dr. Fotuhi.
“The good news is that neurological manifestations of COVID-19 are treatable,” and “can improve with intensive training,” including lifestyle changes – such as a heart-healthy diet, regular physical activity, stress reduction, improved sleep, biofeedback, and brain rehabilitation, Dr. Fotuhi added.
Routine MRI not necessary
Kenneth Tyler, MD, chair of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, disagreed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should routinely receive an MRI.
“Whenever you are using a piece of equipment on patients who are COVID-19 infected, you risk introducing the infection to uninfected patients,” he said. Instead, “the indication is in patients who develop unexplained neurological manifestations – altered mental status or focal seizures, for example – because in those cases, you do need to understand whether there are underlying structural abnormalities,” said Dr. Tyler, who was not involved in the review.
Also commenting on the review, Vanja Douglas, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology, University of California, San Francisco, described the review as “thorough” and suggested it may “help us understand how to design observational studies to test whether the associations are due to severe respiratory illness or are specific to SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Dr. Douglas, who was not involved in the review, added that it is “helpful in giving us a sense of which neurologic syndromes have been observed in COVID-19 patients, and therefore which patients neurologists may want to screen more carefully during the pandemic.”
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Fotuhi disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor reported receiving consulting fees as a member of the scientific advisory board for Brainreader and reports royalties for expert witness consultation in conjunction with Neurevolution. Dr. Tyler and Dr. Douglas disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Intervention for AVM still too high risk: The latest from ARUBA
Enrollment into the trial, which compared medical management alone with medical management with interventional therapy (neurosurgery, embolization, or stereotactic radiotherapy, alone or in combination), was stopped prematurely in 2013 after 33 months of follow-up because of a much higher rate of death and stroke in the intervention group.
Reaffirming the benefit of no intervention
Now the investigators are reporting extended follow-up to 50 months. The results were very similar to those at 33 months.
The current 50-month follow-up results show that 15 of 110 patients in the medical group had died or had a stroke (3.39 per 100 patient-years) versus 41 of 116 (12.32 per 100 patient-years) in the intervention group. The results reaffirm the strong benefit of not undergoing intervention (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56).
These latest results were published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
“With an AVM, the natural reflex is to try and fix it, but our trial shows that the tools we have to do that seem to be more damaging than just living with the AVM. If we try to take it out, the stroke risk is three to five times higher than just leaving it alone,” coauthor Christian Stapf, MD, a professor at the University of Montreal, said in an interview.
Dr. Stapf explained that an AVM is a congenital abnormality in the linking of the arteries to the veins. “There are an excess number of arteries and veins. They usually sit there silently, but they can trigger seizures, as they can tickle the neurons in the vicinity.”
It is estimated that one to two AVMs are found spontaneously in every 100,000 persons every year, but this is dependent on the availability of MRI, and many go undetected, he noted. In MRI studies in healthy volunteers, the rate was about one AVM in every 2,000 individuals.
Challenging standard practice
With AVMs, rupture and intracerebral hemorrhage occur at a rate of about 1%-2% per year. Until the ARUBA results were published, the standard practice was to intervene to embolize or excise the malformation, Dr. Stapf said.
“The standard treatment was intervention. The experiment was not to do it. We were challenging standard practice, and the trial was not popular with interventionalists,” he said.
The initial study, which was published in 2014, received much criticism from the interventionalist community. Among the criticisms were that the selection criteria for enrollment limited its generalizability, fewer patients than expected in the intervention arm were referred for microvascular surgery, and the follow-up was too short to allow a meaningful comparison.
“The study received criticism, but this was mainly from interventionalists, who were having their income threatened,” Dr. Stapf said. “This was very unhappy news for them, especially in the U.S., with the fee-for-service system.”
But he says these longer-term results, together with additional analyses and data from other cohorts, reinforce their initial conclusions.
The current report also shows a benefit in functional outcome in the medical group. “After 5 years, patients are twice as likely to have a neurological handicap, defined as a score of 2 or higher on the modified Rankin scale in the intervention group,” he noted. “We also found that more patients in the intervention group had deficits not related to stroke, such as an increase in seizures.”
Results of subgroup analysis were consistent in all patient groups.
The “study was designed for 400 patients, but we only recruited about half that number. But even so, the effect of intervention on stroke is so strong there is no subgroup where it looks favorable,” Dr. Stapf said. “This result was not heterogeneous. The same effect is seen regardless of age, gender, presence of symptoms, size of AVM, location, anatomy, drainage. No matter how you look, there is no benefit for intervention.”
He also referred to a Scottish population-based cohort study that showed a similar risk reduction from not intervening. “This was an unselected population of every unruptured AVM patient in Scotland, which found a 65% relative reduction in death/stroke over 12 years. We found a 69% reduction. The Scottish study did not select any particular types of patients but showed the same result as us,” he noted. “It is hard to argue against these findings.”
Regarding the claim of selection bias, Dr. Stapf acknowledged that the study excluded patients who were judged to be in need of intervention and those judged to be at very low risk and who would not be considered for an intervention.
“But when we compared our cohort to two other unselected cohorts, they look very similar, apart from the fact that very large AVMs were not entered in our study, as they were considered too difficult to treat,” he said. “If there is a selection bias at all, it actually trends towards the intervention group, as we excluded those at the highest treatment risk, but we still showed more benefit of not intervening.”
He also says the microvascular surgery rates were consistent with real-world practice, with about 25% of patients undergoing such surgery. “This is similar to the Scottish population study. Our trial also showed a similar result in patients treated with the various different interventions – they all showed a much higher risk than not intervening,” he added.
He says practice has changed since the trial was first reported. “There are far fewer interventions now for unruptured AVMs. Most interventionalists have accepted the results now, although there are some who continue to find reasons to criticize the trial and carry on with the procedures.”
He says his advice to patients who have an unruptured AVM is to forget about it. “There doesn’t seem to be a trigger for rupture,” he said. “It doesn’t seem to be dependent on blood pressure or physical activity, and we can’t tell if it’s just about to go by looking at it. They are very different from an aneurysm in that regard.
“When I explain to patients that they are at an increased stroke risk and tell them about the results of the ARUBA study, they say they would prefer to get that stroke later in life than earlier. These patents can live for 30 or 40 years without a stroke.
“But, yes, there remains a major unmet need. We need to find a way to protect these patients. In future, we might find a better way of intervening, but at this point in time, the treatment we have is more dangerous than doing nothing,” he said.
Longer follow-up needed
In an editorial that accompanies the current study, Peter M. Rothwell, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, also dismisses much of the criticism of the ARUBA study. On the issue of external validity, he said: “I do not think that this is really any greater an issue for ARUBA than for most other similar trials.”
But Dr. Rothwell does believe that follow-up for longer than 5 years is needed. “To really understand the benefit/risk balance, we would need a 20- or 30-year follow-up. These patients are often in their 20s, 30s, or 40s, so we really need to know their cumulative risk over decades,” he said in an interview.
Noting that the study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Dr. Rothwell said funding should have been provided for much longer follow-up. “Patients who generously agreed to be randomly assigned in ARUBA and future similar patients have been let down by NINDS.
“We probably now won’t ever know the very–long-term impact, although the Scottish population study is following patients longer term,” he added.
“After this trial was first published, the guidelines recommended not to intervene. These latest results will not change that,” he said.
The ARUBA trial was funded internationally by the National Institutes of Health/NINDS. Dr. Stapf and Dr. Rothwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Enrollment into the trial, which compared medical management alone with medical management with interventional therapy (neurosurgery, embolization, or stereotactic radiotherapy, alone or in combination), was stopped prematurely in 2013 after 33 months of follow-up because of a much higher rate of death and stroke in the intervention group.
Reaffirming the benefit of no intervention
Now the investigators are reporting extended follow-up to 50 months. The results were very similar to those at 33 months.
The current 50-month follow-up results show that 15 of 110 patients in the medical group had died or had a stroke (3.39 per 100 patient-years) versus 41 of 116 (12.32 per 100 patient-years) in the intervention group. The results reaffirm the strong benefit of not undergoing intervention (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56).
These latest results were published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
“With an AVM, the natural reflex is to try and fix it, but our trial shows that the tools we have to do that seem to be more damaging than just living with the AVM. If we try to take it out, the stroke risk is three to five times higher than just leaving it alone,” coauthor Christian Stapf, MD, a professor at the University of Montreal, said in an interview.
Dr. Stapf explained that an AVM is a congenital abnormality in the linking of the arteries to the veins. “There are an excess number of arteries and veins. They usually sit there silently, but they can trigger seizures, as they can tickle the neurons in the vicinity.”
It is estimated that one to two AVMs are found spontaneously in every 100,000 persons every year, but this is dependent on the availability of MRI, and many go undetected, he noted. In MRI studies in healthy volunteers, the rate was about one AVM in every 2,000 individuals.
Challenging standard practice
With AVMs, rupture and intracerebral hemorrhage occur at a rate of about 1%-2% per year. Until the ARUBA results were published, the standard practice was to intervene to embolize or excise the malformation, Dr. Stapf said.
“The standard treatment was intervention. The experiment was not to do it. We were challenging standard practice, and the trial was not popular with interventionalists,” he said.
The initial study, which was published in 2014, received much criticism from the interventionalist community. Among the criticisms were that the selection criteria for enrollment limited its generalizability, fewer patients than expected in the intervention arm were referred for microvascular surgery, and the follow-up was too short to allow a meaningful comparison.
“The study received criticism, but this was mainly from interventionalists, who were having their income threatened,” Dr. Stapf said. “This was very unhappy news for them, especially in the U.S., with the fee-for-service system.”
But he says these longer-term results, together with additional analyses and data from other cohorts, reinforce their initial conclusions.
The current report also shows a benefit in functional outcome in the medical group. “After 5 years, patients are twice as likely to have a neurological handicap, defined as a score of 2 or higher on the modified Rankin scale in the intervention group,” he noted. “We also found that more patients in the intervention group had deficits not related to stroke, such as an increase in seizures.”
Results of subgroup analysis were consistent in all patient groups.
The “study was designed for 400 patients, but we only recruited about half that number. But even so, the effect of intervention on stroke is so strong there is no subgroup where it looks favorable,” Dr. Stapf said. “This result was not heterogeneous. The same effect is seen regardless of age, gender, presence of symptoms, size of AVM, location, anatomy, drainage. No matter how you look, there is no benefit for intervention.”
He also referred to a Scottish population-based cohort study that showed a similar risk reduction from not intervening. “This was an unselected population of every unruptured AVM patient in Scotland, which found a 65% relative reduction in death/stroke over 12 years. We found a 69% reduction. The Scottish study did not select any particular types of patients but showed the same result as us,” he noted. “It is hard to argue against these findings.”
Regarding the claim of selection bias, Dr. Stapf acknowledged that the study excluded patients who were judged to be in need of intervention and those judged to be at very low risk and who would not be considered for an intervention.
“But when we compared our cohort to two other unselected cohorts, they look very similar, apart from the fact that very large AVMs were not entered in our study, as they were considered too difficult to treat,” he said. “If there is a selection bias at all, it actually trends towards the intervention group, as we excluded those at the highest treatment risk, but we still showed more benefit of not intervening.”
He also says the microvascular surgery rates were consistent with real-world practice, with about 25% of patients undergoing such surgery. “This is similar to the Scottish population study. Our trial also showed a similar result in patients treated with the various different interventions – they all showed a much higher risk than not intervening,” he added.
He says practice has changed since the trial was first reported. “There are far fewer interventions now for unruptured AVMs. Most interventionalists have accepted the results now, although there are some who continue to find reasons to criticize the trial and carry on with the procedures.”
He says his advice to patients who have an unruptured AVM is to forget about it. “There doesn’t seem to be a trigger for rupture,” he said. “It doesn’t seem to be dependent on blood pressure or physical activity, and we can’t tell if it’s just about to go by looking at it. They are very different from an aneurysm in that regard.
“When I explain to patients that they are at an increased stroke risk and tell them about the results of the ARUBA study, they say they would prefer to get that stroke later in life than earlier. These patents can live for 30 or 40 years without a stroke.
“But, yes, there remains a major unmet need. We need to find a way to protect these patients. In future, we might find a better way of intervening, but at this point in time, the treatment we have is more dangerous than doing nothing,” he said.
Longer follow-up needed
In an editorial that accompanies the current study, Peter M. Rothwell, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, also dismisses much of the criticism of the ARUBA study. On the issue of external validity, he said: “I do not think that this is really any greater an issue for ARUBA than for most other similar trials.”
But Dr. Rothwell does believe that follow-up for longer than 5 years is needed. “To really understand the benefit/risk balance, we would need a 20- or 30-year follow-up. These patients are often in their 20s, 30s, or 40s, so we really need to know their cumulative risk over decades,” he said in an interview.
Noting that the study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Dr. Rothwell said funding should have been provided for much longer follow-up. “Patients who generously agreed to be randomly assigned in ARUBA and future similar patients have been let down by NINDS.
“We probably now won’t ever know the very–long-term impact, although the Scottish population study is following patients longer term,” he added.
“After this trial was first published, the guidelines recommended not to intervene. These latest results will not change that,” he said.
The ARUBA trial was funded internationally by the National Institutes of Health/NINDS. Dr. Stapf and Dr. Rothwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Enrollment into the trial, which compared medical management alone with medical management with interventional therapy (neurosurgery, embolization, or stereotactic radiotherapy, alone or in combination), was stopped prematurely in 2013 after 33 months of follow-up because of a much higher rate of death and stroke in the intervention group.
Reaffirming the benefit of no intervention
Now the investigators are reporting extended follow-up to 50 months. The results were very similar to those at 33 months.
The current 50-month follow-up results show that 15 of 110 patients in the medical group had died or had a stroke (3.39 per 100 patient-years) versus 41 of 116 (12.32 per 100 patient-years) in the intervention group. The results reaffirm the strong benefit of not undergoing intervention (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56).
These latest results were published in the July issue of the Lancet Neurology.
“With an AVM, the natural reflex is to try and fix it, but our trial shows that the tools we have to do that seem to be more damaging than just living with the AVM. If we try to take it out, the stroke risk is three to five times higher than just leaving it alone,” coauthor Christian Stapf, MD, a professor at the University of Montreal, said in an interview.
Dr. Stapf explained that an AVM is a congenital abnormality in the linking of the arteries to the veins. “There are an excess number of arteries and veins. They usually sit there silently, but they can trigger seizures, as they can tickle the neurons in the vicinity.”
It is estimated that one to two AVMs are found spontaneously in every 100,000 persons every year, but this is dependent on the availability of MRI, and many go undetected, he noted. In MRI studies in healthy volunteers, the rate was about one AVM in every 2,000 individuals.
Challenging standard practice
With AVMs, rupture and intracerebral hemorrhage occur at a rate of about 1%-2% per year. Until the ARUBA results were published, the standard practice was to intervene to embolize or excise the malformation, Dr. Stapf said.
“The standard treatment was intervention. The experiment was not to do it. We were challenging standard practice, and the trial was not popular with interventionalists,” he said.
The initial study, which was published in 2014, received much criticism from the interventionalist community. Among the criticisms were that the selection criteria for enrollment limited its generalizability, fewer patients than expected in the intervention arm were referred for microvascular surgery, and the follow-up was too short to allow a meaningful comparison.
“The study received criticism, but this was mainly from interventionalists, who were having their income threatened,” Dr. Stapf said. “This was very unhappy news for them, especially in the U.S., with the fee-for-service system.”
But he says these longer-term results, together with additional analyses and data from other cohorts, reinforce their initial conclusions.
The current report also shows a benefit in functional outcome in the medical group. “After 5 years, patients are twice as likely to have a neurological handicap, defined as a score of 2 or higher on the modified Rankin scale in the intervention group,” he noted. “We also found that more patients in the intervention group had deficits not related to stroke, such as an increase in seizures.”
Results of subgroup analysis were consistent in all patient groups.
The “study was designed for 400 patients, but we only recruited about half that number. But even so, the effect of intervention on stroke is so strong there is no subgroup where it looks favorable,” Dr. Stapf said. “This result was not heterogeneous. The same effect is seen regardless of age, gender, presence of symptoms, size of AVM, location, anatomy, drainage. No matter how you look, there is no benefit for intervention.”
He also referred to a Scottish population-based cohort study that showed a similar risk reduction from not intervening. “This was an unselected population of every unruptured AVM patient in Scotland, which found a 65% relative reduction in death/stroke over 12 years. We found a 69% reduction. The Scottish study did not select any particular types of patients but showed the same result as us,” he noted. “It is hard to argue against these findings.”
Regarding the claim of selection bias, Dr. Stapf acknowledged that the study excluded patients who were judged to be in need of intervention and those judged to be at very low risk and who would not be considered for an intervention.
“But when we compared our cohort to two other unselected cohorts, they look very similar, apart from the fact that very large AVMs were not entered in our study, as they were considered too difficult to treat,” he said. “If there is a selection bias at all, it actually trends towards the intervention group, as we excluded those at the highest treatment risk, but we still showed more benefit of not intervening.”
He also says the microvascular surgery rates were consistent with real-world practice, with about 25% of patients undergoing such surgery. “This is similar to the Scottish population study. Our trial also showed a similar result in patients treated with the various different interventions – they all showed a much higher risk than not intervening,” he added.
He says practice has changed since the trial was first reported. “There are far fewer interventions now for unruptured AVMs. Most interventionalists have accepted the results now, although there are some who continue to find reasons to criticize the trial and carry on with the procedures.”
He says his advice to patients who have an unruptured AVM is to forget about it. “There doesn’t seem to be a trigger for rupture,” he said. “It doesn’t seem to be dependent on blood pressure or physical activity, and we can’t tell if it’s just about to go by looking at it. They are very different from an aneurysm in that regard.
“When I explain to patients that they are at an increased stroke risk and tell them about the results of the ARUBA study, they say they would prefer to get that stroke later in life than earlier. These patents can live for 30 or 40 years without a stroke.
“But, yes, there remains a major unmet need. We need to find a way to protect these patients. In future, we might find a better way of intervening, but at this point in time, the treatment we have is more dangerous than doing nothing,” he said.
Longer follow-up needed
In an editorial that accompanies the current study, Peter M. Rothwell, MD, of the University of Oxford, England, also dismisses much of the criticism of the ARUBA study. On the issue of external validity, he said: “I do not think that this is really any greater an issue for ARUBA than for most other similar trials.”
But Dr. Rothwell does believe that follow-up for longer than 5 years is needed. “To really understand the benefit/risk balance, we would need a 20- or 30-year follow-up. These patients are often in their 20s, 30s, or 40s, so we really need to know their cumulative risk over decades,” he said in an interview.
Noting that the study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Dr. Rothwell said funding should have been provided for much longer follow-up. “Patients who generously agreed to be randomly assigned in ARUBA and future similar patients have been let down by NINDS.
“We probably now won’t ever know the very–long-term impact, although the Scottish population study is following patients longer term,” he added.
“After this trial was first published, the guidelines recommended not to intervene. These latest results will not change that,” he said.
The ARUBA trial was funded internationally by the National Institutes of Health/NINDS. Dr. Stapf and Dr. Rothwell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM LANCET NEUROLOGY