Literature Review

When combined with clinical scores, a “game-changing” blood test can expedite the diagnosis and treatment of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke, potentially saving many lives, new data suggested.

Using cutoff levels of two blood biomarkers, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP; 213 pg/mL) and D-dimer (600 ng/mL), and the field assessment stroke triage for emergency destination (FAST-ED) (score, > 2), investigators were able to detect LVOs with 81% sensitivity and 93% specificity less than 6 hours from the onset of symptoms.

GFAP has previously been linked to brain bleeds and traumatic brain injury.

The test also ruled out all patients with brain bleeds, and investigators noted that it could also be used to detect intracerebral hemorrhage.

“We have developed a game-changing, accessible tool that could help ensure that more people suffering from stroke are in the right place at the right time to receive critical, life-restoring care,” senior author Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD, MPH, a clinical fellow in the department of neurosurgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in a press release.

The findings were published online on May 17 in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology.
 

Early Identification Crucial

Acute LVO stroke is one of the most treatable stroke types because of the availability of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). However, EVT requires specialized equipment and teams that represent a small subset of accredited stroke centers and an even smaller subset of emergency medical facilities, so early identification of LVO is crucial, the investigators noted.

Dr. Bernstock and his team developed the TIME trial to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the blood biomarkers and scale cutoff values for identifying LVO vs non-LVO stroke.

As part of the observational prospective cohort trial, investigators included consecutive patients admitted to the Brandon Regional Hospital Emergency Department in Brandon, Florida, between May 2021 and August 2022 if they were referred for a suspected stroke and the time from symptom onset was under 18 hours.

Patients were excluded if they received thrombolytic therapy before blood was collected or if it was anticipated that blood collection would be difficult.

Investigators gathered information on patients’ clinical data, hematology results, time since last known well, and imaging findings to construct a clinical diagnosis (LVO, non-LVO, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack [TIA]).

In addition to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, patients were assessed with the FAST-ED, the Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE), the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool, and the Emergency Medical Stroke Assessment.

Of 323 patients in the final study sample, 29 (9%) had LVO ischemic stroke, and 48 (15%) had non-LVO ischemic stroke. Another 13 (4%) had hemorrhagic stroke, 12 had TIA (3.7%), and the largest proportion of patients had stroke mimic (n = 220; 68%), which included encephalopathy, hyperglycemia, hypertensive emergency, migraine, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and undetermined.
 

The Case for Biomarkers

When investigators looked at those with LVO ischemic stroke, they found the concentration of plasma D-dimer was significantly higher than that in patients with non-LVO suspected stroke (LVO suspected stroke, 1213 ng/mL; interquartile range [IQR], 733-1609 vs non-LVO suspected stroke, 617 ng/mL; IQR, 377-1345; P < .001).

In addition, GFAP was significantly increased in the plasma of patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs all other patients with suspected stroke (hemorrhagic stroke, 1464 pg/mL; IQR, 292-2580 vs nonhemorrhagic suspected stroke, 48 pg/mL; IQR, 12-98; P < .005).

Combinations of the blood biomarkers with the scales FAST-ED or RACE showed the best performance for LVO detection, with a specificity of 94% (for either scale combination) and a sensitivity of 71% for both scales.

When investigators analyzed data for just those patients identified within 6 hours of symptom onset, the combination of biomarkers plus FAST-ED resulted in a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 81%.

Given that clinical stroke scales in patients with hemorrhagic stroke frequently suggest LVO and that these patients are not candidates for EVT, a tool capable of ruling out hemorrhage and identifying only nonhemorrhagic ischemic LVO is essential, the investigators noted.

“In stroke care, time is brain,” Dr. Bernstock said. “The sooner a patient is put on the right care pathway, the better they are going to do. Whether that means ruling out bleeds or ruling in something that needs an intervention, being able to do this in a prehospital setting with the technology that we built is going to be truly transformative.”

The study was funded by the Innovate UK grant and private funding. Dr. Bernstock has positions and equity in Pockit Diagnostics Ltd. and Treovir Inc. and is on the boards of Centile Bio and NeuroX1. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When combined with clinical scores, a “game-changing” blood test can expedite the diagnosis and treatment of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke, potentially saving many lives, new data suggested.

Using cutoff levels of two blood biomarkers, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP; 213 pg/mL) and D-dimer (600 ng/mL), and the field assessment stroke triage for emergency destination (FAST-ED) (score, > 2), investigators were able to detect LVOs with 81% sensitivity and 93% specificity less than 6 hours from the onset of symptoms.

GFAP has previously been linked to brain bleeds and traumatic brain injury.

The test also ruled out all patients with brain bleeds, and investigators noted that it could also be used to detect intracerebral hemorrhage.

“We have developed a game-changing, accessible tool that could help ensure that more people suffering from stroke are in the right place at the right time to receive critical, life-restoring care,” senior author Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD, MPH, a clinical fellow in the department of neurosurgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in a press release.

The findings were published online on May 17 in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology.
 

Early Identification Crucial

Acute LVO stroke is one of the most treatable stroke types because of the availability of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). However, EVT requires specialized equipment and teams that represent a small subset of accredited stroke centers and an even smaller subset of emergency medical facilities, so early identification of LVO is crucial, the investigators noted.

Dr. Bernstock and his team developed the TIME trial to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the blood biomarkers and scale cutoff values for identifying LVO vs non-LVO stroke.

As part of the observational prospective cohort trial, investigators included consecutive patients admitted to the Brandon Regional Hospital Emergency Department in Brandon, Florida, between May 2021 and August 2022 if they were referred for a suspected stroke and the time from symptom onset was under 18 hours.

Patients were excluded if they received thrombolytic therapy before blood was collected or if it was anticipated that blood collection would be difficult.

Investigators gathered information on patients’ clinical data, hematology results, time since last known well, and imaging findings to construct a clinical diagnosis (LVO, non-LVO, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack [TIA]).

In addition to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, patients were assessed with the FAST-ED, the Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE), the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool, and the Emergency Medical Stroke Assessment.

Of 323 patients in the final study sample, 29 (9%) had LVO ischemic stroke, and 48 (15%) had non-LVO ischemic stroke. Another 13 (4%) had hemorrhagic stroke, 12 had TIA (3.7%), and the largest proportion of patients had stroke mimic (n = 220; 68%), which included encephalopathy, hyperglycemia, hypertensive emergency, migraine, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and undetermined.
 

The Case for Biomarkers

When investigators looked at those with LVO ischemic stroke, they found the concentration of plasma D-dimer was significantly higher than that in patients with non-LVO suspected stroke (LVO suspected stroke, 1213 ng/mL; interquartile range [IQR], 733-1609 vs non-LVO suspected stroke, 617 ng/mL; IQR, 377-1345; P < .001).

In addition, GFAP was significantly increased in the plasma of patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs all other patients with suspected stroke (hemorrhagic stroke, 1464 pg/mL; IQR, 292-2580 vs nonhemorrhagic suspected stroke, 48 pg/mL; IQR, 12-98; P < .005).

Combinations of the blood biomarkers with the scales FAST-ED or RACE showed the best performance for LVO detection, with a specificity of 94% (for either scale combination) and a sensitivity of 71% for both scales.

When investigators analyzed data for just those patients identified within 6 hours of symptom onset, the combination of biomarkers plus FAST-ED resulted in a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 81%.

Given that clinical stroke scales in patients with hemorrhagic stroke frequently suggest LVO and that these patients are not candidates for EVT, a tool capable of ruling out hemorrhage and identifying only nonhemorrhagic ischemic LVO is essential, the investigators noted.

“In stroke care, time is brain,” Dr. Bernstock said. “The sooner a patient is put on the right care pathway, the better they are going to do. Whether that means ruling out bleeds or ruling in something that needs an intervention, being able to do this in a prehospital setting with the technology that we built is going to be truly transformative.”

The study was funded by the Innovate UK grant and private funding. Dr. Bernstock has positions and equity in Pockit Diagnostics Ltd. and Treovir Inc. and is on the boards of Centile Bio and NeuroX1. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When combined with clinical scores, a “game-changing” blood test can expedite the diagnosis and treatment of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke, potentially saving many lives, new data suggested.

Using cutoff levels of two blood biomarkers, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP; 213 pg/mL) and D-dimer (600 ng/mL), and the field assessment stroke triage for emergency destination (FAST-ED) (score, > 2), investigators were able to detect LVOs with 81% sensitivity and 93% specificity less than 6 hours from the onset of symptoms.

GFAP has previously been linked to brain bleeds and traumatic brain injury.

The test also ruled out all patients with brain bleeds, and investigators noted that it could also be used to detect intracerebral hemorrhage.

“We have developed a game-changing, accessible tool that could help ensure that more people suffering from stroke are in the right place at the right time to receive critical, life-restoring care,” senior author Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD, MPH, a clinical fellow in the department of neurosurgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in a press release.

The findings were published online on May 17 in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology.
 

Early Identification Crucial

Acute LVO stroke is one of the most treatable stroke types because of the availability of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). However, EVT requires specialized equipment and teams that represent a small subset of accredited stroke centers and an even smaller subset of emergency medical facilities, so early identification of LVO is crucial, the investigators noted.

Dr. Bernstock and his team developed the TIME trial to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the blood biomarkers and scale cutoff values for identifying LVO vs non-LVO stroke.

As part of the observational prospective cohort trial, investigators included consecutive patients admitted to the Brandon Regional Hospital Emergency Department in Brandon, Florida, between May 2021 and August 2022 if they were referred for a suspected stroke and the time from symptom onset was under 18 hours.

Patients were excluded if they received thrombolytic therapy before blood was collected or if it was anticipated that blood collection would be difficult.

Investigators gathered information on patients’ clinical data, hematology results, time since last known well, and imaging findings to construct a clinical diagnosis (LVO, non-LVO, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack [TIA]).

In addition to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, patients were assessed with the FAST-ED, the Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE), the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool, and the Emergency Medical Stroke Assessment.

Of 323 patients in the final study sample, 29 (9%) had LVO ischemic stroke, and 48 (15%) had non-LVO ischemic stroke. Another 13 (4%) had hemorrhagic stroke, 12 had TIA (3.7%), and the largest proportion of patients had stroke mimic (n = 220; 68%), which included encephalopathy, hyperglycemia, hypertensive emergency, migraine, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and undetermined.
 

The Case for Biomarkers

When investigators looked at those with LVO ischemic stroke, they found the concentration of plasma D-dimer was significantly higher than that in patients with non-LVO suspected stroke (LVO suspected stroke, 1213 ng/mL; interquartile range [IQR], 733-1609 vs non-LVO suspected stroke, 617 ng/mL; IQR, 377-1345; P < .001).

In addition, GFAP was significantly increased in the plasma of patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs all other patients with suspected stroke (hemorrhagic stroke, 1464 pg/mL; IQR, 292-2580 vs nonhemorrhagic suspected stroke, 48 pg/mL; IQR, 12-98; P < .005).

Combinations of the blood biomarkers with the scales FAST-ED or RACE showed the best performance for LVO detection, with a specificity of 94% (for either scale combination) and a sensitivity of 71% for both scales.

When investigators analyzed data for just those patients identified within 6 hours of symptom onset, the combination of biomarkers plus FAST-ED resulted in a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 81%.

Given that clinical stroke scales in patients with hemorrhagic stroke frequently suggest LVO and that these patients are not candidates for EVT, a tool capable of ruling out hemorrhage and identifying only nonhemorrhagic ischemic LVO is essential, the investigators noted.

“In stroke care, time is brain,” Dr. Bernstock said. “The sooner a patient is put on the right care pathway, the better they are going to do. Whether that means ruling out bleeds or ruling in something that needs an intervention, being able to do this in a prehospital setting with the technology that we built is going to be truly transformative.”

The study was funded by the Innovate UK grant and private funding. Dr. Bernstock has positions and equity in Pockit Diagnostics Ltd. and Treovir Inc. and is on the boards of Centile Bio and NeuroX1. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

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

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

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

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

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

Five commonly prescribed drugs may be associated with a lower risk for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), a drug-wide association study suggested.

The blood pressure drug lisinopril; the cholesterol drug simvastatin; the diabetes drug metformin; and the drug tamsulosin, prescribed for an enlarged prostate, were all associated with decreased aSAH risk, investigators found.

Conversely, four other drugs were associated with an increased risk for this severely morbid, often deadly, condition.

“The motivation for this study was the fact that we can currently prevent bleeding from intracranial aneurysms only by invasive treatment of those aneurysms with inherent complication risks,” said study investigator Ynte Ruigrok, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. “Drugs to reduce or eliminate this risk are not yet available. This study is a first step in identifying such drugs.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Surprising Results

For the study, the researchers used the Secure Anonymized Information Linkage data bank in Wales to identify 4879 patients with aSAH between January 2000 and December 2019 and 43,911 patients without aSAH matched on age, sex, and year of database entry. Clustering resulted in 2023 unique drugs, of which 205 were commonly prescribed.

After adjusting for other factors such as high blood pressure, alcohol abuse, smoking, and a total number of health conditions, the results yielded two surprises, Dr. Ruigrok observed.

The first was a significant decrease in aSAH risk for current use of lisinopril, compared with nonuse (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90), and a nonsignificant decrease with current use of amlodipine (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04).

“Hypertension is a major risk factor for occurrence and bleeding from aneurysms. If there is indeed a specific blood pressure–lowering drug that not only has a blood pressure–lowering effect but also has additional protection against aSAH, then perhaps that drug should become the drug of choice in aneurysm patients in the future,” he said.

Notably, recent use of both drugs, defined as between 1 year and 3 months before the index date, was associated with an increased risk for aSAH. This trend was not found for other antihypertensives and was significant for amlodipine but not lisinopril.

The reasons are unclear, but “we trust the findings on lisinopril more,” Dr. Ruigrok said. “The findings on amlodipine may be due to confounding by indication, specifically caused by hypertension. Therefore, it is important to validate our findings in an independent research cohort, and we are in the process of doing so.”

The study’s second surprise was the antidiabetic drug metformin and cholesterol-lowering drug simvastatin were also associated with reduced aSAH risk, Dr. Ruigrok noted.

“We already knew from previous studies that diabetes and high cholesterol are protective factors for aSAH,” he said. “Our results suggest that perhaps not the conditions themselves are protective for aSAH but rather the drugs used to treat these conditions with are.”

The risk for a ruptured brain aneurysm among current users was 42% lower with metformin (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78), 22% lower with simvastatin (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96), and 45% lower with tamsulosin (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.93).

An increased risk for aSAH was found only in current users of warfarin (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79), venlafaxine (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.01-2.75), prochlorperazine (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.45-3.18), and co-codamol (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10-1.56).

Other drugs within the classes of vitamin K antagonists, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, conventional antipsychotics, and compound analgesics did not show an association with aSAH.

The study was limited by the use of drug prescriptions, and patients may not take their drugs or use them incorrectly, noted the researchers, led by Jos P. Kanning, MSc, also with University Medical Center Utrecht.

The study was supported by the European Research Council. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five commonly prescribed drugs may be associated with a lower risk for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), a drug-wide association study suggested.

The blood pressure drug lisinopril; the cholesterol drug simvastatin; the diabetes drug metformin; and the drug tamsulosin, prescribed for an enlarged prostate, were all associated with decreased aSAH risk, investigators found.

Conversely, four other drugs were associated with an increased risk for this severely morbid, often deadly, condition.

“The motivation for this study was the fact that we can currently prevent bleeding from intracranial aneurysms only by invasive treatment of those aneurysms with inherent complication risks,” said study investigator Ynte Ruigrok, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. “Drugs to reduce or eliminate this risk are not yet available. This study is a first step in identifying such drugs.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Surprising Results

For the study, the researchers used the Secure Anonymized Information Linkage data bank in Wales to identify 4879 patients with aSAH between January 2000 and December 2019 and 43,911 patients without aSAH matched on age, sex, and year of database entry. Clustering resulted in 2023 unique drugs, of which 205 were commonly prescribed.

After adjusting for other factors such as high blood pressure, alcohol abuse, smoking, and a total number of health conditions, the results yielded two surprises, Dr. Ruigrok observed.

The first was a significant decrease in aSAH risk for current use of lisinopril, compared with nonuse (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90), and a nonsignificant decrease with current use of amlodipine (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04).

“Hypertension is a major risk factor for occurrence and bleeding from aneurysms. If there is indeed a specific blood pressure–lowering drug that not only has a blood pressure–lowering effect but also has additional protection against aSAH, then perhaps that drug should become the drug of choice in aneurysm patients in the future,” he said.

Notably, recent use of both drugs, defined as between 1 year and 3 months before the index date, was associated with an increased risk for aSAH. This trend was not found for other antihypertensives and was significant for amlodipine but not lisinopril.

The reasons are unclear, but “we trust the findings on lisinopril more,” Dr. Ruigrok said. “The findings on amlodipine may be due to confounding by indication, specifically caused by hypertension. Therefore, it is important to validate our findings in an independent research cohort, and we are in the process of doing so.”

The study’s second surprise was the antidiabetic drug metformin and cholesterol-lowering drug simvastatin were also associated with reduced aSAH risk, Dr. Ruigrok noted.

“We already knew from previous studies that diabetes and high cholesterol are protective factors for aSAH,” he said. “Our results suggest that perhaps not the conditions themselves are protective for aSAH but rather the drugs used to treat these conditions with are.”

The risk for a ruptured brain aneurysm among current users was 42% lower with metformin (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78), 22% lower with simvastatin (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96), and 45% lower with tamsulosin (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.93).

An increased risk for aSAH was found only in current users of warfarin (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79), venlafaxine (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.01-2.75), prochlorperazine (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.45-3.18), and co-codamol (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10-1.56).

Other drugs within the classes of vitamin K antagonists, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, conventional antipsychotics, and compound analgesics did not show an association with aSAH.

The study was limited by the use of drug prescriptions, and patients may not take their drugs or use them incorrectly, noted the researchers, led by Jos P. Kanning, MSc, also with University Medical Center Utrecht.

The study was supported by the European Research Council. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five commonly prescribed drugs may be associated with a lower risk for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), a drug-wide association study suggested.

The blood pressure drug lisinopril; the cholesterol drug simvastatin; the diabetes drug metformin; and the drug tamsulosin, prescribed for an enlarged prostate, were all associated with decreased aSAH risk, investigators found.

Conversely, four other drugs were associated with an increased risk for this severely morbid, often deadly, condition.

“The motivation for this study was the fact that we can currently prevent bleeding from intracranial aneurysms only by invasive treatment of those aneurysms with inherent complication risks,” said study investigator Ynte Ruigrok, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. “Drugs to reduce or eliminate this risk are not yet available. This study is a first step in identifying such drugs.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Surprising Results

For the study, the researchers used the Secure Anonymized Information Linkage data bank in Wales to identify 4879 patients with aSAH between January 2000 and December 2019 and 43,911 patients without aSAH matched on age, sex, and year of database entry. Clustering resulted in 2023 unique drugs, of which 205 were commonly prescribed.

After adjusting for other factors such as high blood pressure, alcohol abuse, smoking, and a total number of health conditions, the results yielded two surprises, Dr. Ruigrok observed.

The first was a significant decrease in aSAH risk for current use of lisinopril, compared with nonuse (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90), and a nonsignificant decrease with current use of amlodipine (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04).

“Hypertension is a major risk factor for occurrence and bleeding from aneurysms. If there is indeed a specific blood pressure–lowering drug that not only has a blood pressure–lowering effect but also has additional protection against aSAH, then perhaps that drug should become the drug of choice in aneurysm patients in the future,” he said.

Notably, recent use of both drugs, defined as between 1 year and 3 months before the index date, was associated with an increased risk for aSAH. This trend was not found for other antihypertensives and was significant for amlodipine but not lisinopril.

The reasons are unclear, but “we trust the findings on lisinopril more,” Dr. Ruigrok said. “The findings on amlodipine may be due to confounding by indication, specifically caused by hypertension. Therefore, it is important to validate our findings in an independent research cohort, and we are in the process of doing so.”

The study’s second surprise was the antidiabetic drug metformin and cholesterol-lowering drug simvastatin were also associated with reduced aSAH risk, Dr. Ruigrok noted.

“We already knew from previous studies that diabetes and high cholesterol are protective factors for aSAH,” he said. “Our results suggest that perhaps not the conditions themselves are protective for aSAH but rather the drugs used to treat these conditions with are.”

The risk for a ruptured brain aneurysm among current users was 42% lower with metformin (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78), 22% lower with simvastatin (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96), and 45% lower with tamsulosin (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.93).

An increased risk for aSAH was found only in current users of warfarin (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79), venlafaxine (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.01-2.75), prochlorperazine (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.45-3.18), and co-codamol (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10-1.56).

Other drugs within the classes of vitamin K antagonists, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, conventional antipsychotics, and compound analgesics did not show an association with aSAH.

The study was limited by the use of drug prescriptions, and patients may not take their drugs or use them incorrectly, noted the researchers, led by Jos P. Kanning, MSc, also with University Medical Center Utrecht.

The study was supported by the European Research Council. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There is a significant association between higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia in patients who sought medical care for migraine, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

“[T]he burden and impact of migraine on the individual both during and between attacks were identified through supervised machine learning models to be strongly associated with seeking care,” Sait Ashina, MD, of the department of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Ashina and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study of 61,826 patients from the web-based ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME) study with migraine who visited a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency setting for headache between 2018 and 2020.

The patients recruited for OBSERVE were a mean of 41.7 years old and had experienced migraines for an average of 19.0 years; 59.4% had between 0 and 3 average headache days per month, 74.5% were women, 78.8% were White, and 85.4% had health insurance; and they were demographically representative of the US population.

Researchers used a machine learning model, which consisted of random forest and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithms, to identify the relationship between patients who sought care for migraine and 54 different clinical, sociodemographic, and migraine-associated factors, which included age, years with migraine, symptom scores, pain intensity scores, disability score, comorbidities, vomiting, presence and severity of allodynia, and other factors.

The results showed 31,529 patients (51.0%) had an in-person or e-visit encounter with a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency care location within 12 months of the survey, and were mostly White (76.5%) women (73.3%) with health insurance (88.9%). Of the patients who sought care, 52.8% had severe interictal burden measured by Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4 score, compared with 23.1% of patients who did not seek care. Compared with patients who did not seek care, those who did visit a health care setting for migraine had a higher percentage of severe migraine-related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (36.7% vs 14.6%) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia as measured by the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (21.0% vs 7.4%).

In a multivariable logistic regression model analysis, Dr. Ashina and colleagues said the factors most associated with seeking care included severe interictal burden (odds ratio [OR], 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-2.8), severe migraine-related disability (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 2.0-2.3), and severe ictal allodynia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.8), compared with less severe factors.

The researchers said their results have “significant implications for public health and advocacy efforts.”

“As seen through three decades of epidemiological research in the United States, rates of care-seeking have not improved dramatically over time despite significant additions to scientific knowledge and the therapeutic armamentarium, leaving a significant unmet need. This is also important from a clinical perspective,” they explained. “Health care professionals in primary care and internal medicine most likely see patients with migraine who do not discuss it during visits. This underscores the importance of maintaining vigilance for migraine, especially among those who may experience greater disability, impact, and interictal burden.”
 

Asking the Right Questions

Asked to comment on the research, Robert P. Cowan, MD, a neurologist and professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine department of neurology and neurological sciences in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview that the value of the paper is in what it does not say about the main reasons patients seek care.

“Most clinicians readily acknowledge that the average number of migraine headache days per month is, at best, a weak predictor of which patients seek care and when,” he said.

Dr. Cowan said that most patients are referred to him by other providers, and when he asks them why they did not seek care for migraine sooner, the answer is usually because the migraine was not severe enough or because over-the-counter medication had previously worked for them. He noted that change in frequency is, in his experience, a primary reason why patients will seek care. “[F]or new (or increasing) headache, it is the concern that the headaches are something more ‘serious,’ and once that is ruled out, the conversation often stops,” he said. “For long-standing migraine sufferers, it is the perception that the headache is a ‘fact of life’ and does not rise to the bar of seeking medical advice.”

The questions a survey or a provider asks matters, Dr. Cowan said. “Often, when we ask a patient how many headache (or migraine) days per month, the answer is in single digits. But if we follow-up with a question about the number of headache-free days [per] month, the answer is ‘never’ or ‘hardly ever,’” he explained. “The point here is that what questions a survey (or a provider) asks introduces a clear bias. The use of machine learning instruments, especially when utilizing supervised learning, only reinforces and amplifies the bias of the designers of the categories.”

Epidemiologic studies are interesting but “often ask the wrong questions,” Dr. Cowan said. “I am less worried about the ... 49% of migraine or possible migraine patients who do not seek care and do [not] progress to more disabling ‘chronic’ migraine than I am with identifying the subpopulations of migraine patients who seek care from providers who do not have adequate tools to match patients to the best treatments.”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, consultancies, employment, honoraria, research support, speakers bureau positions, stock ownership, and teaching services with AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Allay Lamp, Allergan, Amgen, Axon, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Collegium, CoolTech, Currax, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (Promius), electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, Impel NeuroPharma, Informa, Eli Lilly and Company, Lundbeck, Mainistee, Merck, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Satsuma, Supernus, Percept, Teva, Theranica, UpsherSmith, the US Food and Drug Administration, Vector, Vedanta Research, and Wolff’s Headache. The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Cowan reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

There is a significant association between higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia in patients who sought medical care for migraine, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

“[T]he burden and impact of migraine on the individual both during and between attacks were identified through supervised machine learning models to be strongly associated with seeking care,” Sait Ashina, MD, of the department of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Ashina and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study of 61,826 patients from the web-based ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME) study with migraine who visited a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency setting for headache between 2018 and 2020.

The patients recruited for OBSERVE were a mean of 41.7 years old and had experienced migraines for an average of 19.0 years; 59.4% had between 0 and 3 average headache days per month, 74.5% were women, 78.8% were White, and 85.4% had health insurance; and they were demographically representative of the US population.

Researchers used a machine learning model, which consisted of random forest and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithms, to identify the relationship between patients who sought care for migraine and 54 different clinical, sociodemographic, and migraine-associated factors, which included age, years with migraine, symptom scores, pain intensity scores, disability score, comorbidities, vomiting, presence and severity of allodynia, and other factors.

The results showed 31,529 patients (51.0%) had an in-person or e-visit encounter with a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency care location within 12 months of the survey, and were mostly White (76.5%) women (73.3%) with health insurance (88.9%). Of the patients who sought care, 52.8% had severe interictal burden measured by Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4 score, compared with 23.1% of patients who did not seek care. Compared with patients who did not seek care, those who did visit a health care setting for migraine had a higher percentage of severe migraine-related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (36.7% vs 14.6%) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia as measured by the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (21.0% vs 7.4%).

In a multivariable logistic regression model analysis, Dr. Ashina and colleagues said the factors most associated with seeking care included severe interictal burden (odds ratio [OR], 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-2.8), severe migraine-related disability (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 2.0-2.3), and severe ictal allodynia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.8), compared with less severe factors.

The researchers said their results have “significant implications for public health and advocacy efforts.”

“As seen through three decades of epidemiological research in the United States, rates of care-seeking have not improved dramatically over time despite significant additions to scientific knowledge and the therapeutic armamentarium, leaving a significant unmet need. This is also important from a clinical perspective,” they explained. “Health care professionals in primary care and internal medicine most likely see patients with migraine who do not discuss it during visits. This underscores the importance of maintaining vigilance for migraine, especially among those who may experience greater disability, impact, and interictal burden.”
 

Asking the Right Questions

Asked to comment on the research, Robert P. Cowan, MD, a neurologist and professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine department of neurology and neurological sciences in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview that the value of the paper is in what it does not say about the main reasons patients seek care.

“Most clinicians readily acknowledge that the average number of migraine headache days per month is, at best, a weak predictor of which patients seek care and when,” he said.

Dr. Cowan said that most patients are referred to him by other providers, and when he asks them why they did not seek care for migraine sooner, the answer is usually because the migraine was not severe enough or because over-the-counter medication had previously worked for them. He noted that change in frequency is, in his experience, a primary reason why patients will seek care. “[F]or new (or increasing) headache, it is the concern that the headaches are something more ‘serious,’ and once that is ruled out, the conversation often stops,” he said. “For long-standing migraine sufferers, it is the perception that the headache is a ‘fact of life’ and does not rise to the bar of seeking medical advice.”

The questions a survey or a provider asks matters, Dr. Cowan said. “Often, when we ask a patient how many headache (or migraine) days per month, the answer is in single digits. But if we follow-up with a question about the number of headache-free days [per] month, the answer is ‘never’ or ‘hardly ever,’” he explained. “The point here is that what questions a survey (or a provider) asks introduces a clear bias. The use of machine learning instruments, especially when utilizing supervised learning, only reinforces and amplifies the bias of the designers of the categories.”

Epidemiologic studies are interesting but “often ask the wrong questions,” Dr. Cowan said. “I am less worried about the ... 49% of migraine or possible migraine patients who do not seek care and do [not] progress to more disabling ‘chronic’ migraine than I am with identifying the subpopulations of migraine patients who seek care from providers who do not have adequate tools to match patients to the best treatments.”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, consultancies, employment, honoraria, research support, speakers bureau positions, stock ownership, and teaching services with AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Allay Lamp, Allergan, Amgen, Axon, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Collegium, CoolTech, Currax, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (Promius), electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, Impel NeuroPharma, Informa, Eli Lilly and Company, Lundbeck, Mainistee, Merck, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Satsuma, Supernus, Percept, Teva, Theranica, UpsherSmith, the US Food and Drug Administration, Vector, Vedanta Research, and Wolff’s Headache. The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Cowan reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

There is a significant association between higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia in patients who sought medical care for migraine, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

“[T]he burden and impact of migraine on the individual both during and between attacks were identified through supervised machine learning models to be strongly associated with seeking care,” Sait Ashina, MD, of the department of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Ashina and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study of 61,826 patients from the web-based ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME) study with migraine who visited a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency setting for headache between 2018 and 2020.

The patients recruited for OBSERVE were a mean of 41.7 years old and had experienced migraines for an average of 19.0 years; 59.4% had between 0 and 3 average headache days per month, 74.5% were women, 78.8% were White, and 85.4% had health insurance; and they were demographically representative of the US population.

Researchers used a machine learning model, which consisted of random forest and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithms, to identify the relationship between patients who sought care for migraine and 54 different clinical, sociodemographic, and migraine-associated factors, which included age, years with migraine, symptom scores, pain intensity scores, disability score, comorbidities, vomiting, presence and severity of allodynia, and other factors.

The results showed 31,529 patients (51.0%) had an in-person or e-visit encounter with a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency care location within 12 months of the survey, and were mostly White (76.5%) women (73.3%) with health insurance (88.9%). Of the patients who sought care, 52.8% had severe interictal burden measured by Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4 score, compared with 23.1% of patients who did not seek care. Compared with patients who did not seek care, those who did visit a health care setting for migraine had a higher percentage of severe migraine-related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (36.7% vs 14.6%) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia as measured by the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (21.0% vs 7.4%).

In a multivariable logistic regression model analysis, Dr. Ashina and colleagues said the factors most associated with seeking care included severe interictal burden (odds ratio [OR], 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-2.8), severe migraine-related disability (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 2.0-2.3), and severe ictal allodynia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.8), compared with less severe factors.

The researchers said their results have “significant implications for public health and advocacy efforts.”

“As seen through three decades of epidemiological research in the United States, rates of care-seeking have not improved dramatically over time despite significant additions to scientific knowledge and the therapeutic armamentarium, leaving a significant unmet need. This is also important from a clinical perspective,” they explained. “Health care professionals in primary care and internal medicine most likely see patients with migraine who do not discuss it during visits. This underscores the importance of maintaining vigilance for migraine, especially among those who may experience greater disability, impact, and interictal burden.”
 

Asking the Right Questions

Asked to comment on the research, Robert P. Cowan, MD, a neurologist and professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine department of neurology and neurological sciences in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview that the value of the paper is in what it does not say about the main reasons patients seek care.

“Most clinicians readily acknowledge that the average number of migraine headache days per month is, at best, a weak predictor of which patients seek care and when,” he said.

Dr. Cowan said that most patients are referred to him by other providers, and when he asks them why they did not seek care for migraine sooner, the answer is usually because the migraine was not severe enough or because over-the-counter medication had previously worked for them. He noted that change in frequency is, in his experience, a primary reason why patients will seek care. “[F]or new (or increasing) headache, it is the concern that the headaches are something more ‘serious,’ and once that is ruled out, the conversation often stops,” he said. “For long-standing migraine sufferers, it is the perception that the headache is a ‘fact of life’ and does not rise to the bar of seeking medical advice.”

The questions a survey or a provider asks matters, Dr. Cowan said. “Often, when we ask a patient how many headache (or migraine) days per month, the answer is in single digits. But if we follow-up with a question about the number of headache-free days [per] month, the answer is ‘never’ or ‘hardly ever,’” he explained. “The point here is that what questions a survey (or a provider) asks introduces a clear bias. The use of machine learning instruments, especially when utilizing supervised learning, only reinforces and amplifies the bias of the designers of the categories.”

Epidemiologic studies are interesting but “often ask the wrong questions,” Dr. Cowan said. “I am less worried about the ... 49% of migraine or possible migraine patients who do not seek care and do [not] progress to more disabling ‘chronic’ migraine than I am with identifying the subpopulations of migraine patients who seek care from providers who do not have adequate tools to match patients to the best treatments.”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, consultancies, employment, honoraria, research support, speakers bureau positions, stock ownership, and teaching services with AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Allay Lamp, Allergan, Amgen, Axon, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Collegium, CoolTech, Currax, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (Promius), electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, Impel NeuroPharma, Informa, Eli Lilly and Company, Lundbeck, Mainistee, Merck, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Satsuma, Supernus, Percept, Teva, Theranica, UpsherSmith, the US Food and Drug Administration, Vector, Vedanta Research, and Wolff’s Headache. The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Cowan reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

Irisin levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are significantly lower among patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and levels positively correlate with amyloid beta 1-42 (Abeta42), increasing support for this emerging Alzheimer’s disease biomarker, according to investigators.

Irisin, a hormone released by muscles during physical exercise, also negatively correlated with Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB) in female patients, pointing to a sex-specific disease phenomenon, reported by co-lead authors Manuela Dicarlo, PhD, and Patrizia Pignataro, MSc, of the University of Bari “A. Moro,” Bari, Italy, and colleagues.

Regular physical exercise can slow cognitive decline in individuals at risk for or with Alzheimer’s disease, and irisin appears to play a key role in this process, the investigators wrote in Annals of Neurology. Previous studies have shown that increased irisin levels in the brain are associated with improved cognitive function and reduced amyloid beta levels, suggesting the hormone’s potential as a biomarker and therapeutic target for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Based on the protective effect of irisin in Alzheimer’s disease shown in animal and cell models, the goal of the present study was to investigate the levels of irisin in the biological fluids of a large cohort of patients biologically characterized according to the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (ATN) scheme of the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association (NIA-AA),” Dr. Dicarlo and colleagues wrote. “We aimed to understand whether there may be variations of irisin levels across the disease stages, identified through the ATN system.”
 

Lower Levels of Irisin Seen in Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease

The study included 82 patients with Alzheimer’s disease, 44 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 20 with subjective memory complaints (SMC). Participants underwent comprehensive assessments, including neurological and neuropsychological exams, nutritional evaluations, MRI scans, and routine lab tests. Cognitive impairment severity was measured using the CDR-SOB and other metrics.

Blood and CSF samples were collected from all patients, the latter via lumbar puncture. These samples were analyzed for irisin levels and known Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers, including Abeta42, total tau (t-tau), and hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau).

Mean CSF irisin levels were significantly lower among patients with Alzheimer’s disease than those with SMC (0.80 vs 1.23 pg/mL; P < .0001), and among those with MCI vs SMC (0.95 vs 1.23 pg/mL; P = .046). Among patients with Alzheimer’s disease, irisin levels were significantly lower among women than men (0.70 vs 0.96 pg/mL; P = .031).

Further analyses revealed positive correlations between CSF irisin level and Abeta42 in both males (r = 0.262; P < 005) and females (r = 0.379; P < .001). Conversely, in female patients, a significant negative correlation was found between CSF irisin level and CDR-SOB score (r = −0.234; P < .05).

Although a negative trend was observed between CSF irisin and total tau (t-tau) in the overall patient population (r = −0.144; P = 0.082), and more notably in female patients (r = −0.189; P = 0.084), these results were not statistically significant.

Plasma irisin levels were not significantly correlated with any of the other biomarkers.
 

Clinical Implications

This study “verifies that irisin levels do have a relationship to the Alzheimer’s disease process,” said Dylan Wint, MD, director of Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas.

In a written comment, Dr. Wint speculated that measuring irisin levels could theoretically help individualize physical exercise routines designed to combat cognitive decline.

“For example, maybe someone who is exercising but has a low irisin level would need to change the type of exercise they’re doing in order to optimally protect their brain health,” he said. “Or maybe they won’t get the same benefits for brain health as someone whose irisin shoots up every time they walk a flight of stairs.”

Cleveland Clinic

It’s “near-impossible to tell,” however, if irisin will be employed in clinical trials or real-world practice, he added.

“I don’t see this being a highly useful serum biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease itself because other serum biomarkers are so far ahead and have more face validity,” Dr. Wint said.

The route of collection could also cause challenges.

“In the United States, CSF-based biomarkers can be a difficult sell, especially for serial testing,” Dr. Wint said. “But we have usable serum biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease only because we have had CSF biomarkers against which to evaluate them. They may develop a way to evaluate this in the serum.”

Dr. Dicarlo and colleagues suggested that more work is needed to determine the ultimate value of irisin measurement.“The true ability of irisin to represent a biomarker of disease progression and severity remains to be further investigated,” they concluded. “However, our findings might offer interesting perspectives toward the potential role of irisin in the modulation of AD pathology and can guide the exploration of medication targeting the irisin system.”

The study was supported by Regione Puglia and CNR for Tecnopolo per la Medicina di Precisione, CIREMIC, the University of Bari, and Next Generation EU. The investigators and Dr. Wint disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Irisin levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are significantly lower among patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and levels positively correlate with amyloid beta 1-42 (Abeta42), increasing support for this emerging Alzheimer’s disease biomarker, according to investigators.

Irisin, a hormone released by muscles during physical exercise, also negatively correlated with Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB) in female patients, pointing to a sex-specific disease phenomenon, reported by co-lead authors Manuela Dicarlo, PhD, and Patrizia Pignataro, MSc, of the University of Bari “A. Moro,” Bari, Italy, and colleagues.

Regular physical exercise can slow cognitive decline in individuals at risk for or with Alzheimer’s disease, and irisin appears to play a key role in this process, the investigators wrote in Annals of Neurology. Previous studies have shown that increased irisin levels in the brain are associated with improved cognitive function and reduced amyloid beta levels, suggesting the hormone’s potential as a biomarker and therapeutic target for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Based on the protective effect of irisin in Alzheimer’s disease shown in animal and cell models, the goal of the present study was to investigate the levels of irisin in the biological fluids of a large cohort of patients biologically characterized according to the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (ATN) scheme of the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association (NIA-AA),” Dr. Dicarlo and colleagues wrote. “We aimed to understand whether there may be variations of irisin levels across the disease stages, identified through the ATN system.”
 

Lower Levels of Irisin Seen in Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease

The study included 82 patients with Alzheimer’s disease, 44 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 20 with subjective memory complaints (SMC). Participants underwent comprehensive assessments, including neurological and neuropsychological exams, nutritional evaluations, MRI scans, and routine lab tests. Cognitive impairment severity was measured using the CDR-SOB and other metrics.

Blood and CSF samples were collected from all patients, the latter via lumbar puncture. These samples were analyzed for irisin levels and known Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers, including Abeta42, total tau (t-tau), and hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau).

Mean CSF irisin levels were significantly lower among patients with Alzheimer’s disease than those with SMC (0.80 vs 1.23 pg/mL; P < .0001), and among those with MCI vs SMC (0.95 vs 1.23 pg/mL; P = .046). Among patients with Alzheimer’s disease, irisin levels were significantly lower among women than men (0.70 vs 0.96 pg/mL; P = .031).

Further analyses revealed positive correlations between CSF irisin level and Abeta42 in both males (r = 0.262; P < 005) and females (r = 0.379; P < .001). Conversely, in female patients, a significant negative correlation was found between CSF irisin level and CDR-SOB score (r = −0.234; P < .05).

Although a negative trend was observed between CSF irisin and total tau (t-tau) in the overall patient population (r = −0.144; P = 0.082), and more notably in female patients (r = −0.189; P = 0.084), these results were not statistically significant.

Plasma irisin levels were not significantly correlated with any of the other biomarkers.
 

Clinical Implications

This study “verifies that irisin levels do have a relationship to the Alzheimer’s disease process,” said Dylan Wint, MD, director of Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas.

In a written comment, Dr. Wint speculated that measuring irisin levels could theoretically help individualize physical exercise routines designed to combat cognitive decline.

“For example, maybe someone who is exercising but has a low irisin level would need to change the type of exercise they’re doing in order to optimally protect their brain health,” he said. “Or maybe they won’t get the same benefits for brain health as someone whose irisin shoots up every time they walk a flight of stairs.”

Cleveland Clinic

It’s “near-impossible to tell,” however, if irisin will be employed in clinical trials or real-world practice, he added.

“I don’t see this being a highly useful serum biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease itself because other serum biomarkers are so far ahead and have more face validity,” Dr. Wint said.

The route of collection could also cause challenges.

“In the United States, CSF-based biomarkers can be a difficult sell, especially for serial testing,” Dr. Wint said. “But we have usable serum biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease only because we have had CSF biomarkers against which to evaluate them. They may develop a way to evaluate this in the serum.”

Dr. Dicarlo and colleagues suggested that more work is needed to determine the ultimate value of irisin measurement.“The true ability of irisin to represent a biomarker of disease progression and severity remains to be further investigated,” they concluded. “However, our findings might offer interesting perspectives toward the potential role of irisin in the modulation of AD pathology and can guide the exploration of medication targeting the irisin system.”

The study was supported by Regione Puglia and CNR for Tecnopolo per la Medicina di Precisione, CIREMIC, the University of Bari, and Next Generation EU. The investigators and Dr. Wint disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Irisin levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are significantly lower among patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and levels positively correlate with amyloid beta 1-42 (Abeta42), increasing support for this emerging Alzheimer’s disease biomarker, according to investigators.

Irisin, a hormone released by muscles during physical exercise, also negatively correlated with Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB) in female patients, pointing to a sex-specific disease phenomenon, reported by co-lead authors Manuela Dicarlo, PhD, and Patrizia Pignataro, MSc, of the University of Bari “A. Moro,” Bari, Italy, and colleagues.

Regular physical exercise can slow cognitive decline in individuals at risk for or with Alzheimer’s disease, and irisin appears to play a key role in this process, the investigators wrote in Annals of Neurology. Previous studies have shown that increased irisin levels in the brain are associated with improved cognitive function and reduced amyloid beta levels, suggesting the hormone’s potential as a biomarker and therapeutic target for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Based on the protective effect of irisin in Alzheimer’s disease shown in animal and cell models, the goal of the present study was to investigate the levels of irisin in the biological fluids of a large cohort of patients biologically characterized according to the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (ATN) scheme of the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association (NIA-AA),” Dr. Dicarlo and colleagues wrote. “We aimed to understand whether there may be variations of irisin levels across the disease stages, identified through the ATN system.”
 

Lower Levels of Irisin Seen in Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease

The study included 82 patients with Alzheimer’s disease, 44 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 20 with subjective memory complaints (SMC). Participants underwent comprehensive assessments, including neurological and neuropsychological exams, nutritional evaluations, MRI scans, and routine lab tests. Cognitive impairment severity was measured using the CDR-SOB and other metrics.

Blood and CSF samples were collected from all patients, the latter via lumbar puncture. These samples were analyzed for irisin levels and known Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers, including Abeta42, total tau (t-tau), and hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau).

Mean CSF irisin levels were significantly lower among patients with Alzheimer’s disease than those with SMC (0.80 vs 1.23 pg/mL; P < .0001), and among those with MCI vs SMC (0.95 vs 1.23 pg/mL; P = .046). Among patients with Alzheimer’s disease, irisin levels were significantly lower among women than men (0.70 vs 0.96 pg/mL; P = .031).

Further analyses revealed positive correlations between CSF irisin level and Abeta42 in both males (r = 0.262; P < 005) and females (r = 0.379; P < .001). Conversely, in female patients, a significant negative correlation was found between CSF irisin level and CDR-SOB score (r = −0.234; P < .05).

Although a negative trend was observed between CSF irisin and total tau (t-tau) in the overall patient population (r = −0.144; P = 0.082), and more notably in female patients (r = −0.189; P = 0.084), these results were not statistically significant.

Plasma irisin levels were not significantly correlated with any of the other biomarkers.
 

Clinical Implications

This study “verifies that irisin levels do have a relationship to the Alzheimer’s disease process,” said Dylan Wint, MD, director of Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas.

In a written comment, Dr. Wint speculated that measuring irisin levels could theoretically help individualize physical exercise routines designed to combat cognitive decline.

“For example, maybe someone who is exercising but has a low irisin level would need to change the type of exercise they’re doing in order to optimally protect their brain health,” he said. “Or maybe they won’t get the same benefits for brain health as someone whose irisin shoots up every time they walk a flight of stairs.”

Cleveland Clinic

It’s “near-impossible to tell,” however, if irisin will be employed in clinical trials or real-world practice, he added.

“I don’t see this being a highly useful serum biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease itself because other serum biomarkers are so far ahead and have more face validity,” Dr. Wint said.

The route of collection could also cause challenges.

“In the United States, CSF-based biomarkers can be a difficult sell, especially for serial testing,” Dr. Wint said. “But we have usable serum biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease only because we have had CSF biomarkers against which to evaluate them. They may develop a way to evaluate this in the serum.”

Dr. Dicarlo and colleagues suggested that more work is needed to determine the ultimate value of irisin measurement.“The true ability of irisin to represent a biomarker of disease progression and severity remains to be further investigated,” they concluded. “However, our findings might offer interesting perspectives toward the potential role of irisin in the modulation of AD pathology and can guide the exploration of medication targeting the irisin system.”

The study was supported by Regione Puglia and CNR for Tecnopolo per la Medicina di Precisione, CIREMIC, the University of Bari, and Next Generation EU. The investigators and Dr. Wint disclosed no conflicts of interest.

As the availability of potential biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease drives the debate around diagnosing prodromal Parkinson’s disease (pPD) from theory to practice, said authors of a recent study, clinicians should weigh each patient’s preferences, circumstances, and goals against the potential benefits and harms of disclosure. The study and an accompanying editorial appeared online in Neurology.

Because markers such as SNCA, LRRK2, and GBA mutations impact small subgroups of patients at risk of developing monogenic forms of Parkinson’s disease, wrote Richard N. Rees, MBChB, MD, from the Department of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, and colleagues, researchers are working to identify people at risk of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease using models based on known risk and protective factors. The recent development of highly accurate cerebrospinal fluid (and potentially serum) alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays, which may show Parkinson’s disease’s signature before overt symptoms appear, will reinforce these efforts, authors added.
 

‘Tap the Brakes’

However, sources interviewed by Neurology Reviews counseled caution with potential prodromal Parkinson’s disease biomarkers. “As the science advances in Parkinson’s disease and related disorders,” said Michael S. Okun, MD, “our ability to predict who will and will not be diagnosed will improve. We should, however, tap the brakes and consider the consequences of making a diagnosis in someone at risk — especially someone without symptoms.” Dr. Okun is National Medical Advisor to the Parkinson’s Foundation and director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at University of Florida Health in Gainesville, Florida. He was not involved with the study.

Neurologists should ask themselves why they are testing for Parkinson’s disease biomarkers, said Dr. Okun, and what counseling and shared decision-making they provided beforehand. “This already complex scenario becomes even more complicated when we consider that many people with GBA gene mutations and some with LRRK2 mutations may never actually manifest Parkinson’s disease.”

A Holistic Approach to Shared Decision-Making

To avoid needlessly scaring patients, Dr. Hoy suggested broaching the topic of Parkinson’s disease biomarkers during advance care planning. “In the same conversation that you might talk about establishing surrogate decision-makers or potential do-not-resuscitate/intubate orders, you can talk about the potential of predictive testing, which is becoming more prevalent across domains of clinical practice.”

Understanding each patient’s values, preferences, and priorities requires a holistic approach, he said. “In the context of prodromal Parkinson’s disease, the benefits of enrolling in a new clinical trial or implementing lifestyle changes might vary depending on the person. Do you think this person would be likely to enroll in a clinical trial or implement those lifestyle changes?” Additionally, he recommended considering how a patient might react to a false diagnosis.

Whereas a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment might not lead to Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, wrote Dr. Rees and colleagues, growing evidence including a review published in Neurology in 2022 supports the accuracy of alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays in detecting both established and prodromal Parkinson’s disease. For people thusly diagnosed, Dr. Rees and colleagues wrote, the psychosocial burden of inevitable progression could create feelings of helplessness, possibly undermining benefits of early knowledge.

Beyond patients’ reactions, said Dr. Hoy, a diagnosis of prodromal Parkinson’s disease could result in social stigma, changes to interpersonal relationships, or discrimination. “Understanding the implications and uncertainties of potential disclosure, relative to what a person would want to know or might be able to do about it, will be the key for deciding when is the right time,” he said.
 

Supporting Primary Care

As the shared decision-making burden likely will fall to primary care providers, Dr. Hoy added, neurologists should prioritize increasing these providers’ capacity to advise and refer patients appropriately. Although it is too soon to develop clinical guidelines, he said, neurologists could help educate such providers about pPD and the growing availability of promising biomarkers.

“Parkinson’s is thought of as a movement disorder first and foremost,” said Dr. Hoy. However, various non-motor symptoms including sleep problems, depression, anxiety, apathy, constipation, and gastrointestinal issues often appear before movement-related symptoms during the prodromal phase.

As potentially the first line of defense against prodromal Parkinson’s disease, primary care providers also should know the distinction between early and timely diagnosis, added Dr. Hoy. Introduced by Dr. Rees and colleagues in a 2018 review published in F1000Research, timely diagnosis balances patient preferences, the availability and efficacy of DMT, and health systems’ ability to support and manage individuals at every stage of disease.

The current study was funded by a Parkinson’s UK grant (which paid Dr. Rees’s salary). The editorial was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative award, a grant from the National Institute on Aging, and a Wellcome Discovery Award. Dr. Hoy reported no relevant disclosures.

As the availability of potential biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease drives the debate around diagnosing prodromal Parkinson’s disease (pPD) from theory to practice, said authors of a recent study, clinicians should weigh each patient’s preferences, circumstances, and goals against the potential benefits and harms of disclosure. The study and an accompanying editorial appeared online in Neurology.

Because markers such as SNCA, LRRK2, and GBA mutations impact small subgroups of patients at risk of developing monogenic forms of Parkinson’s disease, wrote Richard N. Rees, MBChB, MD, from the Department of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, and colleagues, researchers are working to identify people at risk of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease using models based on known risk and protective factors. The recent development of highly accurate cerebrospinal fluid (and potentially serum) alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays, which may show Parkinson’s disease’s signature before overt symptoms appear, will reinforce these efforts, authors added.
 

‘Tap the Brakes’

However, sources interviewed by Neurology Reviews counseled caution with potential prodromal Parkinson’s disease biomarkers. “As the science advances in Parkinson’s disease and related disorders,” said Michael S. Okun, MD, “our ability to predict who will and will not be diagnosed will improve. We should, however, tap the brakes and consider the consequences of making a diagnosis in someone at risk — especially someone without symptoms.” Dr. Okun is National Medical Advisor to the Parkinson’s Foundation and director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at University of Florida Health in Gainesville, Florida. He was not involved with the study.

Neurologists should ask themselves why they are testing for Parkinson’s disease biomarkers, said Dr. Okun, and what counseling and shared decision-making they provided beforehand. “This already complex scenario becomes even more complicated when we consider that many people with GBA gene mutations and some with LRRK2 mutations may never actually manifest Parkinson’s disease.”

A Holistic Approach to Shared Decision-Making

To avoid needlessly scaring patients, Dr. Hoy suggested broaching the topic of Parkinson’s disease biomarkers during advance care planning. “In the same conversation that you might talk about establishing surrogate decision-makers or potential do-not-resuscitate/intubate orders, you can talk about the potential of predictive testing, which is becoming more prevalent across domains of clinical practice.”

Understanding each patient’s values, preferences, and priorities requires a holistic approach, he said. “In the context of prodromal Parkinson’s disease, the benefits of enrolling in a new clinical trial or implementing lifestyle changes might vary depending on the person. Do you think this person would be likely to enroll in a clinical trial or implement those lifestyle changes?” Additionally, he recommended considering how a patient might react to a false diagnosis.

Whereas a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment might not lead to Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, wrote Dr. Rees and colleagues, growing evidence including a review published in Neurology in 2022 supports the accuracy of alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays in detecting both established and prodromal Parkinson’s disease. For people thusly diagnosed, Dr. Rees and colleagues wrote, the psychosocial burden of inevitable progression could create feelings of helplessness, possibly undermining benefits of early knowledge.

Beyond patients’ reactions, said Dr. Hoy, a diagnosis of prodromal Parkinson’s disease could result in social stigma, changes to interpersonal relationships, or discrimination. “Understanding the implications and uncertainties of potential disclosure, relative to what a person would want to know or might be able to do about it, will be the key for deciding when is the right time,” he said.
 

Supporting Primary Care

As the shared decision-making burden likely will fall to primary care providers, Dr. Hoy added, neurologists should prioritize increasing these providers’ capacity to advise and refer patients appropriately. Although it is too soon to develop clinical guidelines, he said, neurologists could help educate such providers about pPD and the growing availability of promising biomarkers.

“Parkinson’s is thought of as a movement disorder first and foremost,” said Dr. Hoy. However, various non-motor symptoms including sleep problems, depression, anxiety, apathy, constipation, and gastrointestinal issues often appear before movement-related symptoms during the prodromal phase.

As potentially the first line of defense against prodromal Parkinson’s disease, primary care providers also should know the distinction between early and timely diagnosis, added Dr. Hoy. Introduced by Dr. Rees and colleagues in a 2018 review published in F1000Research, timely diagnosis balances patient preferences, the availability and efficacy of DMT, and health systems’ ability to support and manage individuals at every stage of disease.

The current study was funded by a Parkinson’s UK grant (which paid Dr. Rees’s salary). The editorial was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative award, a grant from the National Institute on Aging, and a Wellcome Discovery Award. Dr. Hoy reported no relevant disclosures.

As the availability of potential biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease drives the debate around diagnosing prodromal Parkinson’s disease (pPD) from theory to practice, said authors of a recent study, clinicians should weigh each patient’s preferences, circumstances, and goals against the potential benefits and harms of disclosure. The study and an accompanying editorial appeared online in Neurology.

Because markers such as SNCA, LRRK2, and GBA mutations impact small subgroups of patients at risk of developing monogenic forms of Parkinson’s disease, wrote Richard N. Rees, MBChB, MD, from the Department of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, and colleagues, researchers are working to identify people at risk of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease using models based on known risk and protective factors. The recent development of highly accurate cerebrospinal fluid (and potentially serum) alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays, which may show Parkinson’s disease’s signature before overt symptoms appear, will reinforce these efforts, authors added.
 

‘Tap the Brakes’

However, sources interviewed by Neurology Reviews counseled caution with potential prodromal Parkinson’s disease biomarkers. “As the science advances in Parkinson’s disease and related disorders,” said Michael S. Okun, MD, “our ability to predict who will and will not be diagnosed will improve. We should, however, tap the brakes and consider the consequences of making a diagnosis in someone at risk — especially someone without symptoms.” Dr. Okun is National Medical Advisor to the Parkinson’s Foundation and director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at University of Florida Health in Gainesville, Florida. He was not involved with the study.

Neurologists should ask themselves why they are testing for Parkinson’s disease biomarkers, said Dr. Okun, and what counseling and shared decision-making they provided beforehand. “This already complex scenario becomes even more complicated when we consider that many people with GBA gene mutations and some with LRRK2 mutations may never actually manifest Parkinson’s disease.”

A Holistic Approach to Shared Decision-Making

To avoid needlessly scaring patients, Dr. Hoy suggested broaching the topic of Parkinson’s disease biomarkers during advance care planning. “In the same conversation that you might talk about establishing surrogate decision-makers or potential do-not-resuscitate/intubate orders, you can talk about the potential of predictive testing, which is becoming more prevalent across domains of clinical practice.”

Understanding each patient’s values, preferences, and priorities requires a holistic approach, he said. “In the context of prodromal Parkinson’s disease, the benefits of enrolling in a new clinical trial or implementing lifestyle changes might vary depending on the person. Do you think this person would be likely to enroll in a clinical trial or implement those lifestyle changes?” Additionally, he recommended considering how a patient might react to a false diagnosis.

Whereas a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment might not lead to Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, wrote Dr. Rees and colleagues, growing evidence including a review published in Neurology in 2022 supports the accuracy of alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays in detecting both established and prodromal Parkinson’s disease. For people thusly diagnosed, Dr. Rees and colleagues wrote, the psychosocial burden of inevitable progression could create feelings of helplessness, possibly undermining benefits of early knowledge.

Beyond patients’ reactions, said Dr. Hoy, a diagnosis of prodromal Parkinson’s disease could result in social stigma, changes to interpersonal relationships, or discrimination. “Understanding the implications and uncertainties of potential disclosure, relative to what a person would want to know or might be able to do about it, will be the key for deciding when is the right time,” he said.
 

Supporting Primary Care

As the shared decision-making burden likely will fall to primary care providers, Dr. Hoy added, neurologists should prioritize increasing these providers’ capacity to advise and refer patients appropriately. Although it is too soon to develop clinical guidelines, he said, neurologists could help educate such providers about pPD and the growing availability of promising biomarkers.

“Parkinson’s is thought of as a movement disorder first and foremost,” said Dr. Hoy. However, various non-motor symptoms including sleep problems, depression, anxiety, apathy, constipation, and gastrointestinal issues often appear before movement-related symptoms during the prodromal phase.

As potentially the first line of defense against prodromal Parkinson’s disease, primary care providers also should know the distinction between early and timely diagnosis, added Dr. Hoy. Introduced by Dr. Rees and colleagues in a 2018 review published in F1000Research, timely diagnosis balances patient preferences, the availability and efficacy of DMT, and health systems’ ability to support and manage individuals at every stage of disease.

The current study was funded by a Parkinson’s UK grant (which paid Dr. Rees’s salary). The editorial was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative award, a grant from the National Institute on Aging, and a Wellcome Discovery Award. Dr. Hoy reported no relevant disclosures.

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

Although the prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades, migraine-related disability has nearly doubled during that time, a new systematic review showed.

“The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social, and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling,” wrote lead investigator Fred Cohen, MD, of Center for Headache and Facial Pain, Department of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York City, and colleagues.

The study was published online in Headache.

Researchers conducted a systematic review of population-based US epidemiologic studies focusing on the prevalence and/or burden of migraine, all published before February 2022. Studies on migraine, episodic migraine, and/or chronic migraine were included.

The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), which measures days lost to migraine over a 3-month period in three domains and defines groups with moderate or severe disability (grades III and IV, respectively), using cut-scores.

Of 1609 studies initially reviewed, the researchers included 26 publications from 11 US population-based studies.

For the past 30 years, the prevalence of migraine in the population has remained largely stable, ranging from 12% to 15% in the overall population, from 17% to 19% in women, and from 6% to 7% in men.

In adults overall, chronic migraine prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% in women and 0.5% in men), while in adolescents, the prevalence is 0.8%.

Although prevalence remained roughly the same during the 30 years, the proportion of people with migraine and moderate to severe MIDAS disability (grades III-IV) has trended upward across studies during part of the study period, increasing from 22% in 2005 to 42% in 2018.

Throughout the years studied, a consistently higher proportion of women versus men were assigned MIDAS grades III-IV.

Although researchers said the exact reason for the increase is unknown, possible explanations include changes in study methodology from mailed questionnaires to web surveys or the decline in participation rate in web surveys. It is also possible that people with migraine may be more willing to report disability than they used to be, authors wrote.

Increased MIDAS scores may be attributable to some environmental risk factor that exacerbates migraine without modifying its prevalence, such as worsening air quality, an increase in natural disasters, or increased opioid use for migraine, they added.

The reason for increased moderate to severe disability in women may be attributable to the fact that migraine is “most common in mid-life, a period characterized by familial and work responsibilities, which may engender a higher risk of burden for working women,” authors wrote. The link between migraine attacks and menstrual cycles may also explain observed gender differences in disability.

In general, the most frequently reported burdens associated with migraine included missed work and school and family and social functioning.

It is “surprising that improvements in treatment have not been associated with reductions in disability,” researchers noted.

No financial support was provided for this study. Dr. Cohen serves as an assistant editor for Headache. He has received honoraria from Springer Nature and MedLink Neurology. Other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Although the prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades, migraine-related disability has nearly doubled during that time, a new systematic review showed.

“The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social, and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling,” wrote lead investigator Fred Cohen, MD, of Center for Headache and Facial Pain, Department of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York City, and colleagues.

The study was published online in Headache.

Researchers conducted a systematic review of population-based US epidemiologic studies focusing on the prevalence and/or burden of migraine, all published before February 2022. Studies on migraine, episodic migraine, and/or chronic migraine were included.

The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), which measures days lost to migraine over a 3-month period in three domains and defines groups with moderate or severe disability (grades III and IV, respectively), using cut-scores.

Of 1609 studies initially reviewed, the researchers included 26 publications from 11 US population-based studies.

For the past 30 years, the prevalence of migraine in the population has remained largely stable, ranging from 12% to 15% in the overall population, from 17% to 19% in women, and from 6% to 7% in men.

In adults overall, chronic migraine prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% in women and 0.5% in men), while in adolescents, the prevalence is 0.8%.

Although prevalence remained roughly the same during the 30 years, the proportion of people with migraine and moderate to severe MIDAS disability (grades III-IV) has trended upward across studies during part of the study period, increasing from 22% in 2005 to 42% in 2018.

Throughout the years studied, a consistently higher proportion of women versus men were assigned MIDAS grades III-IV.

Although researchers said the exact reason for the increase is unknown, possible explanations include changes in study methodology from mailed questionnaires to web surveys or the decline in participation rate in web surveys. It is also possible that people with migraine may be more willing to report disability than they used to be, authors wrote.

Increased MIDAS scores may be attributable to some environmental risk factor that exacerbates migraine without modifying its prevalence, such as worsening air quality, an increase in natural disasters, or increased opioid use for migraine, they added.

The reason for increased moderate to severe disability in women may be attributable to the fact that migraine is “most common in mid-life, a period characterized by familial and work responsibilities, which may engender a higher risk of burden for working women,” authors wrote. The link between migraine attacks and menstrual cycles may also explain observed gender differences in disability.

In general, the most frequently reported burdens associated with migraine included missed work and school and family and social functioning.

It is “surprising that improvements in treatment have not been associated with reductions in disability,” researchers noted.

No financial support was provided for this study. Dr. Cohen serves as an assistant editor for Headache. He has received honoraria from Springer Nature and MedLink Neurology. Other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Although the prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades, migraine-related disability has nearly doubled during that time, a new systematic review showed.

“The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social, and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling,” wrote lead investigator Fred Cohen, MD, of Center for Headache and Facial Pain, Department of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York City, and colleagues.

The study was published online in Headache.

Researchers conducted a systematic review of population-based US epidemiologic studies focusing on the prevalence and/or burden of migraine, all published before February 2022. Studies on migraine, episodic migraine, and/or chronic migraine were included.

The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), which measures days lost to migraine over a 3-month period in three domains and defines groups with moderate or severe disability (grades III and IV, respectively), using cut-scores.

Of 1609 studies initially reviewed, the researchers included 26 publications from 11 US population-based studies.

For the past 30 years, the prevalence of migraine in the population has remained largely stable, ranging from 12% to 15% in the overall population, from 17% to 19% in women, and from 6% to 7% in men.

In adults overall, chronic migraine prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% in women and 0.5% in men), while in adolescents, the prevalence is 0.8%.

Although prevalence remained roughly the same during the 30 years, the proportion of people with migraine and moderate to severe MIDAS disability (grades III-IV) has trended upward across studies during part of the study period, increasing from 22% in 2005 to 42% in 2018.

Throughout the years studied, a consistently higher proportion of women versus men were assigned MIDAS grades III-IV.

Although researchers said the exact reason for the increase is unknown, possible explanations include changes in study methodology from mailed questionnaires to web surveys or the decline in participation rate in web surveys. It is also possible that people with migraine may be more willing to report disability than they used to be, authors wrote.

Increased MIDAS scores may be attributable to some environmental risk factor that exacerbates migraine without modifying its prevalence, such as worsening air quality, an increase in natural disasters, or increased opioid use for migraine, they added.

The reason for increased moderate to severe disability in women may be attributable to the fact that migraine is “most common in mid-life, a period characterized by familial and work responsibilities, which may engender a higher risk of burden for working women,” authors wrote. The link between migraine attacks and menstrual cycles may also explain observed gender differences in disability.

In general, the most frequently reported burdens associated with migraine included missed work and school and family and social functioning.

It is “surprising that improvements in treatment have not been associated with reductions in disability,” researchers noted.

No financial support was provided for this study. Dr. Cohen serves as an assistant editor for Headache. He has received honoraria from Springer Nature and MedLink Neurology. Other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Consuming highly processed foods may be harmful to the aging brain, independent of other risk factors for adverse neurologic outcomes and adherence to recommended dietary patterns, new research suggests.

Observations from a large cohort of adults followed for more than 10 years suggested that eating more ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) may increase the risk for cognitive decline and stroke, while eating more unprocessed or minimally processed foods may lower the risk.

“The first key takeaway is that the type of food that we eat matters for brain health, but it’s equally important to think about how it’s made and handled when thinking about brain health,” said study investigator W. Taylor Kimberly, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“The second is that it’s not just all a bad news story because while increased consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment and stroke, unprocessed foods appear to be protective,” Dr. Kimberly added.

The study was published online on May 22 in Neurology.
 

Food Processing Matters

UPFs are highly manipulated, low in protein and fiber, and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

Unprocessed or minimally processed foods include meats such as simple cuts of beef, pork, and chicken, and vegetables and fruits.

Research has shown associations between high UPF consumption and increased risk for metabolic and neurologic disorders.

As reported previously, in the ELSA-Brasil study, higher intake of UPFs was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

Yet, it’s unclear whether the extent of food processing contributes to the risk of adverse neurologic outcomes independent of dietary patterns.

Dr. Kimberly and colleagues examined the association of food processing levels with the risk for cognitive impairment and stroke in the long-running REGARDS study, a large prospective US cohort of Black and White adults aged 45 years and older.

Food processing levels were defined by the NOVA food classification system, which ranges from unprocessed or minimally processed foods (NOVA1) to UPFs (NOVA4). Dietary patterns were characterized based on food frequency questionnaires.

In the cognitive impairment cohort, 768 of 14,175 adults without evidence of impairment at baseline who underwent follow-up testing developed cognitive impairment.
 

Diet an Opportunity to Protect Brain Health

In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, high blood pressure, and other factors, a 10% increase in relative intake of UPFs was associated with a 16% higher risk for cognitive impairment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16). Conversely, a higher intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 12% lower risk for cognitive impairment (HR, 0.88).

In the stroke cohort, 1108 of 20,243 adults without a history of stroke had a stroke during the follow-up.

In multivariable Cox models, greater intake of UPFs was associated with an 8% increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.08), while greater intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 9% lower risk for stroke (HR, 0.91).

The effect of UPFs on stroke risk was greater among Black than among White adults (UPF-by-race interaction HR, 1.15).

The associations between UPFs and both cognitive impairment and stroke were independent of adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, and the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

These results “highlight the possibility that we have the capacity to maintain our brain health and prevent poor brain health outcomes by focusing on unprocessed foods in the long term,” Dr. Kimberly said.

He cautioned that this was “an observational study and not an interventional study, so we can’t say with certainty that substituting ultra-processed foods with unprocessed foods will definitively improve brain health,” Dr. Kimberly said. “That’s a clinical trial question that has not been done but our results certainly are provocative.”
 

Consider UPFs in National Guidelines?

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the “robust” results from Kimberly and colleagues highlight the “significant role of food processing levels and their relationship with adverse neurologic outcomes, independent of conventional dietary patterns.”

Peipei Gao, MS, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Zhendong Mei, PhD, with Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted that the mechanisms underlying the impact of UPFs on adverse neurologic outcomes “can be attributed not only to their nutritional profiles,” including poor nutrient composition and high glycemic load, “but also to the presence of additives including emulsifiers, colorants, sweeteners, and nitrates/nitrites, which have been associated with disruptions in the gut microbial ecosystem and inflammation.

“Understanding how food processing levels are associated with human health offers a fresh take on the saying ‘you are what you eat,’ ” the editorialists wrote.

This new study, they noted, adds to the evidence by highlighting the link between UPFs and brain health, independent of traditional dietary patterns and “raises questions about whether considerations of UPFs should be included in dietary guidelines, as well as national and global public health policies for improving brain health.”

The editorialists called for large prospective population studies and randomized controlled trials to better understand the link between UPF consumption and brain health. “In addition, mechanistic studies are warranted to identify specific foods, detrimental processes, and additives that play a role in UPFs and their association with neurologic disorders,” they concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Consuming highly processed foods may be harmful to the aging brain, independent of other risk factors for adverse neurologic outcomes and adherence to recommended dietary patterns, new research suggests.

Observations from a large cohort of adults followed for more than 10 years suggested that eating more ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) may increase the risk for cognitive decline and stroke, while eating more unprocessed or minimally processed foods may lower the risk.

“The first key takeaway is that the type of food that we eat matters for brain health, but it’s equally important to think about how it’s made and handled when thinking about brain health,” said study investigator W. Taylor Kimberly, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“The second is that it’s not just all a bad news story because while increased consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment and stroke, unprocessed foods appear to be protective,” Dr. Kimberly added.

The study was published online on May 22 in Neurology.
 

Food Processing Matters

UPFs are highly manipulated, low in protein and fiber, and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

Unprocessed or minimally processed foods include meats such as simple cuts of beef, pork, and chicken, and vegetables and fruits.

Research has shown associations between high UPF consumption and increased risk for metabolic and neurologic disorders.

As reported previously, in the ELSA-Brasil study, higher intake of UPFs was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

Yet, it’s unclear whether the extent of food processing contributes to the risk of adverse neurologic outcomes independent of dietary patterns.

Dr. Kimberly and colleagues examined the association of food processing levels with the risk for cognitive impairment and stroke in the long-running REGARDS study, a large prospective US cohort of Black and White adults aged 45 years and older.

Food processing levels were defined by the NOVA food classification system, which ranges from unprocessed or minimally processed foods (NOVA1) to UPFs (NOVA4). Dietary patterns were characterized based on food frequency questionnaires.

In the cognitive impairment cohort, 768 of 14,175 adults without evidence of impairment at baseline who underwent follow-up testing developed cognitive impairment.
 

Diet an Opportunity to Protect Brain Health

In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, high blood pressure, and other factors, a 10% increase in relative intake of UPFs was associated with a 16% higher risk for cognitive impairment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16). Conversely, a higher intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 12% lower risk for cognitive impairment (HR, 0.88).

In the stroke cohort, 1108 of 20,243 adults without a history of stroke had a stroke during the follow-up.

In multivariable Cox models, greater intake of UPFs was associated with an 8% increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.08), while greater intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 9% lower risk for stroke (HR, 0.91).

The effect of UPFs on stroke risk was greater among Black than among White adults (UPF-by-race interaction HR, 1.15).

The associations between UPFs and both cognitive impairment and stroke were independent of adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, and the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

These results “highlight the possibility that we have the capacity to maintain our brain health and prevent poor brain health outcomes by focusing on unprocessed foods in the long term,” Dr. Kimberly said.

He cautioned that this was “an observational study and not an interventional study, so we can’t say with certainty that substituting ultra-processed foods with unprocessed foods will definitively improve brain health,” Dr. Kimberly said. “That’s a clinical trial question that has not been done but our results certainly are provocative.”
 

Consider UPFs in National Guidelines?

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the “robust” results from Kimberly and colleagues highlight the “significant role of food processing levels and their relationship with adverse neurologic outcomes, independent of conventional dietary patterns.”

Peipei Gao, MS, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Zhendong Mei, PhD, with Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted that the mechanisms underlying the impact of UPFs on adverse neurologic outcomes “can be attributed not only to their nutritional profiles,” including poor nutrient composition and high glycemic load, “but also to the presence of additives including emulsifiers, colorants, sweeteners, and nitrates/nitrites, which have been associated with disruptions in the gut microbial ecosystem and inflammation.

“Understanding how food processing levels are associated with human health offers a fresh take on the saying ‘you are what you eat,’ ” the editorialists wrote.

This new study, they noted, adds to the evidence by highlighting the link between UPFs and brain health, independent of traditional dietary patterns and “raises questions about whether considerations of UPFs should be included in dietary guidelines, as well as national and global public health policies for improving brain health.”

The editorialists called for large prospective population studies and randomized controlled trials to better understand the link between UPF consumption and brain health. “In addition, mechanistic studies are warranted to identify specific foods, detrimental processes, and additives that play a role in UPFs and their association with neurologic disorders,” they concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Consuming highly processed foods may be harmful to the aging brain, independent of other risk factors for adverse neurologic outcomes and adherence to recommended dietary patterns, new research suggests.

Observations from a large cohort of adults followed for more than 10 years suggested that eating more ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) may increase the risk for cognitive decline and stroke, while eating more unprocessed or minimally processed foods may lower the risk.

“The first key takeaway is that the type of food that we eat matters for brain health, but it’s equally important to think about how it’s made and handled when thinking about brain health,” said study investigator W. Taylor Kimberly, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“The second is that it’s not just all a bad news story because while increased consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment and stroke, unprocessed foods appear to be protective,” Dr. Kimberly added.

The study was published online on May 22 in Neurology.
 

Food Processing Matters

UPFs are highly manipulated, low in protein and fiber, and packed with added ingredients, including sugar, fat, and salt. Examples of UPFs are soft drinks, chips, chocolate, candy, ice cream, sweetened breakfast cereals, packaged soups, chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and fries.

Unprocessed or minimally processed foods include meats such as simple cuts of beef, pork, and chicken, and vegetables and fruits.

Research has shown associations between high UPF consumption and increased risk for metabolic and neurologic disorders.

As reported previously, in the ELSA-Brasil study, higher intake of UPFs was significantly associated with a faster rate of decline in executive and global cognitive function.

Yet, it’s unclear whether the extent of food processing contributes to the risk of adverse neurologic outcomes independent of dietary patterns.

Dr. Kimberly and colleagues examined the association of food processing levels with the risk for cognitive impairment and stroke in the long-running REGARDS study, a large prospective US cohort of Black and White adults aged 45 years and older.

Food processing levels were defined by the NOVA food classification system, which ranges from unprocessed or minimally processed foods (NOVA1) to UPFs (NOVA4). Dietary patterns were characterized based on food frequency questionnaires.

In the cognitive impairment cohort, 768 of 14,175 adults without evidence of impairment at baseline who underwent follow-up testing developed cognitive impairment.
 

Diet an Opportunity to Protect Brain Health

In multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, high blood pressure, and other factors, a 10% increase in relative intake of UPFs was associated with a 16% higher risk for cognitive impairment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16). Conversely, a higher intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 12% lower risk for cognitive impairment (HR, 0.88).

In the stroke cohort, 1108 of 20,243 adults without a history of stroke had a stroke during the follow-up.

In multivariable Cox models, greater intake of UPFs was associated with an 8% increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.08), while greater intake of unprocessed or minimally processed foods correlated with a 9% lower risk for stroke (HR, 0.91).

The effect of UPFs on stroke risk was greater among Black than among White adults (UPF-by-race interaction HR, 1.15).

The associations between UPFs and both cognitive impairment and stroke were independent of adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, and the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

These results “highlight the possibility that we have the capacity to maintain our brain health and prevent poor brain health outcomes by focusing on unprocessed foods in the long term,” Dr. Kimberly said.

He cautioned that this was “an observational study and not an interventional study, so we can’t say with certainty that substituting ultra-processed foods with unprocessed foods will definitively improve brain health,” Dr. Kimberly said. “That’s a clinical trial question that has not been done but our results certainly are provocative.”
 

Consider UPFs in National Guidelines?

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said the “robust” results from Kimberly and colleagues highlight the “significant role of food processing levels and their relationship with adverse neurologic outcomes, independent of conventional dietary patterns.”

Peipei Gao, MS, with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Zhendong Mei, PhD, with Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted that the mechanisms underlying the impact of UPFs on adverse neurologic outcomes “can be attributed not only to their nutritional profiles,” including poor nutrient composition and high glycemic load, “but also to the presence of additives including emulsifiers, colorants, sweeteners, and nitrates/nitrites, which have been associated with disruptions in the gut microbial ecosystem and inflammation.

“Understanding how food processing levels are associated with human health offers a fresh take on the saying ‘you are what you eat,’ ” the editorialists wrote.

This new study, they noted, adds to the evidence by highlighting the link between UPFs and brain health, independent of traditional dietary patterns and “raises questions about whether considerations of UPFs should be included in dietary guidelines, as well as national and global public health policies for improving brain health.”

The editorialists called for large prospective population studies and randomized controlled trials to better understand the link between UPF consumption and brain health. “In addition, mechanistic studies are warranted to identify specific foods, detrimental processes, and additives that play a role in UPFs and their association with neurologic disorders,” they concluded.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The authors and editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated in practices that have high rates of giving systemic care in the last two weeks of life do not have longer survival rates than patients in practices that have low rates of such care.

This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.

What Were the Main Findings?

“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.

“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”

An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
 

How Does This Study Add to the Literature?

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.

But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.

Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.

“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”

This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.

 

Could This Change Practice?

The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.

Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.

“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.

“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”

Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated in practices that have high rates of giving systemic care in the last two weeks of life do not have longer survival rates than patients in practices that have low rates of such care.

This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.

What Were the Main Findings?

“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.

“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”

An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
 

How Does This Study Add to the Literature?

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.

But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.

Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.

“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”

This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.

 

Could This Change Practice?

The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.

Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.

“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.

“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”

Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated in practices that have high rates of giving systemic care in the last two weeks of life do not have longer survival rates than patients in practices that have low rates of such care.

This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.

What Were the Main Findings?

“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.

“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”

An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
 

How Does This Study Add to the Literature?

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.

But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.

Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.

“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”

This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.

 

Could This Change Practice?

The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.

Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.

“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.

“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”

Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.