Neurology

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies, a new Italian study suggests.

In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.

“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.

Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.

“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.

“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.  
 

Comparing treatment regimens

The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.

Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.

The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.

To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).

The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.

Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.

After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.

In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.

In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.  

The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.

Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.  

Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.

“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.   

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

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies, a new Italian study suggests.

In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.

“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.

Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.

“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.

“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.  
 

Comparing treatment regimens

The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.

Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.

The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.

To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).

The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.

Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.

After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.

In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.

In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.  

The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.

Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.  

Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.

“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.   

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

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies, a new Italian study suggests.

In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.

“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.

Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.

“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.

“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.  
 

Comparing treatment regimens

The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.

Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.

The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.

To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).

The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.

Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.

After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.

In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.

In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.  

The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.

Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.  

Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.

“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.   

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

Updated European guidelines on the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have been announced and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.

The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.

“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
 

New recommendations

New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.

“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.

Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.

The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:

• The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
• Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
• For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Progressive MS

• For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
• For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.  
• For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent. 
• Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.

Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs

• Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
• Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
• When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
• In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding

Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:

• Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
• Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
• For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits. 
• For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:

1)  treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2)  treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)

• Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.   
•  

Treatment safety/monitoring

• When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
• Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
• Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
•  

Long-lasting treatments

• When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
• Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.

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

Updated European guidelines on the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have been announced and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.

The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.

“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
 

New recommendations

New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.

“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.

Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.

The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:

• The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
• Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
• For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Progressive MS

• For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
• For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.  
• For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent. 
• Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.

Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs

• Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
• Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
• When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
• In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding

Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:

• Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
• Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
• For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits. 
• For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:

1)  treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2)  treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)

• Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.   
•  

Treatment safety/monitoring

• When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
• Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
• Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
•  

Long-lasting treatments

• When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
• Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.

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

Updated European guidelines on the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have been announced and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.

The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.

“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
 

New recommendations

New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.

“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.

Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.

The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:

• The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
• Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
• For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Progressive MS

• For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
• For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.  
• For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent. 
• Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.

Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs

• Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
• Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
• When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
• In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding

Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:

• Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
• Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
• For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits. 
• For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:

1)  treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2)  treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)

• Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.   
•  

Treatment safety/monitoring

• When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
• Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
• Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
•  

Long-lasting treatments

• When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
• Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.

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

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has given marketing clearance to CognICA, an artificial intelligence–powered integrated cognitive assessment for the early detection of dementia.

Developed by Cognetivity Neurosciences, CognICA is a 5-minute, computerized cognitive assessment that is completed using an iPad. The test offers several advantages over traditional pen-and-paper–based cognitive tests, the company said in a news release.

“These include its high sensitivity to early-stage cognitive impairment, avoidance of cultural or educational bias, and absence of learning effect upon repeat testing,” the company notes.

Because the test runs on a computer, it can support remote, self-administered testing at scale and is geared toward seamless integration with existing electronic health record systems, they add.

According to the latest Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures, published by the Alzheimer’s Association, more than 6 million Americans are now living with Alzheimer’s disease. That number is projected to increase to 12.7 million by 2050.

“We’re excited about the opportunity to revolutionize the way cognitive impairment is assessed and managed in the U.S. and make a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” Sina Habibi, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Cognetivity, said in the news release.

The test has already received European regulatory approval as a CE-marked medical device and has been deployed in both primary and specialist clinical care in the U.K.’s National Health Service.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has given marketing clearance to CognICA, an artificial intelligence–powered integrated cognitive assessment for the early detection of dementia.

Developed by Cognetivity Neurosciences, CognICA is a 5-minute, computerized cognitive assessment that is completed using an iPad. The test offers several advantages over traditional pen-and-paper–based cognitive tests, the company said in a news release.

“These include its high sensitivity to early-stage cognitive impairment, avoidance of cultural or educational bias, and absence of learning effect upon repeat testing,” the company notes.

Because the test runs on a computer, it can support remote, self-administered testing at scale and is geared toward seamless integration with existing electronic health record systems, they add.

According to the latest Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures, published by the Alzheimer’s Association, more than 6 million Americans are now living with Alzheimer’s disease. That number is projected to increase to 12.7 million by 2050.

“We’re excited about the opportunity to revolutionize the way cognitive impairment is assessed and managed in the U.S. and make a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” Sina Habibi, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Cognetivity, said in the news release.

The test has already received European regulatory approval as a CE-marked medical device and has been deployed in both primary and specialist clinical care in the U.K.’s National Health Service.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has given marketing clearance to CognICA, an artificial intelligence–powered integrated cognitive assessment for the early detection of dementia.

Developed by Cognetivity Neurosciences, CognICA is a 5-minute, computerized cognitive assessment that is completed using an iPad. The test offers several advantages over traditional pen-and-paper–based cognitive tests, the company said in a news release.

“These include its high sensitivity to early-stage cognitive impairment, avoidance of cultural or educational bias, and absence of learning effect upon repeat testing,” the company notes.

Because the test runs on a computer, it can support remote, self-administered testing at scale and is geared toward seamless integration with existing electronic health record systems, they add.

According to the latest Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures, published by the Alzheimer’s Association, more than 6 million Americans are now living with Alzheimer’s disease. That number is projected to increase to 12.7 million by 2050.

“We’re excited about the opportunity to revolutionize the way cognitive impairment is assessed and managed in the U.S. and make a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” Sina Habibi, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Cognetivity, said in the news release.

The test has already received European regulatory approval as a CE-marked medical device and has been deployed in both primary and specialist clinical care in the U.K.’s National Health Service.

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

Dementia remains a major cause of disability in older adults. In addition, it places a strain on family members and other caregivers taking care of these patients.

It is estimated that by the year 2060, 13.9 million Americans over the age of 65 will be diagnosed with dementia. Few good treatments are currently available.

Earlier this year, the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force issued clinical guidelines “for the Evaluation of Dementia and Age-Related Cognitive Change.” While these 16 guidelines are aimed at psychologists, primary care doctors are often the first ones to evaluate a patient who may have dementia. As a family physician, I find having these guidelines especially helpful.
 

Neuropsychiatric testing and defining severity and type

This new guidance places emphasis on neuropsychiatric testing and defining the severity and type of dementia present.

Over the past 2 decades, diagnoses of mild neurocognitive disorders have increased, and this, in part, is due to diagnosing these problems earlier and with greater precision. It is also important to know that biomarkers are being increasingly researched, and it is imperative that we stay current with this research.

Cognitive decline may also occur with the coexistence of other mental health disorders, such as depression, so it is important that we screen for these as well. This is often difficult given the behavioral changes that can arise in dementia, but, as primary care doctors, we must differentiate these to treat our patients appropriately.
 

Informed consent

Informed consent can become an issue with patients with dementia. It must be assessed whether the patient has the capacity to make an informed decision and can competently communicate that decision.

The diagnosis of dementia alone does not preclude a patient from giving informed consent. A patient’s mental capacity must be determined, and if they are not capable of making an informed decision, the person legally responsible for giving informed consent on behalf of the patient must be identified.

Patients with dementia often have other medical comorbidities and take several medications. It is imperative to keep accurate medical records and medication lists. Sometimes, patients with dementia cannot provide this information. If that is the case, every attempt should be made to obtain records from every possible source.
 

Cultural competence

The guidelines also stress that there may be cultural differences when applying neuropsychiatric tests. It is our duty to maintain cultural competence and understand these differences. We all need to work to ensure we control our biases, and it is suggested that we review relevant evidence-based literature.

While ageism is common in our society, it shouldn’t be in our practices. For these reasons, outreach in at-risk populations is very important.
 

Pertinent data

The guidelines also suggest obtaining all possible information in our evaluation, especially when the patient is unable to give it to us.

Often, as primary care physicians, we refer these patients to other providers, and we should be providing all pertinent data to those we are referring these patients to. If all information is not available at the time of evaluation, follow-up visits should be scheduled.

If possible, family members should be present at the time of visit. They often provide valuable information regarding the extent and progression of the decline. Also, they know how the patient is functioning in the home setting and how much assistance they need with activities of daily living.
 

Caretaker support

Another important factor to consider is caretaker burnout. Caretakers are often under a lot of stress and have high rates of depression. It is important to provide them with education and support, as well as resources that may be available to them. For some, accepting the diagnosis that their loved one has dementia may be a struggle.

As doctors treating dementia patients, we need to know the resources that are available to assist dementia patients and their families. There are many local organizations that can help.

Also, research into dementia is ongoing and we need to stay current. The diagnosis of dementia should be made as early as possible using appropriate screening tools. The sooner the diagnosis is made, the quicker interventions can be started and the family members, as well as the patient, can come to accept the diagnosis.

As the population ages, we can expect the demands of dementia to rise as well. Primary care doctors are in a unique position to diagnose dementia once it starts to appear.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Dementia remains a major cause of disability in older adults. In addition, it places a strain on family members and other caregivers taking care of these patients.

It is estimated that by the year 2060, 13.9 million Americans over the age of 65 will be diagnosed with dementia. Few good treatments are currently available.

Earlier this year, the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force issued clinical guidelines “for the Evaluation of Dementia and Age-Related Cognitive Change.” While these 16 guidelines are aimed at psychologists, primary care doctors are often the first ones to evaluate a patient who may have dementia. As a family physician, I find having these guidelines especially helpful.
 

Neuropsychiatric testing and defining severity and type

This new guidance places emphasis on neuropsychiatric testing and defining the severity and type of dementia present.

Over the past 2 decades, diagnoses of mild neurocognitive disorders have increased, and this, in part, is due to diagnosing these problems earlier and with greater precision. It is also important to know that biomarkers are being increasingly researched, and it is imperative that we stay current with this research.

Cognitive decline may also occur with the coexistence of other mental health disorders, such as depression, so it is important that we screen for these as well. This is often difficult given the behavioral changes that can arise in dementia, but, as primary care doctors, we must differentiate these to treat our patients appropriately.
 

Informed consent

Informed consent can become an issue with patients with dementia. It must be assessed whether the patient has the capacity to make an informed decision and can competently communicate that decision.

The diagnosis of dementia alone does not preclude a patient from giving informed consent. A patient’s mental capacity must be determined, and if they are not capable of making an informed decision, the person legally responsible for giving informed consent on behalf of the patient must be identified.

Patients with dementia often have other medical comorbidities and take several medications. It is imperative to keep accurate medical records and medication lists. Sometimes, patients with dementia cannot provide this information. If that is the case, every attempt should be made to obtain records from every possible source.
 

Cultural competence

The guidelines also stress that there may be cultural differences when applying neuropsychiatric tests. It is our duty to maintain cultural competence and understand these differences. We all need to work to ensure we control our biases, and it is suggested that we review relevant evidence-based literature.

While ageism is common in our society, it shouldn’t be in our practices. For these reasons, outreach in at-risk populations is very important.
 

Pertinent data

The guidelines also suggest obtaining all possible information in our evaluation, especially when the patient is unable to give it to us.

Often, as primary care physicians, we refer these patients to other providers, and we should be providing all pertinent data to those we are referring these patients to. If all information is not available at the time of evaluation, follow-up visits should be scheduled.

If possible, family members should be present at the time of visit. They often provide valuable information regarding the extent and progression of the decline. Also, they know how the patient is functioning in the home setting and how much assistance they need with activities of daily living.
 

Caretaker support

Another important factor to consider is caretaker burnout. Caretakers are often under a lot of stress and have high rates of depression. It is important to provide them with education and support, as well as resources that may be available to them. For some, accepting the diagnosis that their loved one has dementia may be a struggle.

As doctors treating dementia patients, we need to know the resources that are available to assist dementia patients and their families. There are many local organizations that can help.

Also, research into dementia is ongoing and we need to stay current. The diagnosis of dementia should be made as early as possible using appropriate screening tools. The sooner the diagnosis is made, the quicker interventions can be started and the family members, as well as the patient, can come to accept the diagnosis.

As the population ages, we can expect the demands of dementia to rise as well. Primary care doctors are in a unique position to diagnose dementia once it starts to appear.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Dementia remains a major cause of disability in older adults. In addition, it places a strain on family members and other caregivers taking care of these patients.

It is estimated that by the year 2060, 13.9 million Americans over the age of 65 will be diagnosed with dementia. Few good treatments are currently available.

Earlier this year, the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force issued clinical guidelines “for the Evaluation of Dementia and Age-Related Cognitive Change.” While these 16 guidelines are aimed at psychologists, primary care doctors are often the first ones to evaluate a patient who may have dementia. As a family physician, I find having these guidelines especially helpful.
 

Neuropsychiatric testing and defining severity and type

This new guidance places emphasis on neuropsychiatric testing and defining the severity and type of dementia present.

Over the past 2 decades, diagnoses of mild neurocognitive disorders have increased, and this, in part, is due to diagnosing these problems earlier and with greater precision. It is also important to know that biomarkers are being increasingly researched, and it is imperative that we stay current with this research.

Cognitive decline may also occur with the coexistence of other mental health disorders, such as depression, so it is important that we screen for these as well. This is often difficult given the behavioral changes that can arise in dementia, but, as primary care doctors, we must differentiate these to treat our patients appropriately.
 

Informed consent

Informed consent can become an issue with patients with dementia. It must be assessed whether the patient has the capacity to make an informed decision and can competently communicate that decision.

The diagnosis of dementia alone does not preclude a patient from giving informed consent. A patient’s mental capacity must be determined, and if they are not capable of making an informed decision, the person legally responsible for giving informed consent on behalf of the patient must be identified.

Patients with dementia often have other medical comorbidities and take several medications. It is imperative to keep accurate medical records and medication lists. Sometimes, patients with dementia cannot provide this information. If that is the case, every attempt should be made to obtain records from every possible source.
 

Cultural competence

The guidelines also stress that there may be cultural differences when applying neuropsychiatric tests. It is our duty to maintain cultural competence and understand these differences. We all need to work to ensure we control our biases, and it is suggested that we review relevant evidence-based literature.

While ageism is common in our society, it shouldn’t be in our practices. For these reasons, outreach in at-risk populations is very important.
 

Pertinent data

The guidelines also suggest obtaining all possible information in our evaluation, especially when the patient is unable to give it to us.

Often, as primary care physicians, we refer these patients to other providers, and we should be providing all pertinent data to those we are referring these patients to. If all information is not available at the time of evaluation, follow-up visits should be scheduled.

If possible, family members should be present at the time of visit. They often provide valuable information regarding the extent and progression of the decline. Also, they know how the patient is functioning in the home setting and how much assistance they need with activities of daily living.
 

Caretaker support

Another important factor to consider is caretaker burnout. Caretakers are often under a lot of stress and have high rates of depression. It is important to provide them with education and support, as well as resources that may be available to them. For some, accepting the diagnosis that their loved one has dementia may be a struggle.

As doctors treating dementia patients, we need to know the resources that are available to assist dementia patients and their families. There are many local organizations that can help.

Also, research into dementia is ongoing and we need to stay current. The diagnosis of dementia should be made as early as possible using appropriate screening tools. The sooner the diagnosis is made, the quicker interventions can be started and the family members, as well as the patient, can come to accept the diagnosis.

As the population ages, we can expect the demands of dementia to rise as well. Primary care doctors are in a unique position to diagnose dementia once it starts to appear.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Calculating the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) as a proxy for the level of insulin resistance may be useful way to determine if someone with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is at risk for having a first stroke, Swedish researchers have found.

purestock/Thinkstock

In a large population-based study, the lower the eGDR score went, the higher the risk for having a first stroke became.

The eGDR score was also predictive of the chance of dying from any or a cardiovascular cause, Alexander Zabala, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (Abstract OP 01-4).

The link between insulin resistance and an increased risk for stroke has been known for some time, and not just in people with T2D. However, the current way of determining insulin resistance is not suitable for widespread practice.

“The goal standard technique for measuring insulin resistance is the euglycemic clamp method,” said Dr. Zabala, an internal medical resident at Södersjukhuset hospital and researcher at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm.

“For that reason, [the eGDR], a method based on readily available clinical factors – waist circumference, hypertension, and glycosylated hemoglobin was developed,” he explained. Body mass index can also be used in place of waist circumference, he qualified.

The eGDR has already been proven to be very precise in people with type 1 diabetes, said Dr. Zabala, and could be an “excellent tool to measure insulin resistance in a large patient population.”
 

Investigating the link between eGDR and first stroke risk

The aim of the study he presented was to see if changes in the eGDR were associated with changes in the risk of someone with T2D experiencing a first stroke, or dying from a cardiovascular or other cause.

An observational cohort was formed by first considering data on all adult patients with T2D who were logged in the Swedish National Diabetes Registry (NDR) during 2004-2016. Then anyone with a history of stroke, or with any missing data on the clinical variables needed to calculate the eGDR, were excluded.

This resulted in an overall population of 104,697 individuals, aged a mean of 63 years, who had developed T2D at around the age of 59 years. About 44% of the study population were women. The mean eGDR for the whole population was 5.6 mg/kg per min.

The study subjects were grouped according to four eGDR levels: 24,706 were in the lowest quartile of eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min), signifying the highest level of insulin resistance, and 18,762 were in the upper quartile of eGDR (greater than 8 mg/kg per min), signifying the lowest level of insulin resistance. The middle two groups had an eGDR between 4 and 6 mg/kg per min (40,187), and 6 and 8 mg/kg/min (21,042).

Data from the NDR were then combined with the Swedish Cause of Death register, the Swedish In-patient Care Diagnoses registry, and the Longitudinal Database for Health Insurance and Labour Market Studies (LISA) to determine the rates of stroke, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality.
 

Increasing insulin resistance ups risk for stroke, death

After a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 4% (4,201) of the study population had had a stroke.

“We clearly see an increased occurrence of first-time stroke in the group with the lowest eGDR, indicating worst insulin resistance, in comparison with the group with the highest eGDR, indicating less insulin resistance,” Dr. Zabala reported.

After adjustment for potential confounding factors, including age at baseline, gender, diabetes duration, among other variables, the risk for stroke was lowest in those with a high eGDR value and highest for those with a low eGDR value.

Using individuals with the lowest eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min) and thus greatest risk of stroke as the reference, adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for first-time stroke were: 0.60, 0.68, and 0.77 for those with an eGDR of greater than 8, 6-8, and 4-6 mg/kg per min, respectively.

The corresponding values for risk of ischemic stroke were 0.55, 0.68, and 0.75. Regarding hemorrhagic stroke, there was no statistically significant correlation between eGDR levels and stroke occurrence. This was due to the small number of cases recorded.

As for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, a similar pattern was seen, with higher rates of death linked to increasing insulin resistance. Adjusted hazard ratios according to increasing insulin resistance (decreasing eGDR scores) for all-cause death were 0.68, 0.75, and 0.82 and for cardiovascular mortality were 0.65, 0.75, and 0.82.

A sensitivity analysis, using BMI instead of waist circumference to calculate the eGDR, showed a similar pattern, and “interestingly, a correlation between eGDR levels and risk of hemorrhagic stroke.” Dr. Zabala said.
 

Limitations and take-homes

Of course, this is an observational cohort study, so no conclusions on causality can be made and there are no data on the use of anti-diabetic treatments specifically. But there are strengths such as covering almost all adults with T2D in Sweden and a relatively long-follow-up time.

The findings suggest that “eGDR, which may reflect insulin resistance may be a useful risk marker for stroke and death in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Zabala.

“You had a very large cohort, and that certainly makes your results very valid,” observed Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr. (Hons), PhD, MRCP, a consultant diabetologist in Trenčín, Slovakia.

Dr. Novodvorsky, who chaired the session, picked up on the lack of information about how many people were taking newer diabetes drugs, such as the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor antagonists and sodium glucose-lowering transport 2 inhibitors.

“As we all know, these might have protective effects which are not necessarily related to the glucose lowering or insulin resistance-lowering” effects, so could have influenced the results. In terms of how practical the eGDR is for clinical practice, Dr. Zabala observed in a press release: “eGDR could be used to help T2D patients better understand and manage their risk of stroke and death. 

“It could also be of importance in research. In this era of personalized medicine, better stratification of type 2 diabetes patients will help optimize clinical trials and further vital research into treatment, diagnosis, care and prevention.”

The research was a collaboration between the Karolinska Institutet, Gothenburg University and the Swedish National Diabetes Registry. Dr. Zabala and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest.

Calculating the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) as a proxy for the level of insulin resistance may be useful way to determine if someone with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is at risk for having a first stroke, Swedish researchers have found.

purestock/Thinkstock

In a large population-based study, the lower the eGDR score went, the higher the risk for having a first stroke became.

The eGDR score was also predictive of the chance of dying from any or a cardiovascular cause, Alexander Zabala, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (Abstract OP 01-4).

The link between insulin resistance and an increased risk for stroke has been known for some time, and not just in people with T2D. However, the current way of determining insulin resistance is not suitable for widespread practice.

“The goal standard technique for measuring insulin resistance is the euglycemic clamp method,” said Dr. Zabala, an internal medical resident at Södersjukhuset hospital and researcher at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm.

“For that reason, [the eGDR], a method based on readily available clinical factors – waist circumference, hypertension, and glycosylated hemoglobin was developed,” he explained. Body mass index can also be used in place of waist circumference, he qualified.

The eGDR has already been proven to be very precise in people with type 1 diabetes, said Dr. Zabala, and could be an “excellent tool to measure insulin resistance in a large patient population.”
 

Investigating the link between eGDR and first stroke risk

The aim of the study he presented was to see if changes in the eGDR were associated with changes in the risk of someone with T2D experiencing a first stroke, or dying from a cardiovascular or other cause.

An observational cohort was formed by first considering data on all adult patients with T2D who were logged in the Swedish National Diabetes Registry (NDR) during 2004-2016. Then anyone with a history of stroke, or with any missing data on the clinical variables needed to calculate the eGDR, were excluded.

This resulted in an overall population of 104,697 individuals, aged a mean of 63 years, who had developed T2D at around the age of 59 years. About 44% of the study population were women. The mean eGDR for the whole population was 5.6 mg/kg per min.

The study subjects were grouped according to four eGDR levels: 24,706 were in the lowest quartile of eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min), signifying the highest level of insulin resistance, and 18,762 were in the upper quartile of eGDR (greater than 8 mg/kg per min), signifying the lowest level of insulin resistance. The middle two groups had an eGDR between 4 and 6 mg/kg per min (40,187), and 6 and 8 mg/kg/min (21,042).

Data from the NDR were then combined with the Swedish Cause of Death register, the Swedish In-patient Care Diagnoses registry, and the Longitudinal Database for Health Insurance and Labour Market Studies (LISA) to determine the rates of stroke, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality.
 

Increasing insulin resistance ups risk for stroke, death

After a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 4% (4,201) of the study population had had a stroke.

“We clearly see an increased occurrence of first-time stroke in the group with the lowest eGDR, indicating worst insulin resistance, in comparison with the group with the highest eGDR, indicating less insulin resistance,” Dr. Zabala reported.

After adjustment for potential confounding factors, including age at baseline, gender, diabetes duration, among other variables, the risk for stroke was lowest in those with a high eGDR value and highest for those with a low eGDR value.

Using individuals with the lowest eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min) and thus greatest risk of stroke as the reference, adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for first-time stroke were: 0.60, 0.68, and 0.77 for those with an eGDR of greater than 8, 6-8, and 4-6 mg/kg per min, respectively.

The corresponding values for risk of ischemic stroke were 0.55, 0.68, and 0.75. Regarding hemorrhagic stroke, there was no statistically significant correlation between eGDR levels and stroke occurrence. This was due to the small number of cases recorded.

As for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, a similar pattern was seen, with higher rates of death linked to increasing insulin resistance. Adjusted hazard ratios according to increasing insulin resistance (decreasing eGDR scores) for all-cause death were 0.68, 0.75, and 0.82 and for cardiovascular mortality were 0.65, 0.75, and 0.82.

A sensitivity analysis, using BMI instead of waist circumference to calculate the eGDR, showed a similar pattern, and “interestingly, a correlation between eGDR levels and risk of hemorrhagic stroke.” Dr. Zabala said.
 

Limitations and take-homes

Of course, this is an observational cohort study, so no conclusions on causality can be made and there are no data on the use of anti-diabetic treatments specifically. But there are strengths such as covering almost all adults with T2D in Sweden and a relatively long-follow-up time.

The findings suggest that “eGDR, which may reflect insulin resistance may be a useful risk marker for stroke and death in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Zabala.

“You had a very large cohort, and that certainly makes your results very valid,” observed Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr. (Hons), PhD, MRCP, a consultant diabetologist in Trenčín, Slovakia.

Dr. Novodvorsky, who chaired the session, picked up on the lack of information about how many people were taking newer diabetes drugs, such as the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor antagonists and sodium glucose-lowering transport 2 inhibitors.

“As we all know, these might have protective effects which are not necessarily related to the glucose lowering or insulin resistance-lowering” effects, so could have influenced the results. In terms of how practical the eGDR is for clinical practice, Dr. Zabala observed in a press release: “eGDR could be used to help T2D patients better understand and manage their risk of stroke and death. 

“It could also be of importance in research. In this era of personalized medicine, better stratification of type 2 diabetes patients will help optimize clinical trials and further vital research into treatment, diagnosis, care and prevention.”

The research was a collaboration between the Karolinska Institutet, Gothenburg University and the Swedish National Diabetes Registry. Dr. Zabala and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest.

Calculating the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) as a proxy for the level of insulin resistance may be useful way to determine if someone with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is at risk for having a first stroke, Swedish researchers have found.

purestock/Thinkstock

In a large population-based study, the lower the eGDR score went, the higher the risk for having a first stroke became.

The eGDR score was also predictive of the chance of dying from any or a cardiovascular cause, Alexander Zabala, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (Abstract OP 01-4).

The link between insulin resistance and an increased risk for stroke has been known for some time, and not just in people with T2D. However, the current way of determining insulin resistance is not suitable for widespread practice.

“The goal standard technique for measuring insulin resistance is the euglycemic clamp method,” said Dr. Zabala, an internal medical resident at Södersjukhuset hospital and researcher at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm.

“For that reason, [the eGDR], a method based on readily available clinical factors – waist circumference, hypertension, and glycosylated hemoglobin was developed,” he explained. Body mass index can also be used in place of waist circumference, he qualified.

The eGDR has already been proven to be very precise in people with type 1 diabetes, said Dr. Zabala, and could be an “excellent tool to measure insulin resistance in a large patient population.”
 

Investigating the link between eGDR and first stroke risk

The aim of the study he presented was to see if changes in the eGDR were associated with changes in the risk of someone with T2D experiencing a first stroke, or dying from a cardiovascular or other cause.

An observational cohort was formed by first considering data on all adult patients with T2D who were logged in the Swedish National Diabetes Registry (NDR) during 2004-2016. Then anyone with a history of stroke, or with any missing data on the clinical variables needed to calculate the eGDR, were excluded.

This resulted in an overall population of 104,697 individuals, aged a mean of 63 years, who had developed T2D at around the age of 59 years. About 44% of the study population were women. The mean eGDR for the whole population was 5.6 mg/kg per min.

The study subjects were grouped according to four eGDR levels: 24,706 were in the lowest quartile of eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min), signifying the highest level of insulin resistance, and 18,762 were in the upper quartile of eGDR (greater than 8 mg/kg per min), signifying the lowest level of insulin resistance. The middle two groups had an eGDR between 4 and 6 mg/kg per min (40,187), and 6 and 8 mg/kg/min (21,042).

Data from the NDR were then combined with the Swedish Cause of Death register, the Swedish In-patient Care Diagnoses registry, and the Longitudinal Database for Health Insurance and Labour Market Studies (LISA) to determine the rates of stroke, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality.
 

Increasing insulin resistance ups risk for stroke, death

After a median follow-up of 5.6 years, 4% (4,201) of the study population had had a stroke.

“We clearly see an increased occurrence of first-time stroke in the group with the lowest eGDR, indicating worst insulin resistance, in comparison with the group with the highest eGDR, indicating less insulin resistance,” Dr. Zabala reported.

After adjustment for potential confounding factors, including age at baseline, gender, diabetes duration, among other variables, the risk for stroke was lowest in those with a high eGDR value and highest for those with a low eGDR value.

Using individuals with the lowest eGDR (less than 4 mg/kg per min) and thus greatest risk of stroke as the reference, adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for first-time stroke were: 0.60, 0.68, and 0.77 for those with an eGDR of greater than 8, 6-8, and 4-6 mg/kg per min, respectively.

The corresponding values for risk of ischemic stroke were 0.55, 0.68, and 0.75. Regarding hemorrhagic stroke, there was no statistically significant correlation between eGDR levels and stroke occurrence. This was due to the small number of cases recorded.

As for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, a similar pattern was seen, with higher rates of death linked to increasing insulin resistance. Adjusted hazard ratios according to increasing insulin resistance (decreasing eGDR scores) for all-cause death were 0.68, 0.75, and 0.82 and for cardiovascular mortality were 0.65, 0.75, and 0.82.

A sensitivity analysis, using BMI instead of waist circumference to calculate the eGDR, showed a similar pattern, and “interestingly, a correlation between eGDR levels and risk of hemorrhagic stroke.” Dr. Zabala said.
 

Limitations and take-homes

Of course, this is an observational cohort study, so no conclusions on causality can be made and there are no data on the use of anti-diabetic treatments specifically. But there are strengths such as covering almost all adults with T2D in Sweden and a relatively long-follow-up time.

The findings suggest that “eGDR, which may reflect insulin resistance may be a useful risk marker for stroke and death in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Zabala.

“You had a very large cohort, and that certainly makes your results very valid,” observed Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr. (Hons), PhD, MRCP, a consultant diabetologist in Trenčín, Slovakia.

Dr. Novodvorsky, who chaired the session, picked up on the lack of information about how many people were taking newer diabetes drugs, such as the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor antagonists and sodium glucose-lowering transport 2 inhibitors.

“As we all know, these might have protective effects which are not necessarily related to the glucose lowering or insulin resistance-lowering” effects, so could have influenced the results. In terms of how practical the eGDR is for clinical practice, Dr. Zabala observed in a press release: “eGDR could be used to help T2D patients better understand and manage their risk of stroke and death. 

“It could also be of importance in research. In this era of personalized medicine, better stratification of type 2 diabetes patients will help optimize clinical trials and further vital research into treatment, diagnosis, care and prevention.”

The research was a collaboration between the Karolinska Institutet, Gothenburg University and the Swedish National Diabetes Registry. Dr. Zabala and coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest.

Self-administered external trigeminal nerve stimulation (E-TNS) that is available over the counter is superior to sham stimulation in relieving pain for patients with episodic migraine, results from a phase 3 study show.

This is great news for headache patients who want to explore nondrug treatment options, said study investigator Deena E. Kuruvilla, MD, neurologist and headache specialist at the Westport Headache Institute, Connecticut.

She added that such devices “aren’t always part of the conversation when we’re discussing preventive and acute treatments with our patients. Making this a regular part of the conversation might be helpful to patients.”

The findings were presented at ANA 2021: 146th Annual Meeting of the American Neurological Association (ANA), which was held online.
 

A key therapeutic target

The randomized, double-blind trial compared E-TNS with sham stimulation for the acute treatment of migraine.

The E-TNS device (Verum Cefaly Abortive Program) stimulates the supraorbital nerve in the forehead. “This nerve is a branch of the trigeminal nerve, which is thought to be the key player in migraine pathophysiology,” Dr. Kuruvilla noted.

The device has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for acute and preventive treatment of migraine.

During a run-in period before randomization, patients were asked to keep a detailed headache diary and to become comfortable using the trial device to treat an acute migraine attack at home.

The study enrolled 538 adult patients at 10 centers. The patients were aged 18 to 65 years, and they had been having episodic migraines, with or without aura, for at least a year. The participants had to have received a migraine diagnosis before age 50, and they had to be experiencing an attack of migraine 2 to 8 days per month.

The patients used the device only for a migraine of at least moderate intensity that was accompanied by at least one migraine-associated symptom, such as photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea. They were asked not to take rescue medication prior to or during a therapy session.

Study participants applied either neurostimulation or sham stimulation for a continuous 2-hour period within 4 hours of a migraine attack over the 2-month study period.

The two primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms at 2 hours.

Compared to sham treatment, active stimulation was more effective in achieving pain freedom (P = .043) and freedom from the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (P = .001) at 2 hours.

“So the study did meet both primary endpoints with statistical significance,” said Dr. Kuruvilla.

The five secondary endpoints included pain relief at 2 hours; absence of all migraine-associated symptoms at 2 hours; use of rescue medication within 24 hours; sustained pain freedom at 24 hours; and sustained pain relief at 24 hours.

All but one of these endpoints reached statistical significance, showing superiority for the active intervention. The only exception was in regard to use of rescue medication.

The most common adverse event (AE) was forehead paresthesia, discomfort, or burning, which was more common in the active-treatment group than in the sham-treatment group (P = .009). There were four cases of nausea or vomiting in the active-treatment group and none in the sham-treatment group. There were no serious AEs.
 

Available over the counter

Both moderators of the headache poster tour that featured this study – Justin C. McArthur, MBBS, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Steven Galetta, MD, from NYU Grossman School of Medicine – praised the presentation.

Dr. Galetta questioned whether patients were receiving preventive therapies. Dr. Kuruvilla said that the patients were allowed to enter the trial while taking preventive therapies, including antiepileptic treatments, blood pressure medications, and antidepressants, but that they had to be receiving stable doses.

The investigators didn’t distinguish between participants who were taking preventive therapies and those who weren’t, she said. “The aim was really to look at acute treatment for migraine,” and patients taking such medication “had been stable on their regimen for a pretty prolonged period of time.”

Dr. McArthur asked about the origin of the nausea some patients experienced.

It was difficult to determine whether the nausea was an aspect of an individual patient’s migraine attack or was an effect of the stimulation, said Dr. Kuruvilla. She noted that some patients found the vibrating sensation from the device uncomfortable and that nausea could be associated with pain at the site.

The device costs $300 to $400 (U.S.) and is available over the counter.

Dr. Kuruvilla is a consultant for Cefaly, Neurolief, Theranica, Now What Media, and Kx Advisors. She is on the speakers bureau for AbbVie/Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Lilly, the American Headache Society, Biohaven, and CME meeting, and she is on an advisory board at AbbVie/Allergan, Lilly, Theranica, and Amgen/Novartis. She is editor and associate editor of Healthline and is an author for WebMD/Medscape, Healthline.

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

Self-administered external trigeminal nerve stimulation (E-TNS) that is available over the counter is superior to sham stimulation in relieving pain for patients with episodic migraine, results from a phase 3 study show.

This is great news for headache patients who want to explore nondrug treatment options, said study investigator Deena E. Kuruvilla, MD, neurologist and headache specialist at the Westport Headache Institute, Connecticut.

She added that such devices “aren’t always part of the conversation when we’re discussing preventive and acute treatments with our patients. Making this a regular part of the conversation might be helpful to patients.”

The findings were presented at ANA 2021: 146th Annual Meeting of the American Neurological Association (ANA), which was held online.
 

A key therapeutic target

The randomized, double-blind trial compared E-TNS with sham stimulation for the acute treatment of migraine.

The E-TNS device (Verum Cefaly Abortive Program) stimulates the supraorbital nerve in the forehead. “This nerve is a branch of the trigeminal nerve, which is thought to be the key player in migraine pathophysiology,” Dr. Kuruvilla noted.

The device has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for acute and preventive treatment of migraine.

During a run-in period before randomization, patients were asked to keep a detailed headache diary and to become comfortable using the trial device to treat an acute migraine attack at home.

The study enrolled 538 adult patients at 10 centers. The patients were aged 18 to 65 years, and they had been having episodic migraines, with or without aura, for at least a year. The participants had to have received a migraine diagnosis before age 50, and they had to be experiencing an attack of migraine 2 to 8 days per month.

The patients used the device only for a migraine of at least moderate intensity that was accompanied by at least one migraine-associated symptom, such as photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea. They were asked not to take rescue medication prior to or during a therapy session.

Study participants applied either neurostimulation or sham stimulation for a continuous 2-hour period within 4 hours of a migraine attack over the 2-month study period.

The two primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms at 2 hours.

Compared to sham treatment, active stimulation was more effective in achieving pain freedom (P = .043) and freedom from the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (P = .001) at 2 hours.

“So the study did meet both primary endpoints with statistical significance,” said Dr. Kuruvilla.

The five secondary endpoints included pain relief at 2 hours; absence of all migraine-associated symptoms at 2 hours; use of rescue medication within 24 hours; sustained pain freedom at 24 hours; and sustained pain relief at 24 hours.

All but one of these endpoints reached statistical significance, showing superiority for the active intervention. The only exception was in regard to use of rescue medication.

The most common adverse event (AE) was forehead paresthesia, discomfort, or burning, which was more common in the active-treatment group than in the sham-treatment group (P = .009). There were four cases of nausea or vomiting in the active-treatment group and none in the sham-treatment group. There were no serious AEs.
 

Available over the counter

Both moderators of the headache poster tour that featured this study – Justin C. McArthur, MBBS, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Steven Galetta, MD, from NYU Grossman School of Medicine – praised the presentation.

Dr. Galetta questioned whether patients were receiving preventive therapies. Dr. Kuruvilla said that the patients were allowed to enter the trial while taking preventive therapies, including antiepileptic treatments, blood pressure medications, and antidepressants, but that they had to be receiving stable doses.

The investigators didn’t distinguish between participants who were taking preventive therapies and those who weren’t, she said. “The aim was really to look at acute treatment for migraine,” and patients taking such medication “had been stable on their regimen for a pretty prolonged period of time.”

Dr. McArthur asked about the origin of the nausea some patients experienced.

It was difficult to determine whether the nausea was an aspect of an individual patient’s migraine attack or was an effect of the stimulation, said Dr. Kuruvilla. She noted that some patients found the vibrating sensation from the device uncomfortable and that nausea could be associated with pain at the site.

The device costs $300 to $400 (U.S.) and is available over the counter.

Dr. Kuruvilla is a consultant for Cefaly, Neurolief, Theranica, Now What Media, and Kx Advisors. She is on the speakers bureau for AbbVie/Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Lilly, the American Headache Society, Biohaven, and CME meeting, and she is on an advisory board at AbbVie/Allergan, Lilly, Theranica, and Amgen/Novartis. She is editor and associate editor of Healthline and is an author for WebMD/Medscape, Healthline.

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

Self-administered external trigeminal nerve stimulation (E-TNS) that is available over the counter is superior to sham stimulation in relieving pain for patients with episodic migraine, results from a phase 3 study show.

This is great news for headache patients who want to explore nondrug treatment options, said study investigator Deena E. Kuruvilla, MD, neurologist and headache specialist at the Westport Headache Institute, Connecticut.

She added that such devices “aren’t always part of the conversation when we’re discussing preventive and acute treatments with our patients. Making this a regular part of the conversation might be helpful to patients.”

The findings were presented at ANA 2021: 146th Annual Meeting of the American Neurological Association (ANA), which was held online.
 

A key therapeutic target

The randomized, double-blind trial compared E-TNS with sham stimulation for the acute treatment of migraine.

The E-TNS device (Verum Cefaly Abortive Program) stimulates the supraorbital nerve in the forehead. “This nerve is a branch of the trigeminal nerve, which is thought to be the key player in migraine pathophysiology,” Dr. Kuruvilla noted.

The device has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for acute and preventive treatment of migraine.

During a run-in period before randomization, patients were asked to keep a detailed headache diary and to become comfortable using the trial device to treat an acute migraine attack at home.

The study enrolled 538 adult patients at 10 centers. The patients were aged 18 to 65 years, and they had been having episodic migraines, with or without aura, for at least a year. The participants had to have received a migraine diagnosis before age 50, and they had to be experiencing an attack of migraine 2 to 8 days per month.

The patients used the device only for a migraine of at least moderate intensity that was accompanied by at least one migraine-associated symptom, such as photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea. They were asked not to take rescue medication prior to or during a therapy session.

Study participants applied either neurostimulation or sham stimulation for a continuous 2-hour period within 4 hours of a migraine attack over the 2-month study period.

The two primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms at 2 hours.

Compared to sham treatment, active stimulation was more effective in achieving pain freedom (P = .043) and freedom from the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (P = .001) at 2 hours.

“So the study did meet both primary endpoints with statistical significance,” said Dr. Kuruvilla.

The five secondary endpoints included pain relief at 2 hours; absence of all migraine-associated symptoms at 2 hours; use of rescue medication within 24 hours; sustained pain freedom at 24 hours; and sustained pain relief at 24 hours.

All but one of these endpoints reached statistical significance, showing superiority for the active intervention. The only exception was in regard to use of rescue medication.

The most common adverse event (AE) was forehead paresthesia, discomfort, or burning, which was more common in the active-treatment group than in the sham-treatment group (P = .009). There were four cases of nausea or vomiting in the active-treatment group and none in the sham-treatment group. There were no serious AEs.
 

Available over the counter

Both moderators of the headache poster tour that featured this study – Justin C. McArthur, MBBS, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Steven Galetta, MD, from NYU Grossman School of Medicine – praised the presentation.

Dr. Galetta questioned whether patients were receiving preventive therapies. Dr. Kuruvilla said that the patients were allowed to enter the trial while taking preventive therapies, including antiepileptic treatments, blood pressure medications, and antidepressants, but that they had to be receiving stable doses.

The investigators didn’t distinguish between participants who were taking preventive therapies and those who weren’t, she said. “The aim was really to look at acute treatment for migraine,” and patients taking such medication “had been stable on their regimen for a pretty prolonged period of time.”

Dr. McArthur asked about the origin of the nausea some patients experienced.

It was difficult to determine whether the nausea was an aspect of an individual patient’s migraine attack or was an effect of the stimulation, said Dr. Kuruvilla. She noted that some patients found the vibrating sensation from the device uncomfortable and that nausea could be associated with pain at the site.

The device costs $300 to $400 (U.S.) and is available over the counter.

Dr. Kuruvilla is a consultant for Cefaly, Neurolief, Theranica, Now What Media, and Kx Advisors. She is on the speakers bureau for AbbVie/Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Lilly, the American Headache Society, Biohaven, and CME meeting, and she is on an advisory board at AbbVie/Allergan, Lilly, Theranica, and Amgen/Novartis. She is editor and associate editor of Healthline and is an author for WebMD/Medscape, Healthline.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Adding art therapy to standard drug treatment in Parkinson’s disease (PD) not only improves severity of both motor and nonmotor symptoms, but also slows rates of disease progression, new research suggests.

TimothyOLeary/Thinkstock

Fifty PD patients were randomly assigned to receive either art therapy, including sculpting and drawing, plus drug therapy or drug therapy alone, and followed up over 12 months.

Patients receiving combined therapy experienced improvements in symptoms, depression, and cognitive scores, and had reduced tremor and daytime sleepiness. They were also substantially less likely to experience disease progression.

“The use of art therapy can reduce the severity of motor and nonmotor manifestations of Parkinson’s disease,” said study investigator Iryna Khubetova, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Odessa (Ukraine) Regional Clinical Hospital.

Crucially, the positive effects “persisted throughout the observation period,” she added.

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

A promising approach

Dr. Khubetova told this news organization that offering art therapy to PD patients was “very affordable,” especially as professional artists “provided materials for painting and other art supplies free of charge.”

“We hope this approach is very promising and would be widely adopted.”

She suggested the positive effect of art therapy could be related to “activating the brain’s reward neural network.”

This may be via improved visual attention acting on visuospatial mechanisms and emotional drive, with “activation of the medial orbitofrontal cortex, ventral striatum, and other structures.”

The researchers note PD, a “multisystem progressive neurodegenerative disease,” is among the three most common neurological disorders, with an incidence of 100-150 cases per 100,000 people.

They also note that nonpharmacologic approaches are “widely used” as an adjunct to drug therapy and as part of an “integrated approach” to disease management.

To examine the clinical efficacy of art therapy, the team recruited patients with PD who had preserved facility for independent movement, defined as stages 1-2.5 on the Hoehn and Yahr scale.

Patients were randomly assigned to art therapy sessions alongside standard drug therapy or to standard drug therapy alone. The art therapy included sculpting, free drawing, and coloring patterns.
 

Multiple benefits

Participants were assessed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months with the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), the Beck Depression Inventory, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Pegboard Test of finger dexterity.

Fifty patients were included in the study, with 30 assigned to standard drug therapy alone and 20 to the combined intervention. Participants had a mean age of 57.8 years, and 46% were women.

Over the study period, investigators found patients assigned to art therapy plus drug treatment had improved mood, as well as decreased daytime sleeping, reduced tremor, and a decrease in anxiety and fear intensity.

Between baseline and the 6- and 12-month assessments, patients in the combined therapy group showed improvements in scores on all of the questionnaires, and on the Pegboard Test. In contrast, scores were either stable or worsened in the standard drug therapy–alone group.

The team notes that there was also a marked difference in rates of disease progression, defined as a change on the Hoehn and Yahr scale of at least 0.5 points, between the two groups.

Only two (10%) patients in the combined drug and art therapy progressed over the study period, compared with 10 (33%) in the control group (P = .05).

The findings complement those of a recent study conducted by Alberto Cucca, MD, of the Fresco Institute for Parkinson’s and Movement Disorders, New York University, and colleagues.

Eighteen patients took part in the prospective, open-label trial. They were assessed before and after 20 sessions of art therapy on a range of measures.

Results revealed that following the art therapy, patients had improvements in the Navon Test (which assesses visual neglect, eye tracking, and UPDRS scores), as well as significantly increased functional connectivity levels in the visual cortex on resting-state functional MRI.
 

Many benefits, no side effects

Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, vice president and chief scientific officer of the American Parkinson Disease Association, who was not involved in either study, told this news organization that the idea of art therapy for patients with Parkinson’s is “very reasonable.”

She highlighted that “people with Parkinson’s have many issues with their visuospatial abilities,” as well as their depth and distance perception, and so “enhancing that aspect could potentially be very beneficial.”

“So I’m hopeful that it’s a really good avenue to explore, and the preliminary data are very exciting.”

Dr. Gilbert also highlighted that the “wonderful” aspect of art therapy is that there are “so many benefits and not really any side effects.” Patients can “take the meds … and then enhance that with various therapies, and this would be an additional option.”

Another notable aspect of art therapy is the “social element” and the sense of “camaraderie,” although that has “to be teased out from the benefits you would get from the actual art therapy.”

Finally, Dr. Gilbert pointed out that the difference between the current trial and Dr. Cucca’s trial is the presence of a control group.

“Of course, it’s not blinded, because you know whether you got therapy or not … but that extra element of being able to compare with a group that didn’t get the treatment gives it a little more weight in terms of the field.”

No funding was declared. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding art therapy to standard drug treatment in Parkinson’s disease (PD) not only improves severity of both motor and nonmotor symptoms, but also slows rates of disease progression, new research suggests.

TimothyOLeary/Thinkstock

Fifty PD patients were randomly assigned to receive either art therapy, including sculpting and drawing, plus drug therapy or drug therapy alone, and followed up over 12 months.

Patients receiving combined therapy experienced improvements in symptoms, depression, and cognitive scores, and had reduced tremor and daytime sleepiness. They were also substantially less likely to experience disease progression.

“The use of art therapy can reduce the severity of motor and nonmotor manifestations of Parkinson’s disease,” said study investigator Iryna Khubetova, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Odessa (Ukraine) Regional Clinical Hospital.

Crucially, the positive effects “persisted throughout the observation period,” she added.

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

A promising approach

Dr. Khubetova told this news organization that offering art therapy to PD patients was “very affordable,” especially as professional artists “provided materials for painting and other art supplies free of charge.”

“We hope this approach is very promising and would be widely adopted.”

She suggested the positive effect of art therapy could be related to “activating the brain’s reward neural network.”

This may be via improved visual attention acting on visuospatial mechanisms and emotional drive, with “activation of the medial orbitofrontal cortex, ventral striatum, and other structures.”

The researchers note PD, a “multisystem progressive neurodegenerative disease,” is among the three most common neurological disorders, with an incidence of 100-150 cases per 100,000 people.

They also note that nonpharmacologic approaches are “widely used” as an adjunct to drug therapy and as part of an “integrated approach” to disease management.

To examine the clinical efficacy of art therapy, the team recruited patients with PD who had preserved facility for independent movement, defined as stages 1-2.5 on the Hoehn and Yahr scale.

Patients were randomly assigned to art therapy sessions alongside standard drug therapy or to standard drug therapy alone. The art therapy included sculpting, free drawing, and coloring patterns.
 

Multiple benefits

Participants were assessed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months with the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), the Beck Depression Inventory, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Pegboard Test of finger dexterity.

Fifty patients were included in the study, with 30 assigned to standard drug therapy alone and 20 to the combined intervention. Participants had a mean age of 57.8 years, and 46% were women.

Over the study period, investigators found patients assigned to art therapy plus drug treatment had improved mood, as well as decreased daytime sleeping, reduced tremor, and a decrease in anxiety and fear intensity.

Between baseline and the 6- and 12-month assessments, patients in the combined therapy group showed improvements in scores on all of the questionnaires, and on the Pegboard Test. In contrast, scores were either stable or worsened in the standard drug therapy–alone group.

The team notes that there was also a marked difference in rates of disease progression, defined as a change on the Hoehn and Yahr scale of at least 0.5 points, between the two groups.

Only two (10%) patients in the combined drug and art therapy progressed over the study period, compared with 10 (33%) in the control group (P = .05).

The findings complement those of a recent study conducted by Alberto Cucca, MD, of the Fresco Institute for Parkinson’s and Movement Disorders, New York University, and colleagues.

Eighteen patients took part in the prospective, open-label trial. They were assessed before and after 20 sessions of art therapy on a range of measures.

Results revealed that following the art therapy, patients had improvements in the Navon Test (which assesses visual neglect, eye tracking, and UPDRS scores), as well as significantly increased functional connectivity levels in the visual cortex on resting-state functional MRI.
 

Many benefits, no side effects

Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, vice president and chief scientific officer of the American Parkinson Disease Association, who was not involved in either study, told this news organization that the idea of art therapy for patients with Parkinson’s is “very reasonable.”

She highlighted that “people with Parkinson’s have many issues with their visuospatial abilities,” as well as their depth and distance perception, and so “enhancing that aspect could potentially be very beneficial.”

“So I’m hopeful that it’s a really good avenue to explore, and the preliminary data are very exciting.”

Dr. Gilbert also highlighted that the “wonderful” aspect of art therapy is that there are “so many benefits and not really any side effects.” Patients can “take the meds … and then enhance that with various therapies, and this would be an additional option.”

Another notable aspect of art therapy is the “social element” and the sense of “camaraderie,” although that has “to be teased out from the benefits you would get from the actual art therapy.”

Finally, Dr. Gilbert pointed out that the difference between the current trial and Dr. Cucca’s trial is the presence of a control group.

“Of course, it’s not blinded, because you know whether you got therapy or not … but that extra element of being able to compare with a group that didn’t get the treatment gives it a little more weight in terms of the field.”

No funding was declared. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding art therapy to standard drug treatment in Parkinson’s disease (PD) not only improves severity of both motor and nonmotor symptoms, but also slows rates of disease progression, new research suggests.

TimothyOLeary/Thinkstock

Fifty PD patients were randomly assigned to receive either art therapy, including sculpting and drawing, plus drug therapy or drug therapy alone, and followed up over 12 months.

Patients receiving combined therapy experienced improvements in symptoms, depression, and cognitive scores, and had reduced tremor and daytime sleepiness. They were also substantially less likely to experience disease progression.

“The use of art therapy can reduce the severity of motor and nonmotor manifestations of Parkinson’s disease,” said study investigator Iryna Khubetova, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Odessa (Ukraine) Regional Clinical Hospital.

Crucially, the positive effects “persisted throughout the observation period,” she added.

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

A promising approach

Dr. Khubetova told this news organization that offering art therapy to PD patients was “very affordable,” especially as professional artists “provided materials for painting and other art supplies free of charge.”

“We hope this approach is very promising and would be widely adopted.”

She suggested the positive effect of art therapy could be related to “activating the brain’s reward neural network.”

This may be via improved visual attention acting on visuospatial mechanisms and emotional drive, with “activation of the medial orbitofrontal cortex, ventral striatum, and other structures.”

The researchers note PD, a “multisystem progressive neurodegenerative disease,” is among the three most common neurological disorders, with an incidence of 100-150 cases per 100,000 people.

They also note that nonpharmacologic approaches are “widely used” as an adjunct to drug therapy and as part of an “integrated approach” to disease management.

To examine the clinical efficacy of art therapy, the team recruited patients with PD who had preserved facility for independent movement, defined as stages 1-2.5 on the Hoehn and Yahr scale.

Patients were randomly assigned to art therapy sessions alongside standard drug therapy or to standard drug therapy alone. The art therapy included sculpting, free drawing, and coloring patterns.
 

Multiple benefits

Participants were assessed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months with the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), the Beck Depression Inventory, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Pegboard Test of finger dexterity.

Fifty patients were included in the study, with 30 assigned to standard drug therapy alone and 20 to the combined intervention. Participants had a mean age of 57.8 years, and 46% were women.

Over the study period, investigators found patients assigned to art therapy plus drug treatment had improved mood, as well as decreased daytime sleeping, reduced tremor, and a decrease in anxiety and fear intensity.

Between baseline and the 6- and 12-month assessments, patients in the combined therapy group showed improvements in scores on all of the questionnaires, and on the Pegboard Test. In contrast, scores were either stable or worsened in the standard drug therapy–alone group.

The team notes that there was also a marked difference in rates of disease progression, defined as a change on the Hoehn and Yahr scale of at least 0.5 points, between the two groups.

Only two (10%) patients in the combined drug and art therapy progressed over the study period, compared with 10 (33%) in the control group (P = .05).

The findings complement those of a recent study conducted by Alberto Cucca, MD, of the Fresco Institute for Parkinson’s and Movement Disorders, New York University, and colleagues.

Eighteen patients took part in the prospective, open-label trial. They were assessed before and after 20 sessions of art therapy on a range of measures.

Results revealed that following the art therapy, patients had improvements in the Navon Test (which assesses visual neglect, eye tracking, and UPDRS scores), as well as significantly increased functional connectivity levels in the visual cortex on resting-state functional MRI.
 

Many benefits, no side effects

Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, vice president and chief scientific officer of the American Parkinson Disease Association, who was not involved in either study, told this news organization that the idea of art therapy for patients with Parkinson’s is “very reasonable.”

She highlighted that “people with Parkinson’s have many issues with their visuospatial abilities,” as well as their depth and distance perception, and so “enhancing that aspect could potentially be very beneficial.”

“So I’m hopeful that it’s a really good avenue to explore, and the preliminary data are very exciting.”

Dr. Gilbert also highlighted that the “wonderful” aspect of art therapy is that there are “so many benefits and not really any side effects.” Patients can “take the meds … and then enhance that with various therapies, and this would be an additional option.”

Another notable aspect of art therapy is the “social element” and the sense of “camaraderie,” although that has “to be teased out from the benefits you would get from the actual art therapy.”

Finally, Dr. Gilbert pointed out that the difference between the current trial and Dr. Cucca’s trial is the presence of a control group.

“Of course, it’s not blinded, because you know whether you got therapy or not … but that extra element of being able to compare with a group that didn’t get the treatment gives it a little more weight in terms of the field.”

No funding was declared. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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