Neurology

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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

The risk for acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 appears to be significantly elevated in the first 3 days after the infection, new research shows.

The study among Medicare beneficiaries with COVID-19 also showed that stroke risk is higher for relatively young older adults, those aged 65 to 74 years, and those without a history of stroke.

The study highlights the impact COVID-19 has on the cardiovascular system, said study author Quanhe Yang, PhD, senior scientist, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

“Clinicians and patients should understand that stroke might be one of the very important clinical consequences of COVID-19.”

The study was presented during the hybrid International Stroke Conference held in New Orleans and online. The meeting was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. As an increasing number of people become infected with COVID-19, “it’s important to determine if there’s a relationship between COVID and the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Yang.

Findings from prior research examining the link between stroke and COVID-19 have been inconsistent, he noted. Some studies found an association while others did not, and in still others, the association was not as strong as expected.

Many factors may contribute to these inconsistent findings, said Dr. Yang, including differences in study design, inclusion criteria, comparison groups, sample sizes, and countries where the research was carried out. Dr. Yang pointed out that many of these studies were done in the early stages of the pandemic or didn’t include older adults, the population most at risk for stroke.

The current study included 19,553 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke. The median age at diagnosis of COVID-19 was 80.5 years, 57.5% were women, and more than 75% were non-Hispanic Whites.

To ensure the stroke occurred after a COVID infection, researchers used a self-controlled case series study design, a “within person” comparison between the risk period and the control period.

They divided the study period (Jan. 1, 2019 to Feb. 28, 2021) into the exposure or stroke risk periods after the COVID diagnosis (0-3 days; 4-7 days; 8-15 days; and 15-28 days) and control periods.

Strokes that occurred 7 days before or 28 days after a COVID diagnosis served as a control period. “Any stroke that occurred outside the risk window is in the control period,” explained Dr. Yang.

He added that the control period provides a baseline. “Without COVID-19, this is what I would expect” in terms of the number of strokes.

To estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR), investigators compared the incidence of acute ischemic stroke in the various risk periods with control periods.

The IRR was 10.97 (95% confidence interval, 10.30-11.68) at 0-3 days. The risk then quickly declined but stayed higher than the control period. The IRRs were: 1.59 (95% CI, 1.35-1.87) at 4-7 days; 1.23 (95% CI, 1.07-1.41) at 8-14 days; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18) at 15-28 days.

The temporary increase in stroke risk early after an infection isn’t novel; the pattern has been observed with influenza, respiratory infections, and shingles, said Dr. Yang. “But COVID-19 appears to be particularly risky.”

Although the mechanism driving the early increased stroke risk isn’t fully understood, it’s likely tied to an “exaggerated inflammatory response,” said Dr. Yang. This can trigger the cascade of events setting the stage for a stroke – a hypercoagulation state leading to the formation of blood clots that then block arteries to the brain, he said.

It’s also possible the infection directly affects endothelial cells, leading to rupture of plaque, again blocking arteries and raising stroke risks, added Dr. Yang.

The association was stronger among younger beneficiaries, aged 65 to 74 years, compared with those 85 years and older, a finding Dr. Yang said was somewhat surprising. But he noted other studies have found stroke patients with COVID are younger than stroke patients without COVID – by some 5 to 6 years.

“If COVID-19 disproportionately affects younger patients, that may explain the stronger association,” said Dr. Yang. “Stroke risk increases tremendously with age, so if you’re a younger age, your baseline stroke risk is lower.”

The association was also stronger among beneficiaries without a history of stroke. Again, this could be related to the stronger association among younger patients who are less likely to have suffered a stroke. The association was largely consistent across sex and race/ethnicities. 

Dr. Yang stressed that the findings need to be confirmed with further studies.

The study was carried out before widespread use of vaccinations in the U.S. Once those data are available, Dr. Yang and his colleagues plan to determine if vaccinations modify the association between COVID-19 and stroke risk.

The new results contribute to the mounting evidence that a COVID-19 infection “can actually affect multiple human organs structurally or functionally in addition to the impact on [the] respiratory system,” said Dr. Yang.

Some dates of COVID-19 diagnoses may be incorrect due to limited test availability, particularly early in the pandemic. Another limitation of the study was possible misclassification from the use of Medicare real-time preliminary claims.

In a provided statement, Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, chair of the ISC 2022 and professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, noted that the study focused on older adults because it was examining Medicare beneficiaries.

“But everyone is likely at risk for stroke after COVID,” she said. “Any infection is linked to stroke risk, probably because any infection will cause inflammation, and inflammation can cause clots or thrombus, which is the cause of stroke.”

There was no outside funding for the study. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

The risk for acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 appears to be significantly elevated in the first 3 days after the infection, new research shows.

The study among Medicare beneficiaries with COVID-19 also showed that stroke risk is higher for relatively young older adults, those aged 65 to 74 years, and those without a history of stroke.

The study highlights the impact COVID-19 has on the cardiovascular system, said study author Quanhe Yang, PhD, senior scientist, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

“Clinicians and patients should understand that stroke might be one of the very important clinical consequences of COVID-19.”

The study was presented during the hybrid International Stroke Conference held in New Orleans and online. The meeting was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. As an increasing number of people become infected with COVID-19, “it’s important to determine if there’s a relationship between COVID and the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Yang.

Findings from prior research examining the link between stroke and COVID-19 have been inconsistent, he noted. Some studies found an association while others did not, and in still others, the association was not as strong as expected.

Many factors may contribute to these inconsistent findings, said Dr. Yang, including differences in study design, inclusion criteria, comparison groups, sample sizes, and countries where the research was carried out. Dr. Yang pointed out that many of these studies were done in the early stages of the pandemic or didn’t include older adults, the population most at risk for stroke.

The current study included 19,553 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke. The median age at diagnosis of COVID-19 was 80.5 years, 57.5% were women, and more than 75% were non-Hispanic Whites.

To ensure the stroke occurred after a COVID infection, researchers used a self-controlled case series study design, a “within person” comparison between the risk period and the control period.

They divided the study period (Jan. 1, 2019 to Feb. 28, 2021) into the exposure or stroke risk periods after the COVID diagnosis (0-3 days; 4-7 days; 8-15 days; and 15-28 days) and control periods.

Strokes that occurred 7 days before or 28 days after a COVID diagnosis served as a control period. “Any stroke that occurred outside the risk window is in the control period,” explained Dr. Yang.

He added that the control period provides a baseline. “Without COVID-19, this is what I would expect” in terms of the number of strokes.

To estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR), investigators compared the incidence of acute ischemic stroke in the various risk periods with control periods.

The IRR was 10.97 (95% confidence interval, 10.30-11.68) at 0-3 days. The risk then quickly declined but stayed higher than the control period. The IRRs were: 1.59 (95% CI, 1.35-1.87) at 4-7 days; 1.23 (95% CI, 1.07-1.41) at 8-14 days; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18) at 15-28 days.

The temporary increase in stroke risk early after an infection isn’t novel; the pattern has been observed with influenza, respiratory infections, and shingles, said Dr. Yang. “But COVID-19 appears to be particularly risky.”

Although the mechanism driving the early increased stroke risk isn’t fully understood, it’s likely tied to an “exaggerated inflammatory response,” said Dr. Yang. This can trigger the cascade of events setting the stage for a stroke – a hypercoagulation state leading to the formation of blood clots that then block arteries to the brain, he said.

It’s also possible the infection directly affects endothelial cells, leading to rupture of plaque, again blocking arteries and raising stroke risks, added Dr. Yang.

The association was stronger among younger beneficiaries, aged 65 to 74 years, compared with those 85 years and older, a finding Dr. Yang said was somewhat surprising. But he noted other studies have found stroke patients with COVID are younger than stroke patients without COVID – by some 5 to 6 years.

“If COVID-19 disproportionately affects younger patients, that may explain the stronger association,” said Dr. Yang. “Stroke risk increases tremendously with age, so if you’re a younger age, your baseline stroke risk is lower.”

The association was also stronger among beneficiaries without a history of stroke. Again, this could be related to the stronger association among younger patients who are less likely to have suffered a stroke. The association was largely consistent across sex and race/ethnicities. 

Dr. Yang stressed that the findings need to be confirmed with further studies.

The study was carried out before widespread use of vaccinations in the U.S. Once those data are available, Dr. Yang and his colleagues plan to determine if vaccinations modify the association between COVID-19 and stroke risk.

The new results contribute to the mounting evidence that a COVID-19 infection “can actually affect multiple human organs structurally or functionally in addition to the impact on [the] respiratory system,” said Dr. Yang.

Some dates of COVID-19 diagnoses may be incorrect due to limited test availability, particularly early in the pandemic. Another limitation of the study was possible misclassification from the use of Medicare real-time preliminary claims.

In a provided statement, Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, chair of the ISC 2022 and professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, noted that the study focused on older adults because it was examining Medicare beneficiaries.

“But everyone is likely at risk for stroke after COVID,” she said. “Any infection is linked to stroke risk, probably because any infection will cause inflammation, and inflammation can cause clots or thrombus, which is the cause of stroke.”

There was no outside funding for the study. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

The risk for acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 appears to be significantly elevated in the first 3 days after the infection, new research shows.

The study among Medicare beneficiaries with COVID-19 also showed that stroke risk is higher for relatively young older adults, those aged 65 to 74 years, and those without a history of stroke.

The study highlights the impact COVID-19 has on the cardiovascular system, said study author Quanhe Yang, PhD, senior scientist, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

“Clinicians and patients should understand that stroke might be one of the very important clinical consequences of COVID-19.”

The study was presented during the hybrid International Stroke Conference held in New Orleans and online. The meeting was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. As an increasing number of people become infected with COVID-19, “it’s important to determine if there’s a relationship between COVID and the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Yang.

Findings from prior research examining the link between stroke and COVID-19 have been inconsistent, he noted. Some studies found an association while others did not, and in still others, the association was not as strong as expected.

Many factors may contribute to these inconsistent findings, said Dr. Yang, including differences in study design, inclusion criteria, comparison groups, sample sizes, and countries where the research was carried out. Dr. Yang pointed out that many of these studies were done in the early stages of the pandemic or didn’t include older adults, the population most at risk for stroke.

The current study included 19,553 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke. The median age at diagnosis of COVID-19 was 80.5 years, 57.5% were women, and more than 75% were non-Hispanic Whites.

To ensure the stroke occurred after a COVID infection, researchers used a self-controlled case series study design, a “within person” comparison between the risk period and the control period.

They divided the study period (Jan. 1, 2019 to Feb. 28, 2021) into the exposure or stroke risk periods after the COVID diagnosis (0-3 days; 4-7 days; 8-15 days; and 15-28 days) and control periods.

Strokes that occurred 7 days before or 28 days after a COVID diagnosis served as a control period. “Any stroke that occurred outside the risk window is in the control period,” explained Dr. Yang.

He added that the control period provides a baseline. “Without COVID-19, this is what I would expect” in terms of the number of strokes.

To estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR), investigators compared the incidence of acute ischemic stroke in the various risk periods with control periods.

The IRR was 10.97 (95% confidence interval, 10.30-11.68) at 0-3 days. The risk then quickly declined but stayed higher than the control period. The IRRs were: 1.59 (95% CI, 1.35-1.87) at 4-7 days; 1.23 (95% CI, 1.07-1.41) at 8-14 days; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18) at 15-28 days.

The temporary increase in stroke risk early after an infection isn’t novel; the pattern has been observed with influenza, respiratory infections, and shingles, said Dr. Yang. “But COVID-19 appears to be particularly risky.”

Although the mechanism driving the early increased stroke risk isn’t fully understood, it’s likely tied to an “exaggerated inflammatory response,” said Dr. Yang. This can trigger the cascade of events setting the stage for a stroke – a hypercoagulation state leading to the formation of blood clots that then block arteries to the brain, he said.

It’s also possible the infection directly affects endothelial cells, leading to rupture of plaque, again blocking arteries and raising stroke risks, added Dr. Yang.

The association was stronger among younger beneficiaries, aged 65 to 74 years, compared with those 85 years and older, a finding Dr. Yang said was somewhat surprising. But he noted other studies have found stroke patients with COVID are younger than stroke patients without COVID – by some 5 to 6 years.

“If COVID-19 disproportionately affects younger patients, that may explain the stronger association,” said Dr. Yang. “Stroke risk increases tremendously with age, so if you’re a younger age, your baseline stroke risk is lower.”

The association was also stronger among beneficiaries without a history of stroke. Again, this could be related to the stronger association among younger patients who are less likely to have suffered a stroke. The association was largely consistent across sex and race/ethnicities. 

Dr. Yang stressed that the findings need to be confirmed with further studies.

The study was carried out before widespread use of vaccinations in the U.S. Once those data are available, Dr. Yang and his colleagues plan to determine if vaccinations modify the association between COVID-19 and stroke risk.

The new results contribute to the mounting evidence that a COVID-19 infection “can actually affect multiple human organs structurally or functionally in addition to the impact on [the] respiratory system,” said Dr. Yang.

Some dates of COVID-19 diagnoses may be incorrect due to limited test availability, particularly early in the pandemic. Another limitation of the study was possible misclassification from the use of Medicare real-time preliminary claims.

In a provided statement, Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, chair of the ISC 2022 and professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, noted that the study focused on older adults because it was examining Medicare beneficiaries.

“But everyone is likely at risk for stroke after COVID,” she said. “Any infection is linked to stroke risk, probably because any infection will cause inflammation, and inflammation can cause clots or thrombus, which is the cause of stroke.”

There was no outside funding for the study. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Seizure phobia occurs in nearly one-third of people with epilepsy (PWE), but was mainly associated with variables not related to epilepsy, based on data from 69 adults.

Anxiety and depression are known to affect quality of life in epilepsy patients, and previous studies have shown that anticipatory anxiety of epileptic seizures (AAS) was present in 53% of patients with focal epilepsy, wrote lead author Aviva Weiss of Psychiatric Hostels affiliated with Kidum Rehabilitation Projects, Jerusalem, and colleagues.

“Although recognized by the epilepsy and the psychiatric communities, seizure phobia as a distinct anxiety disorder among PWE is insufficiently described in the medical literature,” they said.

Seizure phobia has been defined as an anxiety disorder in which patients experience fear related to anticipation of seizures in certain situations.

In a study published in Seizure: European Journal of Epilepsy, the researchers recruited 69 PWE who were treated at an outpatient clinic. Data were collected from interviews, questionnaires, and medical records. The average age of the participants was 36.8 years, 41 were women, and 41 were married.

Overall, 19 individuals (27.5%) were diagnosed with seizure phobia. Compared with PWE without seizure phobia, the seizure phobia patients were significantly more likely to be women (84.2% vs. 44.2%; P = .005) and to have comorbid anxiety disorders (84.2% vs. 34.9%; P = .01). Individuals with seizure phobia also were significantly more likely than those without seizure phobia to have a past major depressive episode (63.2% vs. 20.9%; P = .003), and posttraumatic stress disorder (26.3% vs. 7%; P = .05).

Seizure phobia was significantly associated with comorbid psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) (36.8% vs. 11.6%; P = .034). PNES have been significantly associated with panic attacks, and “all patients with both panic attacks and comorbid PNES were diagnosed with seizure phobia,” the researchers noted. However, no significant association was found with epilepsy-related variables, they said.

A multivariate logistic regression model to predict seizure phobia showed that anxiety and a past MDE were significant predictors; the odds of seizure phobia were 10.45 times higher if a patient reported any anxiety disorder, and 6.85 times higher if the patient had a history of MDE.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of semistructured interviews to diagnose seizure phobia, which are subject to interviewer bias, and by the small study population with a high proportion of comorbid PNES and epilepsy, the researchers noted. However, the results support seizure phobia as a distinct clinical entity worthy of management with education, psychosocial interventions, and potential medication changes, they said.

“Development of appropriate screening tools and implementation of effective treatment interventions is warranted for individual patients, combined with large-scale population-targeted psychoeducation, aimed to mitigate the risk of developing seizure phobia in PWE,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Seizure phobia occurs in nearly one-third of people with epilepsy (PWE), but was mainly associated with variables not related to epilepsy, based on data from 69 adults.

Anxiety and depression are known to affect quality of life in epilepsy patients, and previous studies have shown that anticipatory anxiety of epileptic seizures (AAS) was present in 53% of patients with focal epilepsy, wrote lead author Aviva Weiss of Psychiatric Hostels affiliated with Kidum Rehabilitation Projects, Jerusalem, and colleagues.

“Although recognized by the epilepsy and the psychiatric communities, seizure phobia as a distinct anxiety disorder among PWE is insufficiently described in the medical literature,” they said.

Seizure phobia has been defined as an anxiety disorder in which patients experience fear related to anticipation of seizures in certain situations.

In a study published in Seizure: European Journal of Epilepsy, the researchers recruited 69 PWE who were treated at an outpatient clinic. Data were collected from interviews, questionnaires, and medical records. The average age of the participants was 36.8 years, 41 were women, and 41 were married.

Overall, 19 individuals (27.5%) were diagnosed with seizure phobia. Compared with PWE without seizure phobia, the seizure phobia patients were significantly more likely to be women (84.2% vs. 44.2%; P = .005) and to have comorbid anxiety disorders (84.2% vs. 34.9%; P = .01). Individuals with seizure phobia also were significantly more likely than those without seizure phobia to have a past major depressive episode (63.2% vs. 20.9%; P = .003), and posttraumatic stress disorder (26.3% vs. 7%; P = .05).

Seizure phobia was significantly associated with comorbid psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) (36.8% vs. 11.6%; P = .034). PNES have been significantly associated with panic attacks, and “all patients with both panic attacks and comorbid PNES were diagnosed with seizure phobia,” the researchers noted. However, no significant association was found with epilepsy-related variables, they said.

A multivariate logistic regression model to predict seizure phobia showed that anxiety and a past MDE were significant predictors; the odds of seizure phobia were 10.45 times higher if a patient reported any anxiety disorder, and 6.85 times higher if the patient had a history of MDE.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of semistructured interviews to diagnose seizure phobia, which are subject to interviewer bias, and by the small study population with a high proportion of comorbid PNES and epilepsy, the researchers noted. However, the results support seizure phobia as a distinct clinical entity worthy of management with education, psychosocial interventions, and potential medication changes, they said.

“Development of appropriate screening tools and implementation of effective treatment interventions is warranted for individual patients, combined with large-scale population-targeted psychoeducation, aimed to mitigate the risk of developing seizure phobia in PWE,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Seizure phobia occurs in nearly one-third of people with epilepsy (PWE), but was mainly associated with variables not related to epilepsy, based on data from 69 adults.

Anxiety and depression are known to affect quality of life in epilepsy patients, and previous studies have shown that anticipatory anxiety of epileptic seizures (AAS) was present in 53% of patients with focal epilepsy, wrote lead author Aviva Weiss of Psychiatric Hostels affiliated with Kidum Rehabilitation Projects, Jerusalem, and colleagues.

“Although recognized by the epilepsy and the psychiatric communities, seizure phobia as a distinct anxiety disorder among PWE is insufficiently described in the medical literature,” they said.

Seizure phobia has been defined as an anxiety disorder in which patients experience fear related to anticipation of seizures in certain situations.

In a study published in Seizure: European Journal of Epilepsy, the researchers recruited 69 PWE who were treated at an outpatient clinic. Data were collected from interviews, questionnaires, and medical records. The average age of the participants was 36.8 years, 41 were women, and 41 were married.

Overall, 19 individuals (27.5%) were diagnosed with seizure phobia. Compared with PWE without seizure phobia, the seizure phobia patients were significantly more likely to be women (84.2% vs. 44.2%; P = .005) and to have comorbid anxiety disorders (84.2% vs. 34.9%; P = .01). Individuals with seizure phobia also were significantly more likely than those without seizure phobia to have a past major depressive episode (63.2% vs. 20.9%; P = .003), and posttraumatic stress disorder (26.3% vs. 7%; P = .05).

Seizure phobia was significantly associated with comorbid psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) (36.8% vs. 11.6%; P = .034). PNES have been significantly associated with panic attacks, and “all patients with both panic attacks and comorbid PNES were diagnosed with seizure phobia,” the researchers noted. However, no significant association was found with epilepsy-related variables, they said.

A multivariate logistic regression model to predict seizure phobia showed that anxiety and a past MDE were significant predictors; the odds of seizure phobia were 10.45 times higher if a patient reported any anxiety disorder, and 6.85 times higher if the patient had a history of MDE.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of semistructured interviews to diagnose seizure phobia, which are subject to interviewer bias, and by the small study population with a high proportion of comorbid PNES and epilepsy, the researchers noted. However, the results support seizure phobia as a distinct clinical entity worthy of management with education, psychosocial interventions, and potential medication changes, they said.

“Development of appropriate screening tools and implementation of effective treatment interventions is warranted for individual patients, combined with large-scale population-targeted psychoeducation, aimed to mitigate the risk of developing seizure phobia in PWE,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A high level of education, superior academic performance, and excellent written language skills may predict the reversal of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to normal cognitive function, new research shows.

The investigators found individuals with these factors, which are all markers of cognitive reserve, had a significantly greater chance of reversion from MCI to normal cognition (NC) than progression from MCI to dementia.

In a cohort study of more than 600 women aged 75 years or older, about a third of those with MCI reverted to NC at some point during follow-up, which sends “an encouraging message,” study author Suzanne Tyas, PhD, associate professor, University of Waterloo (Ont.), said in an interview.

“That’s a positive thing for people to keep in mind when they’re thinking about prognosis. Some of these novel characteristics we’ve identified might be useful in thinking about how likely a particular patient might be to improve versus decline cognitively,” Dr. Tyas added.

The findings were published online Feb. 4, 2022, in the journal Neurology.
 

Highly educated cohort

As the population ages, the number of individuals experiencing age-related conditions, including dementia, increases. There is no cure for most dementia types so prevention is key – and preventing dementia requires understanding its risk factors, Dr. Tyas noted.

The analysis included participants from the Nun Study, a longitudinal study of aging and cognition among members of the School Sisters of Notre Dame in the United States. All were 75 and older at baseline, which was from 1991 to 1993; about 14.5% were older than 90 years.

Participants were generally highly educated, with 84.5% attaining an undergraduate or graduate degree. They also had a similar socioeconomic status, level of social supports, marital and reproductive history, and alcohol and tobacco use.

Researchers examined cognitive function at baseline and then about annually until death or end of the 12th round of assessments. They used five measures from the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease neuropsychological battery to categorize subjects into NC, MCI, or dementia: Delayed Word Recall, Verbal Fluency, Boston Naming, Constructional Praxis, and the Mini-Mental State Exam.

The current analysis focused on the 619 participants with data on apolipoprotein E (apo E) epsilon-4 genotyping and education. From convent archives, investigators also had access to the nuns’ early high school academic performance in English, Latin, algebra, and geometry.

“Typically we only have data for [overall] education. But I know from teaching that there’s a difference between people who just pass my courses and graduate with a university degree versus those who really excel,” Dr. Tyas said.

The researchers also assessed handwriting samples from before the participants entered the religious order. From these, they scored “idea density,” which is the number of ideas contained in the writing and “grammatical complexity,” which includes structure, use of clauses, subclauses, and so on.
 

Dementia not inevitable

Results showed 472 of the 619 participants had MCI during the study period. About 30.3% of these showed at least one reverse transition from MCI to NC during a mean follow-up of 8.6 years; 83.9% went on to develop dementia.

This shows converting from MCI to NC occurs relatively frequently, Dr. Tyas noted.

“This is encouraging because some people think that if they have a diagnosis of MCI they are inevitably going to decline to dementia,” she added.

The researchers also used complicated modeling of transition rates over time between NC, MCI, and dementia and adjusted for participants who died. They estimated relative risk of reversion versus progression for age, apo E, and potential cognitive reserve indicators.

Not surprisingly, younger age (90 years or less) and absence of apo E epsilon-4 allele contributed to a significantly higher rate for reversion from MCI to NC versus progression from MCI to dementia.

However, although age and apo E are known risk factors for dementia, these have not been examined in the context of whether individuals with MCI are more likely to improve or decline, said Dr. Tyas.

Higher educational attainment, the traditional indicator of cognitive reserve, was associated with a significantly higher relative risk for reversion from MCI to NC versus progression from MCI to dementia (RR, 2.6) for a bachelor’s degree versus less education.

There was a greater RR for even higher education after adjusting for age and apo E epsilon-4 status.
 

Language skills key

Interestingly, the investigators also found a significant association with good grades in high school English but not other subjects (RR for higher vs. lower English grades, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.14).

In addition, they found both characteristics of written language skills (idea density and grammatical complexity) were significant predictors of conversion to NC.

“Those with high levels of idea density were four times more likely to improve to normal cognition than progress to dementia, and the effect was even stronger for grammatical structure. Those individuals with higher levels were almost six times more likely to improve than decline,” Dr. Tyas reported.

The RR for higher versus lower idea density was 3.93 (95% CI, 1.3-11.9) and the RR for higher versus lower grammatical complexity was 5.78 (95% CI, 1.56-21.42).

These new results could be useful when planning future clinical trials, Dr. Tyas noted. “MCI in some people is going to improve even without any treatment, and this should be taken into consideration when recruiting participants to a study and when interpreting the results.

“You don’t want something to look like it’s a benefit of the treatment when in fact these individuals would have just reverted on their own,” she added.
 

Research implications

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that, in “this study of highly educated, older women,” transitions from MCI to NC “were about equally common” as transitions from MCI to dementia.

“As advances are made in early detection of dementia, and treatments are developed and marketed for people living with MCI, this article’s findings are important to inform discussions of prognosis with patients and [to the] design of clinical trials,” Dr. Sexton said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Funding for the Nun Study at the University of Kentucky was provided by the U.S. National Institute of Aging and the Kleberg Foundation. Dr. Tyas has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A high level of education, superior academic performance, and excellent written language skills may predict the reversal of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to normal cognitive function, new research shows.

The investigators found individuals with these factors, which are all markers of cognitive reserve, had a significantly greater chance of reversion from MCI to normal cognition (NC) than progression from MCI to dementia.

In a cohort study of more than 600 women aged 75 years or older, about a third of those with MCI reverted to NC at some point during follow-up, which sends “an encouraging message,” study author Suzanne Tyas, PhD, associate professor, University of Waterloo (Ont.), said in an interview.

“That’s a positive thing for people to keep in mind when they’re thinking about prognosis. Some of these novel characteristics we’ve identified might be useful in thinking about how likely a particular patient might be to improve versus decline cognitively,” Dr. Tyas added.

The findings were published online Feb. 4, 2022, in the journal Neurology.
 

Highly educated cohort

As the population ages, the number of individuals experiencing age-related conditions, including dementia, increases. There is no cure for most dementia types so prevention is key – and preventing dementia requires understanding its risk factors, Dr. Tyas noted.

The analysis included participants from the Nun Study, a longitudinal study of aging and cognition among members of the School Sisters of Notre Dame in the United States. All were 75 and older at baseline, which was from 1991 to 1993; about 14.5% were older than 90 years.

Participants were generally highly educated, with 84.5% attaining an undergraduate or graduate degree. They also had a similar socioeconomic status, level of social supports, marital and reproductive history, and alcohol and tobacco use.

Researchers examined cognitive function at baseline and then about annually until death or end of the 12th round of assessments. They used five measures from the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease neuropsychological battery to categorize subjects into NC, MCI, or dementia: Delayed Word Recall, Verbal Fluency, Boston Naming, Constructional Praxis, and the Mini-Mental State Exam.

The current analysis focused on the 619 participants with data on apolipoprotein E (apo E) epsilon-4 genotyping and education. From convent archives, investigators also had access to the nuns’ early high school academic performance in English, Latin, algebra, and geometry.

“Typically we only have data for [overall] education. But I know from teaching that there’s a difference between people who just pass my courses and graduate with a university degree versus those who really excel,” Dr. Tyas said.

The researchers also assessed handwriting samples from before the participants entered the religious order. From these, they scored “idea density,” which is the number of ideas contained in the writing and “grammatical complexity,” which includes structure, use of clauses, subclauses, and so on.
 

Dementia not inevitable

Results showed 472 of the 619 participants had MCI during the study period. About 30.3% of these showed at least one reverse transition from MCI to NC during a mean follow-up of 8.6 years; 83.9% went on to develop dementia.

This shows converting from MCI to NC occurs relatively frequently, Dr. Tyas noted.

“This is encouraging because some people think that if they have a diagnosis of MCI they are inevitably going to decline to dementia,” she added.

The researchers also used complicated modeling of transition rates over time between NC, MCI, and dementia and adjusted for participants who died. They estimated relative risk of reversion versus progression for age, apo E, and potential cognitive reserve indicators.

Not surprisingly, younger age (90 years or less) and absence of apo E epsilon-4 allele contributed to a significantly higher rate for reversion from MCI to NC versus progression from MCI to dementia.

However, although age and apo E are known risk factors for dementia, these have not been examined in the context of whether individuals with MCI are more likely to improve or decline, said Dr. Tyas.

Higher educational attainment, the traditional indicator of cognitive reserve, was associated with a significantly higher relative risk for reversion from MCI to NC versus progression from MCI to dementia (RR, 2.6) for a bachelor’s degree versus less education.

There was a greater RR for even higher education after adjusting for age and apo E epsilon-4 status.
 

Language skills key

Interestingly, the investigators also found a significant association with good grades in high school English but not other subjects (RR for higher vs. lower English grades, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.14).

In addition, they found both characteristics of written language skills (idea density and grammatical complexity) were significant predictors of conversion to NC.

“Those with high levels of idea density were four times more likely to improve to normal cognition than progress to dementia, and the effect was even stronger for grammatical structure. Those individuals with higher levels were almost six times more likely to improve than decline,” Dr. Tyas reported.

The RR for higher versus lower idea density was 3.93 (95% CI, 1.3-11.9) and the RR for higher versus lower grammatical complexity was 5.78 (95% CI, 1.56-21.42).

These new results could be useful when planning future clinical trials, Dr. Tyas noted. “MCI in some people is going to improve even without any treatment, and this should be taken into consideration when recruiting participants to a study and when interpreting the results.

“You don’t want something to look like it’s a benefit of the treatment when in fact these individuals would have just reverted on their own,” she added.
 

Research implications

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that, in “this study of highly educated, older women,” transitions from MCI to NC “were about equally common” as transitions from MCI to dementia.

“As advances are made in early detection of dementia, and treatments are developed and marketed for people living with MCI, this article’s findings are important to inform discussions of prognosis with patients and [to the] design of clinical trials,” Dr. Sexton said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Funding for the Nun Study at the University of Kentucky was provided by the U.S. National Institute of Aging and the Kleberg Foundation. Dr. Tyas has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A high level of education, superior academic performance, and excellent written language skills may predict the reversal of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to normal cognitive function, new research shows.

The investigators found individuals with these factors, which are all markers of cognitive reserve, had a significantly greater chance of reversion from MCI to normal cognition (NC) than progression from MCI to dementia.

In a cohort study of more than 600 women aged 75 years or older, about a third of those with MCI reverted to NC at some point during follow-up, which sends “an encouraging message,” study author Suzanne Tyas, PhD, associate professor, University of Waterloo (Ont.), said in an interview.

“That’s a positive thing for people to keep in mind when they’re thinking about prognosis. Some of these novel characteristics we’ve identified might be useful in thinking about how likely a particular patient might be to improve versus decline cognitively,” Dr. Tyas added.

The findings were published online Feb. 4, 2022, in the journal Neurology.
 

Highly educated cohort

As the population ages, the number of individuals experiencing age-related conditions, including dementia, increases. There is no cure for most dementia types so prevention is key – and preventing dementia requires understanding its risk factors, Dr. Tyas noted.

The analysis included participants from the Nun Study, a longitudinal study of aging and cognition among members of the School Sisters of Notre Dame in the United States. All were 75 and older at baseline, which was from 1991 to 1993; about 14.5% were older than 90 years.

Participants were generally highly educated, with 84.5% attaining an undergraduate or graduate degree. They also had a similar socioeconomic status, level of social supports, marital and reproductive history, and alcohol and tobacco use.

Researchers examined cognitive function at baseline and then about annually until death or end of the 12th round of assessments. They used five measures from the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease neuropsychological battery to categorize subjects into NC, MCI, or dementia: Delayed Word Recall, Verbal Fluency, Boston Naming, Constructional Praxis, and the Mini-Mental State Exam.

The current analysis focused on the 619 participants with data on apolipoprotein E (apo E) epsilon-4 genotyping and education. From convent archives, investigators also had access to the nuns’ early high school academic performance in English, Latin, algebra, and geometry.

“Typically we only have data for [overall] education. But I know from teaching that there’s a difference between people who just pass my courses and graduate with a university degree versus those who really excel,” Dr. Tyas said.

The researchers also assessed handwriting samples from before the participants entered the religious order. From these, they scored “idea density,” which is the number of ideas contained in the writing and “grammatical complexity,” which includes structure, use of clauses, subclauses, and so on.
 

Dementia not inevitable

Results showed 472 of the 619 participants had MCI during the study period. About 30.3% of these showed at least one reverse transition from MCI to NC during a mean follow-up of 8.6 years; 83.9% went on to develop dementia.

This shows converting from MCI to NC occurs relatively frequently, Dr. Tyas noted.

“This is encouraging because some people think that if they have a diagnosis of MCI they are inevitably going to decline to dementia,” she added.

The researchers also used complicated modeling of transition rates over time between NC, MCI, and dementia and adjusted for participants who died. They estimated relative risk of reversion versus progression for age, apo E, and potential cognitive reserve indicators.

Not surprisingly, younger age (90 years or less) and absence of apo E epsilon-4 allele contributed to a significantly higher rate for reversion from MCI to NC versus progression from MCI to dementia.

However, although age and apo E are known risk factors for dementia, these have not been examined in the context of whether individuals with MCI are more likely to improve or decline, said Dr. Tyas.

Higher educational attainment, the traditional indicator of cognitive reserve, was associated with a significantly higher relative risk for reversion from MCI to NC versus progression from MCI to dementia (RR, 2.6) for a bachelor’s degree versus less education.

There was a greater RR for even higher education after adjusting for age and apo E epsilon-4 status.
 

Language skills key

Interestingly, the investigators also found a significant association with good grades in high school English but not other subjects (RR for higher vs. lower English grades, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.14).

In addition, they found both characteristics of written language skills (idea density and grammatical complexity) were significant predictors of conversion to NC.

“Those with high levels of idea density were four times more likely to improve to normal cognition than progress to dementia, and the effect was even stronger for grammatical structure. Those individuals with higher levels were almost six times more likely to improve than decline,” Dr. Tyas reported.

The RR for higher versus lower idea density was 3.93 (95% CI, 1.3-11.9) and the RR for higher versus lower grammatical complexity was 5.78 (95% CI, 1.56-21.42).

These new results could be useful when planning future clinical trials, Dr. Tyas noted. “MCI in some people is going to improve even without any treatment, and this should be taken into consideration when recruiting participants to a study and when interpreting the results.

“You don’t want something to look like it’s a benefit of the treatment when in fact these individuals would have just reverted on their own,” she added.
 

Research implications

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that, in “this study of highly educated, older women,” transitions from MCI to NC “were about equally common” as transitions from MCI to dementia.

“As advances are made in early detection of dementia, and treatments are developed and marketed for people living with MCI, this article’s findings are important to inform discussions of prognosis with patients and [to the] design of clinical trials,” Dr. Sexton said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Funding for the Nun Study at the University of Kentucky was provided by the U.S. National Institute of Aging and the Kleberg Foundation. Dr. Tyas has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) has issued recommendations for treating depression in patients with epilepsy.

The new guidance highlights the high prevalence of depression among patients with epilepsy while offering the first systematic approach to treatment, reported lead author Marco Mula, MD, PhD, of Atkinson Morley Regional Neuroscience Centre at St George’s University Hospital, London, and colleagues.

“Despite evidence that depression represents a frequently encountered comorbidity [among patients with epilepsy], data on the treatment of depression in epilepsy [are] still limited and recommendations rely mostly on individual clinical experience and expertise,” the investigators wrote in Epilepsia.

Recommendations cover first-line treatment of unipolar depression in epilepsy without other psychiatric disorders.

For patients with mild depression, the guidance supports psychological intervention without pharmacologic therapy; however, if the patient wishes to use medication, has had a positive response to medication in the past, or nonpharmacologic treatments have previously failed or are unavailable, then SSRIs should be considered first-choice therapy. For moderate to severe depression, SSRIs are the first choice, according to Dr. Mula and colleagues.

“It has to be acknowledged that there is considerable debate in the psychiatric literature about the treatment of mild depression in adults,” the investigators noted. “A patient-level meta-analysis pointed out that the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medications compared with placebo increases with severity of depression symptoms and it may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms.”

If a patient does not respond to first-line therapy, then venlafaxine should be considered, according to the guidance. When a patient does respond to therapy, treatment should be continued for at least 6 months, and when residual symptoms persist, treatment should be continued until resolution.

“In people with depression it is established that around two-thirds of patients do not achieve full remission with first-line treatment,” Dr. Mula and colleagues wrote. “In people with epilepsy, current data show that up to 50% of patients do not achieve full remission from depression. For this reason, augmentation strategies are often needed. They should be adopted by psychiatrists, neuropsychiatrists, or mental health professionals familiar with such therapeutic strategies.”

Beyond these key recommendations, the guidance covers a range of additional topics, including other pharmacologic options, medication discontinuation strategies, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy, exercise training, vagus nerve stimulation, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
 

Useful advice that counters common misconceptions

According to Jacqueline A. French, MD, a professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, Dr. Mula and colleagues are “top notch,” and their recommendations “hit every nail on the head.”

Dr. French, chief medical officer of The Epilepsy Foundation, emphasized the importance of the publication, which addresses two common misconceptions within the medical community: First, that standard antidepressants are insufficient to treat depression in patients with epilepsy, and second, that antidepressants may trigger seizures.

“The first purpose [of the publication] is to say, yes, these antidepressants do work,” Dr. French said, “and no, they don’t worsen seizures, and you can use them safely, and they are appropriate to use.”

Dr. French explained that managing depression remains a practice gap among epileptologists and neurologists because it is a diagnosis that doesn’t traditionally fall into their purview, yet many patients with epilepsy forgo visiting their primary care providers, who more frequently diagnose and manage depression. Dr. French agreed with the guidance that epilepsy specialists should fill this gap.

“We need to at least be able to take people through their first antidepressant, even though we were not trained to be psychiatrists,” Dr. French said. “That’s part of the best care of our patients.”

Imad Najm, MD, director of the Charles Shor Epilepsy Center, Cleveland Clinic, said the recommendations are a step forward in the field, as they are supported by clinical data, instead of just clinical experience and expertise.

Still, Dr. Najm noted that more work is needed to stratify risk of depression in epilepsy and evaluate a possible causal relationship between epilepsy therapies and depression.

He went on to emphasizes the scale of issue at hand, and the stakes involved.

“Depression, anxiety, and psychosis affect a large number of patients with epilepsy,” Dr. Najm said. “Clinical screening and recognition of these comorbidities leads to the institution of treatment options and significant improvement in quality of life. Mental health professionals should be an integral part of any comprehensive epilepsy center.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Esai, UCB, Elsevier, and others. Dr. French is indirectly involved with multiple pharmaceutical companies developing epilepsy drugs through her role as director of The Epilepsy Study Consortium, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Najm reported no conflicts of interest.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued revised milestone guidelines for their developmental surveillance campaign, Learn the Signs, Act Early (LTSAE).

The new guidelines, published in Pediatrics, were drafted in “easy-to-understand” language and identify the behaviors that 75% or more of children should exhibit at certain ages based on developmental resources, existing data, and clinician experience. The previous milestone checklists, developed in 2004, used 50th percentile or average-age milestones.

The CDC, in collaboration with the AAP, convened a group of eight subject matter experts in various fields of child development, including a developmental pediatrician and researcher from Kennedy Krieger Institute, to develop new and clearer guidelines.

“The goals of the group were to identify evidence-informed milestones to include in CDC checklists, clarify when most children can be expected to reach a milestone (to discourage a wait-and-see approach), and support clinical judgment regarding screening between recommended ages,” wrote lead author Jennifer M. Zubler, MD, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities in Atlanta, and colleagues.
 

Key changes

The experts established 11 criteria for CDC surveillance milestones and tools, including milestones most children (75% or more) would be expected to reach by defined health supervision visit ages and those that are easily recognized in natural settings.

Criteria for developmental milestones and surveillance tools:

• Milestones are included at the age most (≥75%) children would be expected to demonstrate the milestone.
• Eliminate “warning signs.”
• Are easy for families of different social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to observe and use.
• Are able to be answered with yes, not yet, or not sure.
• Use plain language, avoiding vague terms like may, can, and begins.
• Are organized in developmental domains.
• Show progression of skills with age, when possible.
• Milestones are not repeated across checklists.
• Include open-ended questions.
• Include information for developmental promotion.
• Include information on how to act early if there are concerns.

The previous guidelines were critiqued by some clinicians as being “not helpful to individual families who had concerns about their child’s development,” and in some cases, led to delays in diagnoses as decision-makers opted for a “wait-and-see approach.”

“The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay the better, as treatment as well as learning interventions can begin,” Paul Lipkin, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an accompanying press release. “Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals.”

Additional changes included new checklists for children between the ages of 15 and 30 months, additional social and emotional milestones, as well as the removal of complex language and duplicate milestones. The experts also developed new, open-ended questions to aid discussions with families.

“Review of a child’s development with these milestones opens up a continuous dialogue between a parent and the health care provider about their child’s present and future development,” said Dr. Lipkin.

Originally pioneered in 2005, the LTSAE awareness campaign provides free resources to clinicians and families to support early detection of children with developmental delays and disabilities. After the new guidelines were drafted, they were presented to parents of various racial groups, income levels, and educational backgrounds to confirm ease of use and understandability.

“These criteria and revised checklists can be used to support developmental surveillance, clinical judgment regarding additional developmental screening, and research in developmental surveillance processes,” wrote Dr. Zubler.
 

Expert perspective

“These new guidelines will allow us to catch more children with developmental delays as they raise the threshold to 75% of children achieving those milestones at that particular age,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella added that the new guidelines simplify the milestones and reduce redundancy across different developmental domains. “Most importantly, it gave me the opportunity to see just how great the CDC milestone tracker app is – I think parents would really like it.”

This project was supported by the CDC and Prevention of the Department of Health & Human Services. One author is a developer of the Ages & Stages Questionnaires and receives royalties from Brookes Publishing, the company that publishes this tool; the other authors have indicated they have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued revised milestone guidelines for their developmental surveillance campaign, Learn the Signs, Act Early (LTSAE).

The new guidelines, published in Pediatrics, were drafted in “easy-to-understand” language and identify the behaviors that 75% or more of children should exhibit at certain ages based on developmental resources, existing data, and clinician experience. The previous milestone checklists, developed in 2004, used 50th percentile or average-age milestones.

The CDC, in collaboration with the AAP, convened a group of eight subject matter experts in various fields of child development, including a developmental pediatrician and researcher from Kennedy Krieger Institute, to develop new and clearer guidelines.

“The goals of the group were to identify evidence-informed milestones to include in CDC checklists, clarify when most children can be expected to reach a milestone (to discourage a wait-and-see approach), and support clinical judgment regarding screening between recommended ages,” wrote lead author Jennifer M. Zubler, MD, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities in Atlanta, and colleagues.
 

Key changes

The experts established 11 criteria for CDC surveillance milestones and tools, including milestones most children (75% or more) would be expected to reach by defined health supervision visit ages and those that are easily recognized in natural settings.

Criteria for developmental milestones and surveillance tools:

• Milestones are included at the age most (≥75%) children would be expected to demonstrate the milestone.
• Eliminate “warning signs.”
• Are easy for families of different social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to observe and use.
• Are able to be answered with yes, not yet, or not sure.
• Use plain language, avoiding vague terms like may, can, and begins.
• Are organized in developmental domains.
• Show progression of skills with age, when possible.
• Milestones are not repeated across checklists.
• Include open-ended questions.
• Include information for developmental promotion.
• Include information on how to act early if there are concerns.

The previous guidelines were critiqued by some clinicians as being “not helpful to individual families who had concerns about their child’s development,” and in some cases, led to delays in diagnoses as decision-makers opted for a “wait-and-see approach.”

“The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay the better, as treatment as well as learning interventions can begin,” Paul Lipkin, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an accompanying press release. “Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals.”

Additional changes included new checklists for children between the ages of 15 and 30 months, additional social and emotional milestones, as well as the removal of complex language and duplicate milestones. The experts also developed new, open-ended questions to aid discussions with families.

“Review of a child’s development with these milestones opens up a continuous dialogue between a parent and the health care provider about their child’s present and future development,” said Dr. Lipkin.

Originally pioneered in 2005, the LTSAE awareness campaign provides free resources to clinicians and families to support early detection of children with developmental delays and disabilities. After the new guidelines were drafted, they were presented to parents of various racial groups, income levels, and educational backgrounds to confirm ease of use and understandability.

“These criteria and revised checklists can be used to support developmental surveillance, clinical judgment regarding additional developmental screening, and research in developmental surveillance processes,” wrote Dr. Zubler.
 

Expert perspective

“These new guidelines will allow us to catch more children with developmental delays as they raise the threshold to 75% of children achieving those milestones at that particular age,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella added that the new guidelines simplify the milestones and reduce redundancy across different developmental domains. “Most importantly, it gave me the opportunity to see just how great the CDC milestone tracker app is – I think parents would really like it.”

This project was supported by the CDC and Prevention of the Department of Health & Human Services. One author is a developer of the Ages & Stages Questionnaires and receives royalties from Brookes Publishing, the company that publishes this tool; the other authors have indicated they have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued revised milestone guidelines for their developmental surveillance campaign, Learn the Signs, Act Early (LTSAE).

The new guidelines, published in Pediatrics, were drafted in “easy-to-understand” language and identify the behaviors that 75% or more of children should exhibit at certain ages based on developmental resources, existing data, and clinician experience. The previous milestone checklists, developed in 2004, used 50th percentile or average-age milestones.

The CDC, in collaboration with the AAP, convened a group of eight subject matter experts in various fields of child development, including a developmental pediatrician and researcher from Kennedy Krieger Institute, to develop new and clearer guidelines.

“The goals of the group were to identify evidence-informed milestones to include in CDC checklists, clarify when most children can be expected to reach a milestone (to discourage a wait-and-see approach), and support clinical judgment regarding screening between recommended ages,” wrote lead author Jennifer M. Zubler, MD, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities in Atlanta, and colleagues.
 

Key changes

The experts established 11 criteria for CDC surveillance milestones and tools, including milestones most children (75% or more) would be expected to reach by defined health supervision visit ages and those that are easily recognized in natural settings.

Criteria for developmental milestones and surveillance tools:

• Milestones are included at the age most (≥75%) children would be expected to demonstrate the milestone.
• Eliminate “warning signs.”
• Are easy for families of different social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to observe and use.
• Are able to be answered with yes, not yet, or not sure.
• Use plain language, avoiding vague terms like may, can, and begins.
• Are organized in developmental domains.
• Show progression of skills with age, when possible.
• Milestones are not repeated across checklists.
• Include open-ended questions.
• Include information for developmental promotion.
• Include information on how to act early if there are concerns.

The previous guidelines were critiqued by some clinicians as being “not helpful to individual families who had concerns about their child’s development,” and in some cases, led to delays in diagnoses as decision-makers opted for a “wait-and-see approach.”

“The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay the better, as treatment as well as learning interventions can begin,” Paul Lipkin, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an accompanying press release. “Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals.”

Additional changes included new checklists for children between the ages of 15 and 30 months, additional social and emotional milestones, as well as the removal of complex language and duplicate milestones. The experts also developed new, open-ended questions to aid discussions with families.

“Review of a child’s development with these milestones opens up a continuous dialogue between a parent and the health care provider about their child’s present and future development,” said Dr. Lipkin.

Originally pioneered in 2005, the LTSAE awareness campaign provides free resources to clinicians and families to support early detection of children with developmental delays and disabilities. After the new guidelines were drafted, they were presented to parents of various racial groups, income levels, and educational backgrounds to confirm ease of use and understandability.

“These criteria and revised checklists can be used to support developmental surveillance, clinical judgment regarding additional developmental screening, and research in developmental surveillance processes,” wrote Dr. Zubler.
 

Expert perspective

“These new guidelines will allow us to catch more children with developmental delays as they raise the threshold to 75% of children achieving those milestones at that particular age,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella added that the new guidelines simplify the milestones and reduce redundancy across different developmental domains. “Most importantly, it gave me the opportunity to see just how great the CDC milestone tracker app is – I think parents would really like it.”

This project was supported by the CDC and Prevention of the Department of Health & Human Services. One author is a developer of the Ages & Stages Questionnaires and receives royalties from Brookes Publishing, the company that publishes this tool; the other authors have indicated they have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.