Neurology

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Higher odds of depression in youth and adolescents with concussion

A 2019 prospective cohort study used data from the 2017 Nevada Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) to evaluate the relationship between concussion and depression in high school students.¹ Included students were physically active for at least 60 minutes on 5 or more days per week or played on at least 1 sports team (N = 3427; 9th-12th grade students from 98 schools). When compared to the total population of included students and controlled for covariates, those who self-reported a concussion within the past 12 months (N = 664) had a higher adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of depressive symptoms (aOR = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.9). Depressive symptoms were reported in 38.1% of patients with a history of concussion, compared to 29.2% of patients who did not report a concussion in the past 12 months.

A 2014 retrospective cohort study examined data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Children’s Health and evaluated the association between previous concussion and current depression diagnosis in youth ages 12 to 17 years without a current concussion (N = 36,060).² Parents were contacted by random-digit dialing, prompted with a description of depression, and asked if their child currently had a clinical diagnosis of depression and whether a concussion had ever been diagnosed. A prior diagnosis of concussion was associated with greater risk for current depression compared to youth with no concussion history (aOR = 3.3; 95% CI, 2-5.5). Current depression was reported in 10.1% of patients with a history of concussion compared to 3.4% of patients with no history of concussion.

Findings vary among college athletes

A 2015 case-control study examined the prevalence of depressive symptoms in college athletes diagnosed with concussion compared to an athletic control group.³ The intervention group (N = 84; 77% male; average age, 18.4 years) received a concussion diagnosis from the team physician or certified athletic trainer. The athletic control group (N = 42; 55% male; average age, 18.9 years) reported no concussions in the past year.

The Beck Depression Inventory–Fast Screen (BDI-FS) was administered to the concussion group at baseline and postconcussion, and to the control group at 2 time points, with an average interval of 6.8 weeks. A score of ≥ 4 on the BDI-FS (scoring range, 0-21; higher score suggestive of more severe depression) indicated athletes at risk for depression. Concussed athletes exhibited a statistically significant increase in depression symptoms compared to control participants (20% vs 5%; x²₁ = 5.2; P = .02).

A 2018 cross-sectional study examined the association between concussion and adverse health outcomes in former college football players who played at least 1 year in college (1999-2001) but had no professional football experience.⁴ The cohort (N = 204; average age, 35) self-reported (15 years after their college career ended) the number of concussions sustained during high school and college sports performance. Reports were then stratified into 3 categories: no concussions, 1 or 2 concussions, and ≥ 3 concussions. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to screen for depression, with scores categorized to no or mild depression (< 10) and moderate-to-­severe depression (≥ 10).

Controlling for body mass index, athletes reporting ≥ 3 concussions had a higher prevalence of depression compared to those reporting no concussions (prevalence ratio [PR] = 4.2; 95% CI, 1.0-16.3) or 1 to 2 concussions (PR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0). No statistically significant association between concussion and depression was observed with athletes reporting 1 to 2 concussions compared to 0 concussions.

The exact relationship— degree and context— between concussion and depression remains vague.

A 2015 prospective longitudinal cohort study examined postinjury depressive symptoms in 3 groups of Division 1 male and female college student athletes (N = 21; ages 18-22).⁵ Physician-diagnosed ­concussed (N = 7) and injured but nonconcussed (N = 7) athletes completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) at baseline and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postinjury. Sport-matched healthy athletes (N = 7) completed it only at baseline. A CES-D score of ≥ 16 (range, 0-60) indicated a risk for clinical depression. Participants with a history of depression or other injury resulting in ≥ 1 day of time lost within the past 3 months were excluded.

Continue to: While both groups...

While both groups showed a significant increase from baseline CES-D scores, there were no significant differences in depressive symptoms between concussed (mean CES-D score ± standard deviation [SD]: baseline, 6.7 ± 3.9; 1 week, 11 ± 5.3; 1 month, 8.3 ± 5; 3 months, 6.4 ± 5.4) and injured but nonconcussed participants (mean CES-D score ± SD: baseline, 5.7 ± 2.8; 1 week, 9.1 ± 4; 1 month, 8.9 ± 4.6; 3 months, 6.9 ± 2.8) at any of the postinjury time points.

Findings among semipro and pro athletes appear to vary by sport

A 2016 prospective cohort study assessed the impact of concussive events on incidence of depression in active semiprofessional and professional football players who had previously sustained ≥ 1 concussions.⁶ Participants (N = 27) answered an anonymous online survey that included the revised version of the CES-D (CESD-R) to determine level of depression (a score of ≥ 16 defined clinical depression). Players with a CESD-R score ≥ 16 (N = 16) sustained a significantly greater average number of concussions compared to those who scored < 16 (N = 11; 3.8 vs. 1.6, P = .0004). Players who sustained ≥ 3 concussions scored significantly higher on the CESD-R than players with ≤ 2 concussions (average score, 24 vs 15.6; P = .03).

A 2017 case-control study examined the long-term health outcomes of retired Scottish male rugby players (N = 52; mean age, 54 years) with a history of mild concussion compared to males of similar age with no previous history of concussion (N = 29; mean age, 55).⁷ The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to assess depression on a 21-point scale (normal = 0-7; borderline, 8-10; abnormal, 11-21). There was no significant difference observed in mean HADS scores between the rugby players and controls, respectively (2.8 ± 2.1 vs 2.6 ± 2 .8; P = .941).

A 2013 case-control study of 30 retired NFL players with 29 controls matched for age, estimated IQ, and education examined the relationship between a remote history of concussion and current symptoms of depression.⁸ Concussion history was self-reported by the retired players. Controls with a history of concussion were excluded from the study. The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) was used to measure depression symptoms, with a score of 1 to 9 designating minimal depression and ≥ 10 mild-to-moderate depression. Retired players scored significantly higher on the BDI-II compared to the controls (8.8 vs 2.8; P = .001).

Editor’s takeaway

Concussions include cognitive compromise. An astute clinician’s concern for depression as a sequela makes sense. This evidence contributes to that conjecture. However, the authors of this Clinical Inquiry correctly outline the limitations, inconsistencies, and biases of the evidence. The exact relationship—degree and context—between concussion and depression remains vague.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Higher odds of depression in youth and adolescents with concussion

A 2019 prospective cohort study used data from the 2017 Nevada Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) to evaluate the relationship between concussion and depression in high school students.¹ Included students were physically active for at least 60 minutes on 5 or more days per week or played on at least 1 sports team (N = 3427; 9th-12th grade students from 98 schools). When compared to the total population of included students and controlled for covariates, those who self-reported a concussion within the past 12 months (N = 664) had a higher adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of depressive symptoms (aOR = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.9). Depressive symptoms were reported in 38.1% of patients with a history of concussion, compared to 29.2% of patients who did not report a concussion in the past 12 months.

A 2014 retrospective cohort study examined data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Children’s Health and evaluated the association between previous concussion and current depression diagnosis in youth ages 12 to 17 years without a current concussion (N = 36,060).² Parents were contacted by random-digit dialing, prompted with a description of depression, and asked if their child currently had a clinical diagnosis of depression and whether a concussion had ever been diagnosed. A prior diagnosis of concussion was associated with greater risk for current depression compared to youth with no concussion history (aOR = 3.3; 95% CI, 2-5.5). Current depression was reported in 10.1% of patients with a history of concussion compared to 3.4% of patients with no history of concussion.

Findings vary among college athletes

A 2015 case-control study examined the prevalence of depressive symptoms in college athletes diagnosed with concussion compared to an athletic control group.³ The intervention group (N = 84; 77% male; average age, 18.4 years) received a concussion diagnosis from the team physician or certified athletic trainer. The athletic control group (N = 42; 55% male; average age, 18.9 years) reported no concussions in the past year.

The Beck Depression Inventory–Fast Screen (BDI-FS) was administered to the concussion group at baseline and postconcussion, and to the control group at 2 time points, with an average interval of 6.8 weeks. A score of ≥ 4 on the BDI-FS (scoring range, 0-21; higher score suggestive of more severe depression) indicated athletes at risk for depression. Concussed athletes exhibited a statistically significant increase in depression symptoms compared to control participants (20% vs 5%; x²₁ = 5.2; P = .02).

A 2018 cross-sectional study examined the association between concussion and adverse health outcomes in former college football players who played at least 1 year in college (1999-2001) but had no professional football experience.⁴ The cohort (N = 204; average age, 35) self-reported (15 years after their college career ended) the number of concussions sustained during high school and college sports performance. Reports were then stratified into 3 categories: no concussions, 1 or 2 concussions, and ≥ 3 concussions. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to screen for depression, with scores categorized to no or mild depression (< 10) and moderate-to-­severe depression (≥ 10).

Controlling for body mass index, athletes reporting ≥ 3 concussions had a higher prevalence of depression compared to those reporting no concussions (prevalence ratio [PR] = 4.2; 95% CI, 1.0-16.3) or 1 to 2 concussions (PR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0). No statistically significant association between concussion and depression was observed with athletes reporting 1 to 2 concussions compared to 0 concussions.

The exact relationship— degree and context— between concussion and depression remains vague.

A 2015 prospective longitudinal cohort study examined postinjury depressive symptoms in 3 groups of Division 1 male and female college student athletes (N = 21; ages 18-22).⁵ Physician-diagnosed ­concussed (N = 7) and injured but nonconcussed (N = 7) athletes completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) at baseline and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postinjury. Sport-matched healthy athletes (N = 7) completed it only at baseline. A CES-D score of ≥ 16 (range, 0-60) indicated a risk for clinical depression. Participants with a history of depression or other injury resulting in ≥ 1 day of time lost within the past 3 months were excluded.

Continue to: While both groups...

While both groups showed a significant increase from baseline CES-D scores, there were no significant differences in depressive symptoms between concussed (mean CES-D score ± standard deviation [SD]: baseline, 6.7 ± 3.9; 1 week, 11 ± 5.3; 1 month, 8.3 ± 5; 3 months, 6.4 ± 5.4) and injured but nonconcussed participants (mean CES-D score ± SD: baseline, 5.7 ± 2.8; 1 week, 9.1 ± 4; 1 month, 8.9 ± 4.6; 3 months, 6.9 ± 2.8) at any of the postinjury time points.

Findings among semipro and pro athletes appear to vary by sport

A 2016 prospective cohort study assessed the impact of concussive events on incidence of depression in active semiprofessional and professional football players who had previously sustained ≥ 1 concussions.⁶ Participants (N = 27) answered an anonymous online survey that included the revised version of the CES-D (CESD-R) to determine level of depression (a score of ≥ 16 defined clinical depression). Players with a CESD-R score ≥ 16 (N = 16) sustained a significantly greater average number of concussions compared to those who scored < 16 (N = 11; 3.8 vs. 1.6, P = .0004). Players who sustained ≥ 3 concussions scored significantly higher on the CESD-R than players with ≤ 2 concussions (average score, 24 vs 15.6; P = .03).

A 2017 case-control study examined the long-term health outcomes of retired Scottish male rugby players (N = 52; mean age, 54 years) with a history of mild concussion compared to males of similar age with no previous history of concussion (N = 29; mean age, 55).⁷ The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to assess depression on a 21-point scale (normal = 0-7; borderline, 8-10; abnormal, 11-21). There was no significant difference observed in mean HADS scores between the rugby players and controls, respectively (2.8 ± 2.1 vs 2.6 ± 2 .8; P = .941).

A 2013 case-control study of 30 retired NFL players with 29 controls matched for age, estimated IQ, and education examined the relationship between a remote history of concussion and current symptoms of depression.⁸ Concussion history was self-reported by the retired players. Controls with a history of concussion were excluded from the study. The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) was used to measure depression symptoms, with a score of 1 to 9 designating minimal depression and ≥ 10 mild-to-moderate depression. Retired players scored significantly higher on the BDI-II compared to the controls (8.8 vs 2.8; P = .001).

Editor’s takeaway

Concussions include cognitive compromise. An astute clinician’s concern for depression as a sequela makes sense. This evidence contributes to that conjecture. However, the authors of this Clinical Inquiry correctly outline the limitations, inconsistencies, and biases of the evidence. The exact relationship—degree and context—between concussion and depression remains vague.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Higher odds of depression in youth and adolescents with concussion

A 2019 prospective cohort study used data from the 2017 Nevada Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) to evaluate the relationship between concussion and depression in high school students.¹ Included students were physically active for at least 60 minutes on 5 or more days per week or played on at least 1 sports team (N = 3427; 9th-12th grade students from 98 schools). When compared to the total population of included students and controlled for covariates, those who self-reported a concussion within the past 12 months (N = 664) had a higher adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of depressive symptoms (aOR = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.9). Depressive symptoms were reported in 38.1% of patients with a history of concussion, compared to 29.2% of patients who did not report a concussion in the past 12 months.

A 2014 retrospective cohort study examined data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Children’s Health and evaluated the association between previous concussion and current depression diagnosis in youth ages 12 to 17 years without a current concussion (N = 36,060).² Parents were contacted by random-digit dialing, prompted with a description of depression, and asked if their child currently had a clinical diagnosis of depression and whether a concussion had ever been diagnosed. A prior diagnosis of concussion was associated with greater risk for current depression compared to youth with no concussion history (aOR = 3.3; 95% CI, 2-5.5). Current depression was reported in 10.1% of patients with a history of concussion compared to 3.4% of patients with no history of concussion.

Findings vary among college athletes

A 2015 case-control study examined the prevalence of depressive symptoms in college athletes diagnosed with concussion compared to an athletic control group.³ The intervention group (N = 84; 77% male; average age, 18.4 years) received a concussion diagnosis from the team physician or certified athletic trainer. The athletic control group (N = 42; 55% male; average age, 18.9 years) reported no concussions in the past year.

The Beck Depression Inventory–Fast Screen (BDI-FS) was administered to the concussion group at baseline and postconcussion, and to the control group at 2 time points, with an average interval of 6.8 weeks. A score of ≥ 4 on the BDI-FS (scoring range, 0-21; higher score suggestive of more severe depression) indicated athletes at risk for depression. Concussed athletes exhibited a statistically significant increase in depression symptoms compared to control participants (20% vs 5%; x²₁ = 5.2; P = .02).

A 2018 cross-sectional study examined the association between concussion and adverse health outcomes in former college football players who played at least 1 year in college (1999-2001) but had no professional football experience.⁴ The cohort (N = 204; average age, 35) self-reported (15 years after their college career ended) the number of concussions sustained during high school and college sports performance. Reports were then stratified into 3 categories: no concussions, 1 or 2 concussions, and ≥ 3 concussions. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to screen for depression, with scores categorized to no or mild depression (< 10) and moderate-to-­severe depression (≥ 10).

Controlling for body mass index, athletes reporting ≥ 3 concussions had a higher prevalence of depression compared to those reporting no concussions (prevalence ratio [PR] = 4.2; 95% CI, 1.0-16.3) or 1 to 2 concussions (PR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0). No statistically significant association between concussion and depression was observed with athletes reporting 1 to 2 concussions compared to 0 concussions.

The exact relationship— degree and context— between concussion and depression remains vague.

A 2015 prospective longitudinal cohort study examined postinjury depressive symptoms in 3 groups of Division 1 male and female college student athletes (N = 21; ages 18-22).⁵ Physician-diagnosed ­concussed (N = 7) and injured but nonconcussed (N = 7) athletes completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) at baseline and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postinjury. Sport-matched healthy athletes (N = 7) completed it only at baseline. A CES-D score of ≥ 16 (range, 0-60) indicated a risk for clinical depression. Participants with a history of depression or other injury resulting in ≥ 1 day of time lost within the past 3 months were excluded.

Continue to: While both groups...

While both groups showed a significant increase from baseline CES-D scores, there were no significant differences in depressive symptoms between concussed (mean CES-D score ± standard deviation [SD]: baseline, 6.7 ± 3.9; 1 week, 11 ± 5.3; 1 month, 8.3 ± 5; 3 months, 6.4 ± 5.4) and injured but nonconcussed participants (mean CES-D score ± SD: baseline, 5.7 ± 2.8; 1 week, 9.1 ± 4; 1 month, 8.9 ± 4.6; 3 months, 6.9 ± 2.8) at any of the postinjury time points.

Findings among semipro and pro athletes appear to vary by sport

A 2016 prospective cohort study assessed the impact of concussive events on incidence of depression in active semiprofessional and professional football players who had previously sustained ≥ 1 concussions.⁶ Participants (N = 27) answered an anonymous online survey that included the revised version of the CES-D (CESD-R) to determine level of depression (a score of ≥ 16 defined clinical depression). Players with a CESD-R score ≥ 16 (N = 16) sustained a significantly greater average number of concussions compared to those who scored < 16 (N = 11; 3.8 vs. 1.6, P = .0004). Players who sustained ≥ 3 concussions scored significantly higher on the CESD-R than players with ≤ 2 concussions (average score, 24 vs 15.6; P = .03).

A 2017 case-control study examined the long-term health outcomes of retired Scottish male rugby players (N = 52; mean age, 54 years) with a history of mild concussion compared to males of similar age with no previous history of concussion (N = 29; mean age, 55).⁷ The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to assess depression on a 21-point scale (normal = 0-7; borderline, 8-10; abnormal, 11-21). There was no significant difference observed in mean HADS scores between the rugby players and controls, respectively (2.8 ± 2.1 vs 2.6 ± 2 .8; P = .941).

A 2013 case-control study of 30 retired NFL players with 29 controls matched for age, estimated IQ, and education examined the relationship between a remote history of concussion and current symptoms of depression.⁸ Concussion history was self-reported by the retired players. Controls with a history of concussion were excluded from the study. The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) was used to measure depression symptoms, with a score of 1 to 9 designating minimal depression and ≥ 10 mild-to-moderate depression. Retired players scored significantly higher on the BDI-II compared to the controls (8.8 vs 2.8; P = .001).

Editor’s takeaway

Concussions include cognitive compromise. An astute clinician’s concern for depression as a sequela makes sense. This evidence contributes to that conjecture. However, the authors of this Clinical Inquiry correctly outline the limitations, inconsistencies, and biases of the evidence. The exact relationship—degree and context—between concussion and depression remains vague.

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

The benefits of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) persist for more than 10 years in the majority of patents, new data show. The study reports on 210 Italian patients who underwent AHSCT between 2007 and 2019. Among the entire study cohort, 79.5% of patients had not experienced worsening of disability at 5 years, and 65.5% had not experienced it at 10 years.

Patients with relapsing remitting MS had better results, with 85.5% experiencing no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 71.3% at 10 years. Among patients with progressive MS, 71.0% showed no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 57.2% at 10 years.

“This is the longest follow-up of AHSCT in MS patients so far to be reported,” said study author Matilde Inglese, MD, University of Genoa (Italy). “We have shown AHSCT to be highly effective to prevent long-term disability worsening in most treated patients.”

The study was published online Jan. 20 in Neurology.

“We suggest that AHSCT should be considered as a treatment strategy for MS not responding to conventional therapy,” the authors concluded.

The study had no control group, so a direct comparison is not possible. Nevertheless, Dr. Inglese said she believed these results are better than those that would be achieved with disease-modifying drug therapy for similar patients.

“The best patient candidates for this procedure are those with highly active multiple sclerosis who are not responsive to high-efficacy drugs, such as alemtuzumab or ocrelizumab,” Dr. Inglese commented. “Younger patients with an aggressive form of relapsing remitting MS tend to do the best, although patients with progressive forms of MS who still have active lesions on MRI also benefit.”
 

Renewing the immune system

The transplant procedure involves giving high-dose cyclophosphamide to stimulate mobilization of bone marrow stem cells, which are collected from peripheral blood. Patients then undergo intense immunosuppression with a cocktail of drugs to remove the autoreactive T cells, and the stem cells, which are not autoreactive, are reinfused.

“We are effectively renewing the immune system,” Dr. Inglese said. “While it is not correct to call it a cure, as we are not eliminating the etiology of the disease, it is the closest to complete suppression of the disease that we can get.”

Other results from the study show that among patients with relapsing remitting MS, rates of relapse-free survival were 78.1% at 5 years and 63.5% at 10 years.

Better results were achieved for patients who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen for immunosuppression. That regimen includes carmustine, cytosine-arabinoside, etoposide, and melphalan, followed by rabbit antithymocyte globulin. Among patients with relapsing remitting disease who were treated with this protocol, rates of relapse-free survival were 86.4% at 5 years and 77.0% at 10 years.

For patients with relapsing remitting MS, the probability of achieving NEDA-3 status (no evidence of disease activity, including the absence of clinical relapses, disability worsening, and MRI inflammatory activity) was 62.2% at 5 years and 40.5% at 10 years.

Among those patients with relapsing remitting MS who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, NEDA-3 status was achieved in 67.7% at 5 years and in 54.9% at 10 years.

Three deaths occurred within 100 days following AHSCT (1.4% of the entire study population). One patient developed pulmonary thromboembolism, received fibrinolytic treatment, and died 48 hours later after intracranial hemorrhage. The second patient experienced engraftment failure and died 24 days after transplant because of an opportunistic infection. The third patient died 1 month after transplant from Wernicke-like encephalopathy. All the patients who died received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen. No transplant-related deaths occurred in patients who underwent transplant after 2007.

Dr. Inglese noted that the mortality rate associated with AHSCT has been greatly reduced in recent years. “We are seeing a very low mortality rate – about 0.3% – thanks to improvements in the procedure and better patient selection. This seems acceptable, given that we are treating patients with very aggressive disease who have a high risk of becoming significantly disabled relatively early in life,” she commented.

However, it is vitally important that the procedure be conducted in a specialized center with a highly experienced multidisciplinary team, she stressed.

In the Neurology article, the authors concluded: “Although patients with RRMS [relapsing remitting MS] are those who benefit the most from transplant, AHSCT has been also shown to prevent disability worsening in a large proportion of patients with active progressive MS.

“The BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, although associated with a higher transplant mortality rate, was associated with a more pronounced suppression of clinical relapses and MRI inflammatory activity, allowing complete disease control in a higher proportion of patients,” they wrote.
 

Potent and durable efficacy, with caveats

Commenting on these latest findings, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, of the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “AHSCT appears to have potent and durable efficacy in MS but is associated with significant risk and cost.”

The patients who are most likely to benefit are young and have experienced the onset of disease relatively recently. They are still ambulatory with highly active MS and have experienced recent clinical relapses and/or MRI lesion activity, and such activity continues despite disease-modifying therapy, Dr. Cohen noted. He added that “AHSCT is a reasonable option for such patients who have essentially failed the available disease-modifying therapy options.”

He pointed out that the key question is where AHSCT belongs in the overall MS algorithm relative to other high-efficacy therapies. “We need to know whether it should be used more broadly rather than as a last resort.”

To address that question, several randomized trials comparing AHSCT with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy are in progress, including the National Institutes of Health–sponsored BEAT-MS trial in the United States (for which Dr. Cohen is the lead investigator) and four European trials – NET-MS (for which Dr. Inglese is the lead investigator), STAR-MS, RAM-MS, and COAST-MS.

The current study was partially funded and supported by the Italian Multiple Sclerosis Foundation. Dr. Inglese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The benefits of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) persist for more than 10 years in the majority of patents, new data show. The study reports on 210 Italian patients who underwent AHSCT between 2007 and 2019. Among the entire study cohort, 79.5% of patients had not experienced worsening of disability at 5 years, and 65.5% had not experienced it at 10 years.

Patients with relapsing remitting MS had better results, with 85.5% experiencing no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 71.3% at 10 years. Among patients with progressive MS, 71.0% showed no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 57.2% at 10 years.

“This is the longest follow-up of AHSCT in MS patients so far to be reported,” said study author Matilde Inglese, MD, University of Genoa (Italy). “We have shown AHSCT to be highly effective to prevent long-term disability worsening in most treated patients.”

The study was published online Jan. 20 in Neurology.

“We suggest that AHSCT should be considered as a treatment strategy for MS not responding to conventional therapy,” the authors concluded.

The study had no control group, so a direct comparison is not possible. Nevertheless, Dr. Inglese said she believed these results are better than those that would be achieved with disease-modifying drug therapy for similar patients.

“The best patient candidates for this procedure are those with highly active multiple sclerosis who are not responsive to high-efficacy drugs, such as alemtuzumab or ocrelizumab,” Dr. Inglese commented. “Younger patients with an aggressive form of relapsing remitting MS tend to do the best, although patients with progressive forms of MS who still have active lesions on MRI also benefit.”
 

Renewing the immune system

The transplant procedure involves giving high-dose cyclophosphamide to stimulate mobilization of bone marrow stem cells, which are collected from peripheral blood. Patients then undergo intense immunosuppression with a cocktail of drugs to remove the autoreactive T cells, and the stem cells, which are not autoreactive, are reinfused.

“We are effectively renewing the immune system,” Dr. Inglese said. “While it is not correct to call it a cure, as we are not eliminating the etiology of the disease, it is the closest to complete suppression of the disease that we can get.”

Other results from the study show that among patients with relapsing remitting MS, rates of relapse-free survival were 78.1% at 5 years and 63.5% at 10 years.

Better results were achieved for patients who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen for immunosuppression. That regimen includes carmustine, cytosine-arabinoside, etoposide, and melphalan, followed by rabbit antithymocyte globulin. Among patients with relapsing remitting disease who were treated with this protocol, rates of relapse-free survival were 86.4% at 5 years and 77.0% at 10 years.

For patients with relapsing remitting MS, the probability of achieving NEDA-3 status (no evidence of disease activity, including the absence of clinical relapses, disability worsening, and MRI inflammatory activity) was 62.2% at 5 years and 40.5% at 10 years.

Among those patients with relapsing remitting MS who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, NEDA-3 status was achieved in 67.7% at 5 years and in 54.9% at 10 years.

Three deaths occurred within 100 days following AHSCT (1.4% of the entire study population). One patient developed pulmonary thromboembolism, received fibrinolytic treatment, and died 48 hours later after intracranial hemorrhage. The second patient experienced engraftment failure and died 24 days after transplant because of an opportunistic infection. The third patient died 1 month after transplant from Wernicke-like encephalopathy. All the patients who died received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen. No transplant-related deaths occurred in patients who underwent transplant after 2007.

Dr. Inglese noted that the mortality rate associated with AHSCT has been greatly reduced in recent years. “We are seeing a very low mortality rate – about 0.3% – thanks to improvements in the procedure and better patient selection. This seems acceptable, given that we are treating patients with very aggressive disease who have a high risk of becoming significantly disabled relatively early in life,” she commented.

However, it is vitally important that the procedure be conducted in a specialized center with a highly experienced multidisciplinary team, she stressed.

In the Neurology article, the authors concluded: “Although patients with RRMS [relapsing remitting MS] are those who benefit the most from transplant, AHSCT has been also shown to prevent disability worsening in a large proportion of patients with active progressive MS.

“The BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, although associated with a higher transplant mortality rate, was associated with a more pronounced suppression of clinical relapses and MRI inflammatory activity, allowing complete disease control in a higher proportion of patients,” they wrote.
 

Potent and durable efficacy, with caveats

Commenting on these latest findings, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, of the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “AHSCT appears to have potent and durable efficacy in MS but is associated with significant risk and cost.”

The patients who are most likely to benefit are young and have experienced the onset of disease relatively recently. They are still ambulatory with highly active MS and have experienced recent clinical relapses and/or MRI lesion activity, and such activity continues despite disease-modifying therapy, Dr. Cohen noted. He added that “AHSCT is a reasonable option for such patients who have essentially failed the available disease-modifying therapy options.”

He pointed out that the key question is where AHSCT belongs in the overall MS algorithm relative to other high-efficacy therapies. “We need to know whether it should be used more broadly rather than as a last resort.”

To address that question, several randomized trials comparing AHSCT with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy are in progress, including the National Institutes of Health–sponsored BEAT-MS trial in the United States (for which Dr. Cohen is the lead investigator) and four European trials – NET-MS (for which Dr. Inglese is the lead investigator), STAR-MS, RAM-MS, and COAST-MS.

The current study was partially funded and supported by the Italian Multiple Sclerosis Foundation. Dr. Inglese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The benefits of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) persist for more than 10 years in the majority of patents, new data show. The study reports on 210 Italian patients who underwent AHSCT between 2007 and 2019. Among the entire study cohort, 79.5% of patients had not experienced worsening of disability at 5 years, and 65.5% had not experienced it at 10 years.

Patients with relapsing remitting MS had better results, with 85.5% experiencing no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 71.3% at 10 years. Among patients with progressive MS, 71.0% showed no worsening of disability at 5 years, and 57.2% at 10 years.

“This is the longest follow-up of AHSCT in MS patients so far to be reported,” said study author Matilde Inglese, MD, University of Genoa (Italy). “We have shown AHSCT to be highly effective to prevent long-term disability worsening in most treated patients.”

The study was published online Jan. 20 in Neurology.

“We suggest that AHSCT should be considered as a treatment strategy for MS not responding to conventional therapy,” the authors concluded.

The study had no control group, so a direct comparison is not possible. Nevertheless, Dr. Inglese said she believed these results are better than those that would be achieved with disease-modifying drug therapy for similar patients.

“The best patient candidates for this procedure are those with highly active multiple sclerosis who are not responsive to high-efficacy drugs, such as alemtuzumab or ocrelizumab,” Dr. Inglese commented. “Younger patients with an aggressive form of relapsing remitting MS tend to do the best, although patients with progressive forms of MS who still have active lesions on MRI also benefit.”
 

Renewing the immune system

The transplant procedure involves giving high-dose cyclophosphamide to stimulate mobilization of bone marrow stem cells, which are collected from peripheral blood. Patients then undergo intense immunosuppression with a cocktail of drugs to remove the autoreactive T cells, and the stem cells, which are not autoreactive, are reinfused.

“We are effectively renewing the immune system,” Dr. Inglese said. “While it is not correct to call it a cure, as we are not eliminating the etiology of the disease, it is the closest to complete suppression of the disease that we can get.”

Other results from the study show that among patients with relapsing remitting MS, rates of relapse-free survival were 78.1% at 5 years and 63.5% at 10 years.

Better results were achieved for patients who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen for immunosuppression. That regimen includes carmustine, cytosine-arabinoside, etoposide, and melphalan, followed by rabbit antithymocyte globulin. Among patients with relapsing remitting disease who were treated with this protocol, rates of relapse-free survival were 86.4% at 5 years and 77.0% at 10 years.

For patients with relapsing remitting MS, the probability of achieving NEDA-3 status (no evidence of disease activity, including the absence of clinical relapses, disability worsening, and MRI inflammatory activity) was 62.2% at 5 years and 40.5% at 10 years.

Among those patients with relapsing remitting MS who received the BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, NEDA-3 status was achieved in 67.7% at 5 years and in 54.9% at 10 years.

Three deaths occurred within 100 days following AHSCT (1.4% of the entire study population). One patient developed pulmonary thromboembolism, received fibrinolytic treatment, and died 48 hours later after intracranial hemorrhage. The second patient experienced engraftment failure and died 24 days after transplant because of an opportunistic infection. The third patient died 1 month after transplant from Wernicke-like encephalopathy. All the patients who died received the BEAM+ATG conditioning regimen. No transplant-related deaths occurred in patients who underwent transplant after 2007.

Dr. Inglese noted that the mortality rate associated with AHSCT has been greatly reduced in recent years. “We are seeing a very low mortality rate – about 0.3% – thanks to improvements in the procedure and better patient selection. This seems acceptable, given that we are treating patients with very aggressive disease who have a high risk of becoming significantly disabled relatively early in life,” she commented.

However, it is vitally important that the procedure be conducted in a specialized center with a highly experienced multidisciplinary team, she stressed.

In the Neurology article, the authors concluded: “Although patients with RRMS [relapsing remitting MS] are those who benefit the most from transplant, AHSCT has been also shown to prevent disability worsening in a large proportion of patients with active progressive MS.

“The BEAM+ATG conditioning protocol, although associated with a higher transplant mortality rate, was associated with a more pronounced suppression of clinical relapses and MRI inflammatory activity, allowing complete disease control in a higher proportion of patients,” they wrote.
 

Potent and durable efficacy, with caveats

Commenting on these latest findings, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, of the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis at the Cleveland Clinic, said: “AHSCT appears to have potent and durable efficacy in MS but is associated with significant risk and cost.”

The patients who are most likely to benefit are young and have experienced the onset of disease relatively recently. They are still ambulatory with highly active MS and have experienced recent clinical relapses and/or MRI lesion activity, and such activity continues despite disease-modifying therapy, Dr. Cohen noted. He added that “AHSCT is a reasonable option for such patients who have essentially failed the available disease-modifying therapy options.”

He pointed out that the key question is where AHSCT belongs in the overall MS algorithm relative to other high-efficacy therapies. “We need to know whether it should be used more broadly rather than as a last resort.”

To address that question, several randomized trials comparing AHSCT with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy are in progress, including the National Institutes of Health–sponsored BEAT-MS trial in the United States (for which Dr. Cohen is the lead investigator) and four European trials – NET-MS (for which Dr. Inglese is the lead investigator), STAR-MS, RAM-MS, and COAST-MS.

The current study was partially funded and supported by the Italian Multiple Sclerosis Foundation. Dr. Inglese disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Plasma levels of phosphorylated tau at threonine 181 (p-tau181) may provide a means of monitoring disease progression for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

In a study of more than 1,000 participants, changes over time in levels of p-tau181 were associated with prospective neurodegeneration and cognitive decline characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease. These results have implications for investigative trials as well as clinical practice, the investigators noted.

Like p-tau181, neurofilament light chain (NfL) is associated with imaging markers of degeneration and cognitive decline; in contrast to the findings related to p-tau181, however, the associations between NfL and these outcomes are not specific to Alzheimer’s disease. Using both biomarkers could improve prediction of outcomes and patient monitoring, according to the researchers.

“These findings demonstrate that p-tau181 and NfL in blood have individual and complementary potential roles in the diagnosis and the monitoring of neurodegenerative disease,” said coinvestigator Michael Schöll, PhD, senior lecturer in psychiatry and neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“With the reservation that we did not assess domain-specific cognitive impairment, p-tau181 was also more strongly associated with cognitive decline than was NfL,” Dr. Schöll added.

The findings were published online Jan. 11 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Biomarker-tracked neurodegeneration

Monitoring a patient’s neurodegenerative changes is important for tracking Alzheimer’s disease progression. Although clinicians can detect amyloid-beta and tau pathology using PET and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, the widespread use of the latter has been hampered by cost and limited availability of necessary equipment. The use of blood-based biomarkers is not limited in these ways, and so they could aid in diagnosis and patient monitoring.

Previous studies have suggested that p-tau181 is a marker of Alzheimer’s disease status.

In the current study, investigators examined whether baseline and longitudinal levels of p-tau181 in plasma were associated with progressive neurodegeneration related to the disease. They analyzed data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a multicenter study designed to identify biomarkers for the detection and tracking of Alzheimer’s disease.

The researchers selected data for cognitively unimpaired and cognitively impaired participants who participated in the initiative between Feb. 1, 2007, and June 6, 2016. Participants were eligible for inclusion if plasma p-tau181 and NfL data were available for them and if they had undergone at least one 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET scan or structural T1 MRI at the same study visit. Most had also undergone imaging with 18florbetapir, which detects amyloid-beta.

A single-molecule array was used to analyze concentrations of p-tau181 and NfL in participants’ blood samples. Outliers for p-tau181 and NfL concentrations were excluded from further analysis. Using participants’ FDG-PET scans, the investigators measured glucose hypometabolism characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease. They used T1-weighted MRI scans to measure gray-matter volume.

Cognitively unimpaired participants responded to the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite, a measure designed to detect early cognitive changes in cognitively normal patients with Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Cognitively impaired participants underwent the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale with 13 tasks to assess the severity of cognitive impairment.

The researchers included 1,113 participants (54% men; 89% non-Hispanic Whites; mean age, 74 years) in their analysis. In all, 378 participants were cognitively unimpaired, and 735 were cognitively impaired. Of the latter group, 73% had mild cognitive impairment, and 27% had Alzheimer’s disease dementia.
 

Atrophy predictor

Results showed that higher plasma p-tau181 levels at baseline were associated with more rapid progression of hypometabolism and atrophy in areas vulnerable to Alzheimer’s disease among cognitively impaired participants (FDG-PET standardized uptake value ratio change, r = –0.28; P < .001; gray-matter volume change, r = –0.28; P < .001).

The association with atrophy progression in cognitively impaired participants was stronger for p-tau181 than for NfL.

Plasma p-tau181 levels at baseline also predicted atrophy in temporoparietal regions vulnerable to Alzheimer’s disease among cognitively unimpaired participants (r = –0.11; P = .03). NfL, however, was associated with progressive atrophy in frontal regions among cognitively unimpaired participants.

At baseline, plasma p-tau181 levels were associated with prospective cognitive decline in both the cognitively unimpaired group (r = −0.12; P = .04) and the cognitively impaired group (r = 0.35; P < .001). However, plasma NfL was linked to cognitive decline only among those who were cognitively impaired (r = 0.26; P < .001).

Additional analyses showed that p-tau181, unlike NfL, was associated with hypometabolism and atrophy only in participants with amyloid-beta, regardless of cognitive status.

Between 25% and 45% of the association between baseline p-tau181 level and cognitive decline was mediated by baseline imaging markers of neurodegeneration. This finding suggests that another factor, such as regional tau pathology, might have an independent and direct effect on cognition, Dr. Schöll noted.

Furthermore, changes over time in p-tau181 levels were associated with cognitive decline in the cognitively unimpaired (r = –0.24; P < .001) and cognitively impaired (r = 0.34; P < .001) participants. Longitudinal changes in this biomarker also were associated with a prospective decrease in glucose metabolism in cognitively unimpaired (r = –0.05; P = .48) and cognitively impaired (r = –0.27; P < .001) participants, but the association was only significant in the latter group.

Changes over time in p-tau181 levels were linked to prospective decreases in gray-matter volume in brain regions highly characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease in those who were cognitively unimpaired (r = –0.19; P < .001) and those who were cognitively impaired (r = –0.31, P < .001). However, these associations were obtained only in patients with amyloid-beta.

Dr. Schöll noted that blood-based biomarkers that are sensitive to Alzheimer’s disease could greatly expand patients’ access to a diagnostic workup and could improve screening for clinical trials.

“While the final validation of the existence and the monitoring of potential changes of neuropathology in vivo is likely to be conducted using neuroimaging modalities such as PET, our results suggest that at least a part of these examinations could be replaced by regular blood tests,” Dr. Schöll said.

Lead author Alexis Moscoso, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in psychiatry and neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, reported that the researchers will continue validating blood-based biomarkers, especially against established and well-validated neuroimaging methods. “We are also hoping to be able to compare existing and novel blood-based Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers head to head to establish the individual roles each of these play in the research and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Moscoso said.
 

‘Outstanding study’

Commenting on the findings, David S. Knopman, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that this is “an outstanding study” because of its large number of participants and because the investigators are “world leaders in the technology of measuring plasma p-tau and NfL.”

Dr. Knopman, who was not involved with the research, noted that the study had no substantive weaknesses.

“The biggest advantages of a blood-based biomarker over CSF- and PET-based biomarkers of Alzheimer disease are the obvious ones of accessibility, cost, portability, and ease of repeatability,” he said.

“As CSF and PET exams are largely limited to major medical centers, valid blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer disease that are reasonably specific make large-scale epidemiological studies that investigate dementia etiologies in rural or urban and diverse communities feasible,” he added.

Whereas p-tau181 appears to be specific for plaque and tangle disease, NfL is a nonspecific marker of neurodegeneration.

“Each has a role that could be valuable, depending on the circumstance,” said Dr. Knopman. “Plasma NfL has already proved itself useful in frontotemporal degeneration and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, for example.”

He noted that future studies should examine how closely p-tau181 and NfL align with more granular and direct measures of Alzheimer’s disease–related brain pathologies.

“There has got to be some loss of fidelity in detecting abnormality in going from brain tissue to blood, which might siphon off some time-related and severity-related information,” said Dr. Knopman.

“The exact role that plasma p-tau and NfL will play remains to be seen, because the diagnostic information that these biomarkers provide is contingent on the existence of interventions that require specific or nonspecific information about progressive neurodegeneration due to Alzheimer disease,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Spanish Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Brightfocus Foundation, the Swedish Alzheimer Foundation, and the Swedish Brain Foundation. Dr. Schöll reported serving on a scientific advisory board for Servier on matters unrelated to this study. Dr. Moscoso and Dr. Knopman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Plasma levels of phosphorylated tau at threonine 181 (p-tau181) may provide a means of monitoring disease progression for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

In a study of more than 1,000 participants, changes over time in levels of p-tau181 were associated with prospective neurodegeneration and cognitive decline characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease. These results have implications for investigative trials as well as clinical practice, the investigators noted.

Like p-tau181, neurofilament light chain (NfL) is associated with imaging markers of degeneration and cognitive decline; in contrast to the findings related to p-tau181, however, the associations between NfL and these outcomes are not specific to Alzheimer’s disease. Using both biomarkers could improve prediction of outcomes and patient monitoring, according to the researchers.

“These findings demonstrate that p-tau181 and NfL in blood have individual and complementary potential roles in the diagnosis and the monitoring of neurodegenerative disease,” said coinvestigator Michael Schöll, PhD, senior lecturer in psychiatry and neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“With the reservation that we did not assess domain-specific cognitive impairment, p-tau181 was also more strongly associated with cognitive decline than was NfL,” Dr. Schöll added.

The findings were published online Jan. 11 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Biomarker-tracked neurodegeneration

Monitoring a patient’s neurodegenerative changes is important for tracking Alzheimer’s disease progression. Although clinicians can detect amyloid-beta and tau pathology using PET and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, the widespread use of the latter has been hampered by cost and limited availability of necessary equipment. The use of blood-based biomarkers is not limited in these ways, and so they could aid in diagnosis and patient monitoring.

Previous studies have suggested that p-tau181 is a marker of Alzheimer’s disease status.

In the current study, investigators examined whether baseline and longitudinal levels of p-tau181 in plasma were associated with progressive neurodegeneration related to the disease. They analyzed data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a multicenter study designed to identify biomarkers for the detection and tracking of Alzheimer’s disease.

The researchers selected data for cognitively unimpaired and cognitively impaired participants who participated in the initiative between Feb. 1, 2007, and June 6, 2016. Participants were eligible for inclusion if plasma p-tau181 and NfL data were available for them and if they had undergone at least one 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET scan or structural T1 MRI at the same study visit. Most had also undergone imaging with 18florbetapir, which detects amyloid-beta.

A single-molecule array was used to analyze concentrations of p-tau181 and NfL in participants’ blood samples. Outliers for p-tau181 and NfL concentrations were excluded from further analysis. Using participants’ FDG-PET scans, the investigators measured glucose hypometabolism characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease. They used T1-weighted MRI scans to measure gray-matter volume.

Cognitively unimpaired participants responded to the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite, a measure designed to detect early cognitive changes in cognitively normal patients with Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Cognitively impaired participants underwent the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale with 13 tasks to assess the severity of cognitive impairment.

The researchers included 1,113 participants (54% men; 89% non-Hispanic Whites; mean age, 74 years) in their analysis. In all, 378 participants were cognitively unimpaired, and 735 were cognitively impaired. Of the latter group, 73% had mild cognitive impairment, and 27% had Alzheimer’s disease dementia.
 

Atrophy predictor

Results showed that higher plasma p-tau181 levels at baseline were associated with more rapid progression of hypometabolism and atrophy in areas vulnerable to Alzheimer’s disease among cognitively impaired participants (FDG-PET standardized uptake value ratio change, r = –0.28; P < .001; gray-matter volume change, r = –0.28; P < .001).

The association with atrophy progression in cognitively impaired participants was stronger for p-tau181 than for NfL.

Plasma p-tau181 levels at baseline also predicted atrophy in temporoparietal regions vulnerable to Alzheimer’s disease among cognitively unimpaired participants (r = –0.11; P = .03). NfL, however, was associated with progressive atrophy in frontal regions among cognitively unimpaired participants.

At baseline, plasma p-tau181 levels were associated with prospective cognitive decline in both the cognitively unimpaired group (r = −0.12; P = .04) and the cognitively impaired group (r = 0.35; P < .001). However, plasma NfL was linked to cognitive decline only among those who were cognitively impaired (r = 0.26; P < .001).

Additional analyses showed that p-tau181, unlike NfL, was associated with hypometabolism and atrophy only in participants with amyloid-beta, regardless of cognitive status.

Between 25% and 45% of the association between baseline p-tau181 level and cognitive decline was mediated by baseline imaging markers of neurodegeneration. This finding suggests that another factor, such as regional tau pathology, might have an independent and direct effect on cognition, Dr. Schöll noted.

Furthermore, changes over time in p-tau181 levels were associated with cognitive decline in the cognitively unimpaired (r = –0.24; P < .001) and cognitively impaired (r = 0.34; P < .001) participants. Longitudinal changes in this biomarker also were associated with a prospective decrease in glucose metabolism in cognitively unimpaired (r = –0.05; P = .48) and cognitively impaired (r = –0.27; P < .001) participants, but the association was only significant in the latter group.

Changes over time in p-tau181 levels were linked to prospective decreases in gray-matter volume in brain regions highly characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease in those who were cognitively unimpaired (r = –0.19; P < .001) and those who were cognitively impaired (r = –0.31, P < .001). However, these associations were obtained only in patients with amyloid-beta.

Dr. Schöll noted that blood-based biomarkers that are sensitive to Alzheimer’s disease could greatly expand patients’ access to a diagnostic workup and could improve screening for clinical trials.

“While the final validation of the existence and the monitoring of potential changes of neuropathology in vivo is likely to be conducted using neuroimaging modalities such as PET, our results suggest that at least a part of these examinations could be replaced by regular blood tests,” Dr. Schöll said.

Lead author Alexis Moscoso, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in psychiatry and neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, reported that the researchers will continue validating blood-based biomarkers, especially against established and well-validated neuroimaging methods. “We are also hoping to be able to compare existing and novel blood-based Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers head to head to establish the individual roles each of these play in the research and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Moscoso said.
 

‘Outstanding study’

Commenting on the findings, David S. Knopman, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that this is “an outstanding study” because of its large number of participants and because the investigators are “world leaders in the technology of measuring plasma p-tau and NfL.”

Dr. Knopman, who was not involved with the research, noted that the study had no substantive weaknesses.

“The biggest advantages of a blood-based biomarker over CSF- and PET-based biomarkers of Alzheimer disease are the obvious ones of accessibility, cost, portability, and ease of repeatability,” he said.

“As CSF and PET exams are largely limited to major medical centers, valid blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer disease that are reasonably specific make large-scale epidemiological studies that investigate dementia etiologies in rural or urban and diverse communities feasible,” he added.

Whereas p-tau181 appears to be specific for plaque and tangle disease, NfL is a nonspecific marker of neurodegeneration.

“Each has a role that could be valuable, depending on the circumstance,” said Dr. Knopman. “Plasma NfL has already proved itself useful in frontotemporal degeneration and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, for example.”

He noted that future studies should examine how closely p-tau181 and NfL align with more granular and direct measures of Alzheimer’s disease–related brain pathologies.

“There has got to be some loss of fidelity in detecting abnormality in going from brain tissue to blood, which might siphon off some time-related and severity-related information,” said Dr. Knopman.

“The exact role that plasma p-tau and NfL will play remains to be seen, because the diagnostic information that these biomarkers provide is contingent on the existence of interventions that require specific or nonspecific information about progressive neurodegeneration due to Alzheimer disease,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Spanish Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Brightfocus Foundation, the Swedish Alzheimer Foundation, and the Swedish Brain Foundation. Dr. Schöll reported serving on a scientific advisory board for Servier on matters unrelated to this study. Dr. Moscoso and Dr. Knopman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Plasma levels of phosphorylated tau at threonine 181 (p-tau181) may provide a means of monitoring disease progression for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests.

In a study of more than 1,000 participants, changes over time in levels of p-tau181 were associated with prospective neurodegeneration and cognitive decline characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease. These results have implications for investigative trials as well as clinical practice, the investigators noted.

Like p-tau181, neurofilament light chain (NfL) is associated with imaging markers of degeneration and cognitive decline; in contrast to the findings related to p-tau181, however, the associations between NfL and these outcomes are not specific to Alzheimer’s disease. Using both biomarkers could improve prediction of outcomes and patient monitoring, according to the researchers.

“These findings demonstrate that p-tau181 and NfL in blood have individual and complementary potential roles in the diagnosis and the monitoring of neurodegenerative disease,” said coinvestigator Michael Schöll, PhD, senior lecturer in psychiatry and neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“With the reservation that we did not assess domain-specific cognitive impairment, p-tau181 was also more strongly associated with cognitive decline than was NfL,” Dr. Schöll added.

The findings were published online Jan. 11 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Biomarker-tracked neurodegeneration

Monitoring a patient’s neurodegenerative changes is important for tracking Alzheimer’s disease progression. Although clinicians can detect amyloid-beta and tau pathology using PET and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, the widespread use of the latter has been hampered by cost and limited availability of necessary equipment. The use of blood-based biomarkers is not limited in these ways, and so they could aid in diagnosis and patient monitoring.

Previous studies have suggested that p-tau181 is a marker of Alzheimer’s disease status.

In the current study, investigators examined whether baseline and longitudinal levels of p-tau181 in plasma were associated with progressive neurodegeneration related to the disease. They analyzed data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a multicenter study designed to identify biomarkers for the detection and tracking of Alzheimer’s disease.

The researchers selected data for cognitively unimpaired and cognitively impaired participants who participated in the initiative between Feb. 1, 2007, and June 6, 2016. Participants were eligible for inclusion if plasma p-tau181 and NfL data were available for them and if they had undergone at least one 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET scan or structural T1 MRI at the same study visit. Most had also undergone imaging with 18florbetapir, which detects amyloid-beta.

A single-molecule array was used to analyze concentrations of p-tau181 and NfL in participants’ blood samples. Outliers for p-tau181 and NfL concentrations were excluded from further analysis. Using participants’ FDG-PET scans, the investigators measured glucose hypometabolism characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease. They used T1-weighted MRI scans to measure gray-matter volume.

Cognitively unimpaired participants responded to the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite, a measure designed to detect early cognitive changes in cognitively normal patients with Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Cognitively impaired participants underwent the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale with 13 tasks to assess the severity of cognitive impairment.

The researchers included 1,113 participants (54% men; 89% non-Hispanic Whites; mean age, 74 years) in their analysis. In all, 378 participants were cognitively unimpaired, and 735 were cognitively impaired. Of the latter group, 73% had mild cognitive impairment, and 27% had Alzheimer’s disease dementia.
 

Atrophy predictor

Results showed that higher plasma p-tau181 levels at baseline were associated with more rapid progression of hypometabolism and atrophy in areas vulnerable to Alzheimer’s disease among cognitively impaired participants (FDG-PET standardized uptake value ratio change, r = –0.28; P < .001; gray-matter volume change, r = –0.28; P < .001).

The association with atrophy progression in cognitively impaired participants was stronger for p-tau181 than for NfL.

Plasma p-tau181 levels at baseline also predicted atrophy in temporoparietal regions vulnerable to Alzheimer’s disease among cognitively unimpaired participants (r = –0.11; P = .03). NfL, however, was associated with progressive atrophy in frontal regions among cognitively unimpaired participants.

At baseline, plasma p-tau181 levels were associated with prospective cognitive decline in both the cognitively unimpaired group (r = −0.12; P = .04) and the cognitively impaired group (r = 0.35; P < .001). However, plasma NfL was linked to cognitive decline only among those who were cognitively impaired (r = 0.26; P < .001).

Additional analyses showed that p-tau181, unlike NfL, was associated with hypometabolism and atrophy only in participants with amyloid-beta, regardless of cognitive status.

Between 25% and 45% of the association between baseline p-tau181 level and cognitive decline was mediated by baseline imaging markers of neurodegeneration. This finding suggests that another factor, such as regional tau pathology, might have an independent and direct effect on cognition, Dr. Schöll noted.

Furthermore, changes over time in p-tau181 levels were associated with cognitive decline in the cognitively unimpaired (r = –0.24; P < .001) and cognitively impaired (r = 0.34; P < .001) participants. Longitudinal changes in this biomarker also were associated with a prospective decrease in glucose metabolism in cognitively unimpaired (r = –0.05; P = .48) and cognitively impaired (r = –0.27; P < .001) participants, but the association was only significant in the latter group.

Changes over time in p-tau181 levels were linked to prospective decreases in gray-matter volume in brain regions highly characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease in those who were cognitively unimpaired (r = –0.19; P < .001) and those who were cognitively impaired (r = –0.31, P < .001). However, these associations were obtained only in patients with amyloid-beta.

Dr. Schöll noted that blood-based biomarkers that are sensitive to Alzheimer’s disease could greatly expand patients’ access to a diagnostic workup and could improve screening for clinical trials.

“While the final validation of the existence and the monitoring of potential changes of neuropathology in vivo is likely to be conducted using neuroimaging modalities such as PET, our results suggest that at least a part of these examinations could be replaced by regular blood tests,” Dr. Schöll said.

Lead author Alexis Moscoso, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in psychiatry and neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, reported that the researchers will continue validating blood-based biomarkers, especially against established and well-validated neuroimaging methods. “We are also hoping to be able to compare existing and novel blood-based Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers head to head to establish the individual roles each of these play in the research and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Moscoso said.
 

‘Outstanding study’

Commenting on the findings, David S. Knopman, MD, professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that this is “an outstanding study” because of its large number of participants and because the investigators are “world leaders in the technology of measuring plasma p-tau and NfL.”

Dr. Knopman, who was not involved with the research, noted that the study had no substantive weaknesses.

“The biggest advantages of a blood-based biomarker over CSF- and PET-based biomarkers of Alzheimer disease are the obvious ones of accessibility, cost, portability, and ease of repeatability,” he said.

“As CSF and PET exams are largely limited to major medical centers, valid blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer disease that are reasonably specific make large-scale epidemiological studies that investigate dementia etiologies in rural or urban and diverse communities feasible,” he added.

Whereas p-tau181 appears to be specific for plaque and tangle disease, NfL is a nonspecific marker of neurodegeneration.

“Each has a role that could be valuable, depending on the circumstance,” said Dr. Knopman. “Plasma NfL has already proved itself useful in frontotemporal degeneration and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, for example.”

He noted that future studies should examine how closely p-tau181 and NfL align with more granular and direct measures of Alzheimer’s disease–related brain pathologies.

“There has got to be some loss of fidelity in detecting abnormality in going from brain tissue to blood, which might siphon off some time-related and severity-related information,” said Dr. Knopman.

“The exact role that plasma p-tau and NfL will play remains to be seen, because the diagnostic information that these biomarkers provide is contingent on the existence of interventions that require specific or nonspecific information about progressive neurodegeneration due to Alzheimer disease,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Spanish Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Brightfocus Foundation, the Swedish Alzheimer Foundation, and the Swedish Brain Foundation. Dr. Schöll reported serving on a scientific advisory board for Servier on matters unrelated to this study. Dr. Moscoso and Dr. Knopman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.

The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.

Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.

The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.¹

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP

BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.¹

Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.¹ The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.² The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.²

What you’ll see, who’s at risk

Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.¹ Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.

FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.² At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.^3,4

Continue to: Risk factors for BP

Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).⁴ Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.³ This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.

The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.⁵ In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).³

The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.³ It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.³ Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.^3,6

Other conditions that also exhibit blisters

There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.

Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.¹ Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-­epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.¹ This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.

Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris

Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.¹ Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-­epidermal bullae.

Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.¹ DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.¹

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.¹ It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.¹ DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.¹

How to make the Dx in 3 steps

To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:

1. Establish the presence of 3 of 4 ­clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
2. Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
3. Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.

Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and antiinflammatory antibiotics.

There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.⁷ However, for this patient, we did not order this study.

Continue to: Management focuses on steroids

Management focuses on steroids

The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).^1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.^1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.^1,7

For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.

A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.

The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.

Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.

The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.¹

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP

BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.¹

Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.¹ The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.² The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.²

What you’ll see, who’s at risk

Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.¹ Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.

FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.² At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.^3,4

Continue to: Risk factors for BP

Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).⁴ Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.³ This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.

The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.⁵ In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).³

The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.³ It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.³ Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.^3,6

Other conditions that also exhibit blisters

There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.

Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.¹ Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-­epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.¹ This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.

Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris

Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.¹ Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-­epidermal bullae.

Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.¹ DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.¹

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.¹ It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.¹ DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.¹

How to make the Dx in 3 steps

To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:

1. Establish the presence of 3 of 4 ­clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
2. Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
3. Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.

Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and antiinflammatory antibiotics.

There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.⁷ However, for this patient, we did not order this study.

Continue to: Management focuses on steroids

Management focuses on steroids

The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).^1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.^1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.^1,7

For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.

A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.

The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.

Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.

The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.¹

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP

BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.¹

Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.¹ The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.² The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.²

What you’ll see, who’s at risk

Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.¹ Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.

FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.² At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.^3,4

Continue to: Risk factors for BP

Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).⁴ Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.³ This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.

The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.⁵ In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).³

The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.³ It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.³ Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.^3,6

Other conditions that also exhibit blisters

There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.

Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.¹ Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-­epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.¹ This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.

Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris

Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.¹ Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-­epidermal bullae.

Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.¹ DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.¹

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.¹ It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.¹ DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.¹

How to make the Dx in 3 steps

To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:

1. Establish the presence of 3 of 4 ­clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
2. Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
3. Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.

Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and antiinflammatory antibiotics.

There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.⁷ However, for this patient, we did not order this study.

Continue to: Management focuses on steroids

Management focuses on steroids

The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).^1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.^1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.^1,7

For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.

Medication overuse headache (MOH), a secondary headache diagnosis, is a prevalent phenomenon that complicates headache diagnosis and treatment, increases the cost of care, and reduces quality of life. Effective abortive medication is essential for the headache sufferer; when an abortive is used too frequently, however, headache frequency increases—potentially beginning a cycle in which the patient then takes more medication to abort the headache. Over time, the patient suffers from an ever-­increasing number of headaches, takes even more abortive medication, and so on. In the presence of MOH, there is a reduction in pain response to preventive and abortive treatments; when medication overuse is eliminated, pain response improves.¹

Although MOH is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care. Since headache is a top complaint in primary care, however, and prevention is a major goal in family medicine, the opportunity for you to recognize, treat, and prevent MOH is significant. In fact, a randomized controlled trial showed that brief patient education about headache care and MOH provided by a primary care physician can lead to a significant reduction in headache frequency among patients with MOH.²

Although medication overuse headache is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care.

This article reviews the recognition and diagnosis of MOH, based on historical features and current criteria; addresses risk factors for abortive medication overuse and how to withdraw an offending agent; and explores the value of bridging and preventive therapies to reduce the overall frequency of headache.

IMAGE © ROY SCOTT

What defines MOH?

Typically, MOH is a chronification of a primary headache disorder. However, in patients with a history of migraine who are undergoing treatment for another chronic pain condition with an opioid or other analgesic, MOH can be induced.³ An increase in the frequency of headache raises the specter of a concomitant increase in the level of disability⁴; psychiatric comorbidity⁵; and more headache days, with time lost from school and work.

The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, a validated instrument that helps the provider (1) measure the impact that headache has on a patient’s life and (2) follow treatment progress, also provides information to employers and insurance companies on treatment coverage and the need for work modification. The MIDAS score is 3 times higher in patients with MOH than in patients with episodic migraine.^6,7

The annual associated cost per person of MOH has been estimated at $4000, resulting in billions of dollars in associated costs⁸; most of these costs are related to absenteeism and disability. After detoxification for MOH, annual outpatient medication costs are reduced by approximately 24%.⁹

Efforts to solve a common problem create another

Headache affects nearly 50% of the general population worldwide,¹⁰ accounting for about 4% of primary care visits¹¹ and approximately 20% of outpatient neurology consultations.¹² Although inpatient stays for headache are approximately half the duration of the overall average hospital stay, headache accounts for 3% of admissions.¹³ According to the Global Burden of Disease study, tension-type headache, migraine, and MOH are the 3 most common headache disorders.¹⁰ Headache is the second leading cause of disability among people 15 to 49 years of age.¹⁰

Continue to: The prevalence of MOH...

The prevalence of MOH in the general population is 2%.^7,14,15 A population-based study showed that the rate of progression from episodic headache (< 15 d/mo) to chronic headache (≥ 15 d/mo) in the general population is 2.5% per year¹⁶; however, progression to chronic headache is 14% per year in patients with medication overuse. One-third of the general population with chronic migraine overuses symptomatic medication; in US headache clinics, roughly one-half of patients with chronic headache overuse acute medication.⁶

Definitions and diagnosis

MOH is a secondary headache diagnosis in the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) (TABLE 1),¹⁷ which lists diagnostic criteria for recognized headache disorders.

Terminology. MOH has also been called rebound headache, drug-induced headache, and transformed migraine, but these terms are outdated and are not formal diagnoses. Patients sometimes refer to substance-withdrawal headaches (not discussed in this article) as rebound headaches, so clarity is important when discussing headache with patients: namely, that MOH is an exacerbation of an existing headache condition caused by overuse of abortive headache medications, including analgesics, combination analgesics, triptans, barbiturates, and opioids.

The time it takes to develop medication overuse headache is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.

MOH was recognized in the early 1950s and fully differentiated as a diagnosis in 2005 in the second edition of the ICHD. The disorder is subcategorized by offending abortive agent (TABLE 2¹⁷) because the frequency of analgesic use required to develop MOH differs by agent.

Risk factors for MOH and chronification of a primary headache ­disorder. There are several risk factors for developing MOH, and others that contribute to increasing headache frequency in general (TABLE 3^5,14,18-23). Some risk factors are common to each. All are important to address because some are modifiable.

Continue to: Pathophysiology

Pathophysiology. The pathophysiology and psychology behind MOH are largely unknown. Physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes have been demonstrated in patients with MOH, both of which are reversible upon withdrawal of medication.²³ Genetic factors and changes in hormone and neurotransmitter levels are found in MOH patients; this is not the case in patients who have an episodic headache pattern only.²⁴

Presentation. Diagnostic criteria for MOH do not include clinical characteristics. Typically, the phenotype of MOH in a given patient is similar to the underlying primary headache²⁵—although this principle can be complicated to tease out because these medications can suppress some symptoms. Diagnosis of a primary headache disorder should be documented along with the diagnosis of MOH.

Medication overuse can exist without MOH: Not every patient who frequently uses an abortive medication develops MOH.

Treatment is multifaceted—and can become complex

Mainstays of treatment of MOH are education about the disorder and detoxification from the overused agent, although specific treatments can differ depending on the agent involved, the frequency and duration of its use, and a patient’s behavioral patterns and psychiatric comorbidities. Often, a daily medication to prevent headache is considered upon, or after, withdrawal of the offending agent. The timing of introducing a preventive might impact its effectiveness. Some refractory cases require more intensive therapy, including hospitalization at a specialized tertiary center.

But before we look at detoxification from an overused agent, it’s important to review one of the best strategies of all in combatting MOH.

Continue to: First and best strategy

Select an appropriate abortive to reduce the risk of MOH. With regard to specific acute headache medications, some nuances other than type of headache should be considered. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as abortive therapy by the American Headache Society for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost. NSAIDs are protective against development of MOH if a patient’s baseline headache frequency is < 10/mo; at a frequency of 10 to 14 d/mo, however, the risk of MOH increases when using an NSAID.⁶ A similar effect has been seen with triptans.¹⁶ Longer-acting NSAIDs, such as nabumetone and naproxen, have been proposed as less likely to cause MOH, and are even used as bridging therapy sometimes (as long as neither of these was the overused medication).²⁶

The time it takes to develop MOH is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.²⁷

Prospective cohort studies^6,16 have shown that barbiturates and opioids are more likely to induce MOH; for that reason, agents in these analgesic classes are almost universally avoided unless no other medically acceptable options exist. Using barbiturate-containing compounds or opioids > 4 d/mo exponentially increases the likelihood of MOH.

Promising preclinical data demonstrate that the gepant, or small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, class of medications used as abortive therapy does not induce medication overuse cutaneous allodynia.²⁸

Provide education. Primary prevention of MOH involves (1) increasing patients’ awareness of how to take medications appropriately and (2) restricting intake of over-the-counter abortive medications. Often, the expert recommendation is to limit abortives to approximately 2 d/wk because more frequent use places patients at risk of further increased use and subsequent MOH.

Continue to: A randomized controlled trial in Norway...

A randomized controlled trial in Norway compared outcomes in 2 groups of patients with MOH: One group was given advice on the disorder by a physician; the other group was not provided with advice. In the “business-as-usual” group, there was no significant improvement; however, when general practitioners provided simple advice (lasting roughly 9 minutes) about reducing abortive medication use to a safe level and cautioned patients that they would be “feeling worse before feeling better,” headache days were reduced by approximately 8 per month and medication days, by 16 per month.²

A subsequent, long-term follow-up study²⁹ of patients from the Norway trial² who had been given advice and education showed a relapse rate (ie, into overuse of headache medication) of only 8% and sustained reduction of headache days and medication use at 16 months.

Offer support and other nondrug interventions. A recent review of 3 studies²³ recommended that extra support for patients from a headache nurse, close follow-up, keeping an electronic diary that provides feedback, and undertaking a short course of psychotherapy can reduce medication overuse and prevent relapse.

If MOH develops, initiate withdrawal, introduce a preventive

Withdraw overused medication. Most current evidence suggests that withdrawal of the offending agent is the most effective factor in reducing headache days and improving quality of life. A randomized controlled trial compared the effects of (1) complete and immediate withdrawal of an abortive medication with (2) reducing its use (ie, limiting intake to 2 d/wk), on headache frequency, disability, and quality of life.³⁰ There was a reduction of headache days in both groups; however, reduction was much greater at 2 months in the complete withdrawal group than in the restricted intake group (respectively, a 41% and a 26% reduction in headache days per month). This effect was sustained at 6 and 12 months in both groups. The study confirmed the results of earlier research^2,15: Abrupt withdrawal leads to reversion to an episodic pattern at 2 to 6 months in approximately 40% to 60% of patients.

More studies are needed to determine the most appropriate treatment course for MOH; however, complete withdrawal of the causative drug is the most important intervention.

Continue to: Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment

Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment. Use of sodium valproate, in addition to medication overuse detoxification, led to a significant reduction in headache days and improvement in quality of life at 12 weeks but no difference after 24 weeks, compared with detoxification alone in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.³¹

A study of 61 patients showed a larger reduction (by 7.2 d/mo) in headache frequency with any preventive medication in addition to medication withdrawal, compared to withdrawal alone (by 4.1 d/mo) after 3 months; however, the relative benefit was gone at 6 months.³²

A study of 98 patients compared immediate and delayed initiation of preventive medication upon withdrawal of overused abortive medication.³³ Response was defined as a > 50% reduction in headache frequency and was similar in both groups; results showed a 28% response with immediate initiation of a preventive; a 23% response with delayed (ie, 2 months after withdrawal) initiation; and a 48% response in both groups at 12 months.

Collectively, these studies suggest that adding a preventive medication at the time of withdrawal has the potential to reduce headache frequency more quickly than withdrawal alone. However, after 3 to 6 months, the outcome of reduced headache frequency is the same whether or not a preventive medication is used—as long as the offending agent has been withdrawn.

Do preventives work without withdrawing overused medication? Patients with MOH often show little or no improvement with addition of a preventive medication only; their response to a preventive improves after withdrawal of the overused medication. Patients without previous headache improvement after addition of a preventive, who also did not improve 2 months after withdrawal, then demonstrated an overall reduction in headache by 26% when a preventive was reintroduced after withdrawal.²

Continue to: The research evidence for preventives

The research evidence for preventives. Medications for headache prevention have not been extensively evaluated specifically for treating MOH. Here is what’s known:

• Flunarizine, amitriptyline, and beta-blockers usually are ineffective for MOH.²⁴
• Results for topiramate are mixed: A small, double-blind, placebo-controlled chronic migraine study in Europe showed that, in a subgroup of patients with MOH, topiramate led to a small but significant reduction (3.5 d/mo) in headache frequency, compared to placebo.²⁷ A similar study done in the United States did not show a significant difference between the active-treatment and placebo groups.³⁴
• Findings regarding onabotulinumtoxinA are intriguing: In a posthoc analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA to treat chronic migraine, patients with MOH who did not undergo detoxification had an 8 d/mo greater reduction in headache, compared to placebo.³⁵ However, when compared to placebo in conjunction with detoxification, onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated no benefit.³⁶
• Newer CGRP antagonist and CGRP receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies are successful preventive medications that have demonstrated a reduction in acute medication use days per month and headache days per month³⁷; these compounds have not been compared to withdrawal alone.

Reducing the severity and duration of withdrawal symptoms

Withdrawal from overused abortive headache medications can lead to worsening headache, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, tachycardia, sleep disturbances, restlessness, anxiety, and nervousness. Symptoms usually last 2 to 10 days but can persist for as long as 4 weeks; duration of withdrawal symptoms varies with the medication that is being overused. In patients who have used a triptan, for example, mean duration of withdrawal is 4.1 days; ergotamine, 6.7 days; and NSAIDs, 9.5 days.²³ Tapered withdrawal is sometimes recommended with opioids and barbiturates to reduce withdrawal symptoms. It is unclear whether starting a preventive medication during withdrawal assists in reducing withdrawal symptoms.³⁸

Bridging therapy to reduce symptoms of withdrawal is often provided despite debatable utility. Available evidence does not favor one agent or method but suggests some strategies that could be helpful:

• A prednisone taper has a potential role during the first 6 days of withdrawal by reducing rebound headache and withdrawal symptoms³⁹; however, oral prednisolone has been shown to have no benefit.⁴⁰
• Alone, IV methylprednisolone seems not to be of benefit; however, in a retrospective study of 94 patients, IV methylprednisolone plus diazepam for 5 days led to a significant reduction in headache frequency and drug consumption that was sustained after 3 months.⁴¹
• Celecoxib was compared to prednisone over a 20-day course: a celecoxib dosage of 400 mg/d for the first 5 days, tapered by 100 mg every 5 days, and an oral prednisone dosage of 75 mg/d for the first 5 days, then tapered every 5 days. Patients taking celecoxib had lower headache intensity but there was no difference in headache frequency and acute medication intake between the groups.⁴²

Other strategies. Using antiemetics and NSAIDs to reduce withdrawal symptoms is widely practiced, but no placebo-­controlled trials have been conducted to support this strategy.

Reduce the risk of medication overuse headache by selecting an appropriate abortive; NSAIDs are recommended for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost.

Patients in withdrawal might be more likely to benefit from inpatient care if they have a severe comorbidity, such as opioid or barbiturate use; failure to respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapse after withdrawal.³⁸

Continue to: Cognitive behavioral therapy...

Cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, a headache diary, and biofeedback should be considered in every patient’s treatment strategy because a multidisciplinary approach increases adherence and leads to improvement in headache frequency and a decrease in disability and medication use.⁴³

Predictors of Tx success

A prospective cohort study determined that the rate of MOH relapse is 31% at 6 months, 41% at 1 year, and 45% at 4 years, with the highest risk of relapse during the first year.⁴⁴ Looking at the correlation between type of medication overused and relapse rate, the research indicates that

• triptans have the lowest risk of relapse,⁴⁴
• simple analgesics have a higher risk of relapse than triptans,^22,44 and
• opioids have the highest risk of relapse.²²

Where the data don’t agree. Data on combination analgesics and on ergots are conflicting.²² In addition, data on whether the primary type of headache predicts relapse rate conflict; however, migraine might predict a better outcome than tension-type headache.²²

To recap and expand: Management pearls

The major goals of headache management generally are to rule out secondary headache, reach a correct diagnosis, reduce overall headache frequency, and provide effective abortive medication. A large component of reducing headache frequency is addressing and treating medication overuse.

Seek to understand the nature of the patient’s headache disorder. Components of the history are key in identifying the underlying headache diagnosis and ruling out other, more concerning secondary headache diagnoses. The ICHD-3 is an excellent resource for treating headache disorders because the classification lists specific diagnostic criteria for all recognized headache diagnoses.

Continue to: Medication withdrawal...

Medication withdrawal—with or without preventive medication—should reduce the frequency of MOH in 2 or 3 months. If headache does not become less frequent, however, the headache diagnosis might need to be reconsidered. Minimizing the use of abortive medication is generally recommended, but reduction or withdrawal of these medications does not guarantee that patients will revert to an episodic pattern of headache.

Inpatient care of withdrawal might be beneficial when a patient has a severe comorbidity; does not respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapses after withdrawal.

Treating withdrawal symptoms is a reasonable approach in some patients, but evidence does not support routinely providing bridging therapy.

Apply preventives carefully. Abortive medication withdrawal should generally be completed before initiating preventive medication; however, over the short term, starting preventive therapy while withdrawing the overused medication could assist in reducing headache frequency rapidly. This strategy can put patients at risk of medication adverse effects and using the medications longer than necessary, yet might be reasonable in certain patients, given their comorbidities, risk of relapse, and physician and patient preference. A preventive medication for an individual patient should generally be chosen in line with recommendations of the American Academy of Neurology⁴⁵ and on the basis of the history and comorbidities.

Provide education, which is essential to lowering barriers to success. Patients with MOH must be counseled to understand that (1) a headache treatment that is supposed to be making them feel better is, in fact, making them feel worse and (2) they will get worse before they get better. Many patients are afraid to be without medication to use as needed. It is helpful to educate them on the different types of treatments (abortive, preventive); how MOH interferes with headache prophylaxis and medication efficacy; how MOH alters brain function (ie, aforementioned physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes²³); and that such change is reversible when medication is withdrawn.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, for his support and editing assistance with the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Allison Crain, MD, 2927 N 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85013; [email protected].

Medication overuse headache (MOH), a secondary headache diagnosis, is a prevalent phenomenon that complicates headache diagnosis and treatment, increases the cost of care, and reduces quality of life. Effective abortive medication is essential for the headache sufferer; when an abortive is used too frequently, however, headache frequency increases—potentially beginning a cycle in which the patient then takes more medication to abort the headache. Over time, the patient suffers from an ever-­increasing number of headaches, takes even more abortive medication, and so on. In the presence of MOH, there is a reduction in pain response to preventive and abortive treatments; when medication overuse is eliminated, pain response improves.¹

Although MOH is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care. Since headache is a top complaint in primary care, however, and prevention is a major goal in family medicine, the opportunity for you to recognize, treat, and prevent MOH is significant. In fact, a randomized controlled trial showed that brief patient education about headache care and MOH provided by a primary care physician can lead to a significant reduction in headache frequency among patients with MOH.²

Although medication overuse headache is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care.

This article reviews the recognition and diagnosis of MOH, based on historical features and current criteria; addresses risk factors for abortive medication overuse and how to withdraw an offending agent; and explores the value of bridging and preventive therapies to reduce the overall frequency of headache.

IMAGE © ROY SCOTT

What defines MOH?

Typically, MOH is a chronification of a primary headache disorder. However, in patients with a history of migraine who are undergoing treatment for another chronic pain condition with an opioid or other analgesic, MOH can be induced.³ An increase in the frequency of headache raises the specter of a concomitant increase in the level of disability⁴; psychiatric comorbidity⁵; and more headache days, with time lost from school and work.

The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, a validated instrument that helps the provider (1) measure the impact that headache has on a patient’s life and (2) follow treatment progress, also provides information to employers and insurance companies on treatment coverage and the need for work modification. The MIDAS score is 3 times higher in patients with MOH than in patients with episodic migraine.^6,7

The annual associated cost per person of MOH has been estimated at $4000, resulting in billions of dollars in associated costs⁸; most of these costs are related to absenteeism and disability. After detoxification for MOH, annual outpatient medication costs are reduced by approximately 24%.⁹

Efforts to solve a common problem create another

Headache affects nearly 50% of the general population worldwide,¹⁰ accounting for about 4% of primary care visits¹¹ and approximately 20% of outpatient neurology consultations.¹² Although inpatient stays for headache are approximately half the duration of the overall average hospital stay, headache accounts for 3% of admissions.¹³ According to the Global Burden of Disease study, tension-type headache, migraine, and MOH are the 3 most common headache disorders.¹⁰ Headache is the second leading cause of disability among people 15 to 49 years of age.¹⁰

Continue to: The prevalence of MOH...

The prevalence of MOH in the general population is 2%.^7,14,15 A population-based study showed that the rate of progression from episodic headache (< 15 d/mo) to chronic headache (≥ 15 d/mo) in the general population is 2.5% per year¹⁶; however, progression to chronic headache is 14% per year in patients with medication overuse. One-third of the general population with chronic migraine overuses symptomatic medication; in US headache clinics, roughly one-half of patients with chronic headache overuse acute medication.⁶

Definitions and diagnosis

MOH is a secondary headache diagnosis in the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) (TABLE 1),¹⁷ which lists diagnostic criteria for recognized headache disorders.

Terminology. MOH has also been called rebound headache, drug-induced headache, and transformed migraine, but these terms are outdated and are not formal diagnoses. Patients sometimes refer to substance-withdrawal headaches (not discussed in this article) as rebound headaches, so clarity is important when discussing headache with patients: namely, that MOH is an exacerbation of an existing headache condition caused by overuse of abortive headache medications, including analgesics, combination analgesics, triptans, barbiturates, and opioids.

The time it takes to develop medication overuse headache is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.

MOH was recognized in the early 1950s and fully differentiated as a diagnosis in 2005 in the second edition of the ICHD. The disorder is subcategorized by offending abortive agent (TABLE 2¹⁷) because the frequency of analgesic use required to develop MOH differs by agent.

Risk factors for MOH and chronification of a primary headache ­disorder. There are several risk factors for developing MOH, and others that contribute to increasing headache frequency in general (TABLE 3^5,14,18-23). Some risk factors are common to each. All are important to address because some are modifiable.

Continue to: Pathophysiology

Pathophysiology. The pathophysiology and psychology behind MOH are largely unknown. Physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes have been demonstrated in patients with MOH, both of which are reversible upon withdrawal of medication.²³ Genetic factors and changes in hormone and neurotransmitter levels are found in MOH patients; this is not the case in patients who have an episodic headache pattern only.²⁴

Presentation. Diagnostic criteria for MOH do not include clinical characteristics. Typically, the phenotype of MOH in a given patient is similar to the underlying primary headache²⁵—although this principle can be complicated to tease out because these medications can suppress some symptoms. Diagnosis of a primary headache disorder should be documented along with the diagnosis of MOH.

Medication overuse can exist without MOH: Not every patient who frequently uses an abortive medication develops MOH.

Treatment is multifaceted—and can become complex

Mainstays of treatment of MOH are education about the disorder and detoxification from the overused agent, although specific treatments can differ depending on the agent involved, the frequency and duration of its use, and a patient’s behavioral patterns and psychiatric comorbidities. Often, a daily medication to prevent headache is considered upon, or after, withdrawal of the offending agent. The timing of introducing a preventive might impact its effectiveness. Some refractory cases require more intensive therapy, including hospitalization at a specialized tertiary center.

But before we look at detoxification from an overused agent, it’s important to review one of the best strategies of all in combatting MOH.

Continue to: First and best strategy

Select an appropriate abortive to reduce the risk of MOH. With regard to specific acute headache medications, some nuances other than type of headache should be considered. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as abortive therapy by the American Headache Society for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost. NSAIDs are protective against development of MOH if a patient’s baseline headache frequency is < 10/mo; at a frequency of 10 to 14 d/mo, however, the risk of MOH increases when using an NSAID.⁶ A similar effect has been seen with triptans.¹⁶ Longer-acting NSAIDs, such as nabumetone and naproxen, have been proposed as less likely to cause MOH, and are even used as bridging therapy sometimes (as long as neither of these was the overused medication).²⁶

The time it takes to develop MOH is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.²⁷

Prospective cohort studies^6,16 have shown that barbiturates and opioids are more likely to induce MOH; for that reason, agents in these analgesic classes are almost universally avoided unless no other medically acceptable options exist. Using barbiturate-containing compounds or opioids > 4 d/mo exponentially increases the likelihood of MOH.

Promising preclinical data demonstrate that the gepant, or small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, class of medications used as abortive therapy does not induce medication overuse cutaneous allodynia.²⁸

Provide education. Primary prevention of MOH involves (1) increasing patients’ awareness of how to take medications appropriately and (2) restricting intake of over-the-counter abortive medications. Often, the expert recommendation is to limit abortives to approximately 2 d/wk because more frequent use places patients at risk of further increased use and subsequent MOH.

Continue to: A randomized controlled trial in Norway...

A randomized controlled trial in Norway compared outcomes in 2 groups of patients with MOH: One group was given advice on the disorder by a physician; the other group was not provided with advice. In the “business-as-usual” group, there was no significant improvement; however, when general practitioners provided simple advice (lasting roughly 9 minutes) about reducing abortive medication use to a safe level and cautioned patients that they would be “feeling worse before feeling better,” headache days were reduced by approximately 8 per month and medication days, by 16 per month.²

A subsequent, long-term follow-up study²⁹ of patients from the Norway trial² who had been given advice and education showed a relapse rate (ie, into overuse of headache medication) of only 8% and sustained reduction of headache days and medication use at 16 months.

Offer support and other nondrug interventions. A recent review of 3 studies²³ recommended that extra support for patients from a headache nurse, close follow-up, keeping an electronic diary that provides feedback, and undertaking a short course of psychotherapy can reduce medication overuse and prevent relapse.

If MOH develops, initiate withdrawal, introduce a preventive

Withdraw overused medication. Most current evidence suggests that withdrawal of the offending agent is the most effective factor in reducing headache days and improving quality of life. A randomized controlled trial compared the effects of (1) complete and immediate withdrawal of an abortive medication with (2) reducing its use (ie, limiting intake to 2 d/wk), on headache frequency, disability, and quality of life.³⁰ There was a reduction of headache days in both groups; however, reduction was much greater at 2 months in the complete withdrawal group than in the restricted intake group (respectively, a 41% and a 26% reduction in headache days per month). This effect was sustained at 6 and 12 months in both groups. The study confirmed the results of earlier research^2,15: Abrupt withdrawal leads to reversion to an episodic pattern at 2 to 6 months in approximately 40% to 60% of patients.

More studies are needed to determine the most appropriate treatment course for MOH; however, complete withdrawal of the causative drug is the most important intervention.

Continue to: Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment

Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment. Use of sodium valproate, in addition to medication overuse detoxification, led to a significant reduction in headache days and improvement in quality of life at 12 weeks but no difference after 24 weeks, compared with detoxification alone in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.³¹

A study of 61 patients showed a larger reduction (by 7.2 d/mo) in headache frequency with any preventive medication in addition to medication withdrawal, compared to withdrawal alone (by 4.1 d/mo) after 3 months; however, the relative benefit was gone at 6 months.³²

A study of 98 patients compared immediate and delayed initiation of preventive medication upon withdrawal of overused abortive medication.³³ Response was defined as a > 50% reduction in headache frequency and was similar in both groups; results showed a 28% response with immediate initiation of a preventive; a 23% response with delayed (ie, 2 months after withdrawal) initiation; and a 48% response in both groups at 12 months.

Collectively, these studies suggest that adding a preventive medication at the time of withdrawal has the potential to reduce headache frequency more quickly than withdrawal alone. However, after 3 to 6 months, the outcome of reduced headache frequency is the same whether or not a preventive medication is used—as long as the offending agent has been withdrawn.

Do preventives work without withdrawing overused medication? Patients with MOH often show little or no improvement with addition of a preventive medication only; their response to a preventive improves after withdrawal of the overused medication. Patients without previous headache improvement after addition of a preventive, who also did not improve 2 months after withdrawal, then demonstrated an overall reduction in headache by 26% when a preventive was reintroduced after withdrawal.²

Continue to: The research evidence for preventives

The research evidence for preventives. Medications for headache prevention have not been extensively evaluated specifically for treating MOH. Here is what’s known:

• Flunarizine, amitriptyline, and beta-blockers usually are ineffective for MOH.²⁴
• Results for topiramate are mixed: A small, double-blind, placebo-controlled chronic migraine study in Europe showed that, in a subgroup of patients with MOH, topiramate led to a small but significant reduction (3.5 d/mo) in headache frequency, compared to placebo.²⁷ A similar study done in the United States did not show a significant difference between the active-treatment and placebo groups.³⁴
• Findings regarding onabotulinumtoxinA are intriguing: In a posthoc analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA to treat chronic migraine, patients with MOH who did not undergo detoxification had an 8 d/mo greater reduction in headache, compared to placebo.³⁵ However, when compared to placebo in conjunction with detoxification, onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated no benefit.³⁶
• Newer CGRP antagonist and CGRP receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies are successful preventive medications that have demonstrated a reduction in acute medication use days per month and headache days per month³⁷; these compounds have not been compared to withdrawal alone.

Reducing the severity and duration of withdrawal symptoms

Withdrawal from overused abortive headache medications can lead to worsening headache, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, tachycardia, sleep disturbances, restlessness, anxiety, and nervousness. Symptoms usually last 2 to 10 days but can persist for as long as 4 weeks; duration of withdrawal symptoms varies with the medication that is being overused. In patients who have used a triptan, for example, mean duration of withdrawal is 4.1 days; ergotamine, 6.7 days; and NSAIDs, 9.5 days.²³ Tapered withdrawal is sometimes recommended with opioids and barbiturates to reduce withdrawal symptoms. It is unclear whether starting a preventive medication during withdrawal assists in reducing withdrawal symptoms.³⁸

Bridging therapy to reduce symptoms of withdrawal is often provided despite debatable utility. Available evidence does not favor one agent or method but suggests some strategies that could be helpful:

• A prednisone taper has a potential role during the first 6 days of withdrawal by reducing rebound headache and withdrawal symptoms³⁹; however, oral prednisolone has been shown to have no benefit.⁴⁰
• Alone, IV methylprednisolone seems not to be of benefit; however, in a retrospective study of 94 patients, IV methylprednisolone plus diazepam for 5 days led to a significant reduction in headache frequency and drug consumption that was sustained after 3 months.⁴¹
• Celecoxib was compared to prednisone over a 20-day course: a celecoxib dosage of 400 mg/d for the first 5 days, tapered by 100 mg every 5 days, and an oral prednisone dosage of 75 mg/d for the first 5 days, then tapered every 5 days. Patients taking celecoxib had lower headache intensity but there was no difference in headache frequency and acute medication intake between the groups.⁴²

Other strategies. Using antiemetics and NSAIDs to reduce withdrawal symptoms is widely practiced, but no placebo-­controlled trials have been conducted to support this strategy.

Reduce the risk of medication overuse headache by selecting an appropriate abortive; NSAIDs are recommended for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost.

Patients in withdrawal might be more likely to benefit from inpatient care if they have a severe comorbidity, such as opioid or barbiturate use; failure to respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapse after withdrawal.³⁸

Continue to: Cognitive behavioral therapy...

Cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, a headache diary, and biofeedback should be considered in every patient’s treatment strategy because a multidisciplinary approach increases adherence and leads to improvement in headache frequency and a decrease in disability and medication use.⁴³

Predictors of Tx success

A prospective cohort study determined that the rate of MOH relapse is 31% at 6 months, 41% at 1 year, and 45% at 4 years, with the highest risk of relapse during the first year.⁴⁴ Looking at the correlation between type of medication overused and relapse rate, the research indicates that

• triptans have the lowest risk of relapse,⁴⁴
• simple analgesics have a higher risk of relapse than triptans,^22,44 and
• opioids have the highest risk of relapse.²²

Where the data don’t agree. Data on combination analgesics and on ergots are conflicting.²² In addition, data on whether the primary type of headache predicts relapse rate conflict; however, migraine might predict a better outcome than tension-type headache.²²

To recap and expand: Management pearls

The major goals of headache management generally are to rule out secondary headache, reach a correct diagnosis, reduce overall headache frequency, and provide effective abortive medication. A large component of reducing headache frequency is addressing and treating medication overuse.

Seek to understand the nature of the patient’s headache disorder. Components of the history are key in identifying the underlying headache diagnosis and ruling out other, more concerning secondary headache diagnoses. The ICHD-3 is an excellent resource for treating headache disorders because the classification lists specific diagnostic criteria for all recognized headache diagnoses.

Continue to: Medication withdrawal...

Medication withdrawal—with or without preventive medication—should reduce the frequency of MOH in 2 or 3 months. If headache does not become less frequent, however, the headache diagnosis might need to be reconsidered. Minimizing the use of abortive medication is generally recommended, but reduction or withdrawal of these medications does not guarantee that patients will revert to an episodic pattern of headache.

Inpatient care of withdrawal might be beneficial when a patient has a severe comorbidity; does not respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapses after withdrawal.

Treating withdrawal symptoms is a reasonable approach in some patients, but evidence does not support routinely providing bridging therapy.

Apply preventives carefully. Abortive medication withdrawal should generally be completed before initiating preventive medication; however, over the short term, starting preventive therapy while withdrawing the overused medication could assist in reducing headache frequency rapidly. This strategy can put patients at risk of medication adverse effects and using the medications longer than necessary, yet might be reasonable in certain patients, given their comorbidities, risk of relapse, and physician and patient preference. A preventive medication for an individual patient should generally be chosen in line with recommendations of the American Academy of Neurology⁴⁵ and on the basis of the history and comorbidities.

Provide education, which is essential to lowering barriers to success. Patients with MOH must be counseled to understand that (1) a headache treatment that is supposed to be making them feel better is, in fact, making them feel worse and (2) they will get worse before they get better. Many patients are afraid to be without medication to use as needed. It is helpful to educate them on the different types of treatments (abortive, preventive); how MOH interferes with headache prophylaxis and medication efficacy; how MOH alters brain function (ie, aforementioned physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes²³); and that such change is reversible when medication is withdrawn.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, for his support and editing assistance with the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Allison Crain, MD, 2927 N 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85013; [email protected].

Medication overuse headache (MOH), a secondary headache diagnosis, is a prevalent phenomenon that complicates headache diagnosis and treatment, increases the cost of care, and reduces quality of life. Effective abortive medication is essential for the headache sufferer; when an abortive is used too frequently, however, headache frequency increases—potentially beginning a cycle in which the patient then takes more medication to abort the headache. Over time, the patient suffers from an ever-­increasing number of headaches, takes even more abortive medication, and so on. In the presence of MOH, there is a reduction in pain response to preventive and abortive treatments; when medication overuse is eliminated, pain response improves.¹

Although MOH is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care. Since headache is a top complaint in primary care, however, and prevention is a major goal in family medicine, the opportunity for you to recognize, treat, and prevent MOH is significant. In fact, a randomized controlled trial showed that brief patient education about headache care and MOH provided by a primary care physician can lead to a significant reduction in headache frequency among patients with MOH.²

Although medication overuse headache is well recognized among headache specialists, the condition is often overlooked in primary care.

This article reviews the recognition and diagnosis of MOH, based on historical features and current criteria; addresses risk factors for abortive medication overuse and how to withdraw an offending agent; and explores the value of bridging and preventive therapies to reduce the overall frequency of headache.

IMAGE © ROY SCOTT

What defines MOH?

Typically, MOH is a chronification of a primary headache disorder. However, in patients with a history of migraine who are undergoing treatment for another chronic pain condition with an opioid or other analgesic, MOH can be induced.³ An increase in the frequency of headache raises the specter of a concomitant increase in the level of disability⁴; psychiatric comorbidity⁵; and more headache days, with time lost from school and work.

The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, a validated instrument that helps the provider (1) measure the impact that headache has on a patient’s life and (2) follow treatment progress, also provides information to employers and insurance companies on treatment coverage and the need for work modification. The MIDAS score is 3 times higher in patients with MOH than in patients with episodic migraine.^6,7

The annual associated cost per person of MOH has been estimated at $4000, resulting in billions of dollars in associated costs⁸; most of these costs are related to absenteeism and disability. After detoxification for MOH, annual outpatient medication costs are reduced by approximately 24%.⁹

Efforts to solve a common problem create another

Headache affects nearly 50% of the general population worldwide,¹⁰ accounting for about 4% of primary care visits¹¹ and approximately 20% of outpatient neurology consultations.¹² Although inpatient stays for headache are approximately half the duration of the overall average hospital stay, headache accounts for 3% of admissions.¹³ According to the Global Burden of Disease study, tension-type headache, migraine, and MOH are the 3 most common headache disorders.¹⁰ Headache is the second leading cause of disability among people 15 to 49 years of age.¹⁰

Continue to: The prevalence of MOH...

The prevalence of MOH in the general population is 2%.^7,14,15 A population-based study showed that the rate of progression from episodic headache (< 15 d/mo) to chronic headache (≥ 15 d/mo) in the general population is 2.5% per year¹⁶; however, progression to chronic headache is 14% per year in patients with medication overuse. One-third of the general population with chronic migraine overuses symptomatic medication; in US headache clinics, roughly one-half of patients with chronic headache overuse acute medication.⁶

Definitions and diagnosis

MOH is a secondary headache diagnosis in the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) (TABLE 1),¹⁷ which lists diagnostic criteria for recognized headache disorders.

Terminology. MOH has also been called rebound headache, drug-induced headache, and transformed migraine, but these terms are outdated and are not formal diagnoses. Patients sometimes refer to substance-withdrawal headaches (not discussed in this article) as rebound headaches, so clarity is important when discussing headache with patients: namely, that MOH is an exacerbation of an existing headache condition caused by overuse of abortive headache medications, including analgesics, combination analgesics, triptans, barbiturates, and opioids.

The time it takes to develop medication overuse headache is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.

MOH was recognized in the early 1950s and fully differentiated as a diagnosis in 2005 in the second edition of the ICHD. The disorder is subcategorized by offending abortive agent (TABLE 2¹⁷) because the frequency of analgesic use required to develop MOH differs by agent.

Risk factors for MOH and chronification of a primary headache ­disorder. There are several risk factors for developing MOH, and others that contribute to increasing headache frequency in general (TABLE 3^5,14,18-23). Some risk factors are common to each. All are important to address because some are modifiable.

Continue to: Pathophysiology

Pathophysiology. The pathophysiology and psychology behind MOH are largely unknown. Physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes have been demonstrated in patients with MOH, both of which are reversible upon withdrawal of medication.²³ Genetic factors and changes in hormone and neurotransmitter levels are found in MOH patients; this is not the case in patients who have an episodic headache pattern only.²⁴

Presentation. Diagnostic criteria for MOH do not include clinical characteristics. Typically, the phenotype of MOH in a given patient is similar to the underlying primary headache²⁵—although this principle can be complicated to tease out because these medications can suppress some symptoms. Diagnosis of a primary headache disorder should be documented along with the diagnosis of MOH.

Medication overuse can exist without MOH: Not every patient who frequently uses an abortive medication develops MOH.

Treatment is multifaceted—and can become complex

Mainstays of treatment of MOH are education about the disorder and detoxification from the overused agent, although specific treatments can differ depending on the agent involved, the frequency and duration of its use, and a patient’s behavioral patterns and psychiatric comorbidities. Often, a daily medication to prevent headache is considered upon, or after, withdrawal of the offending agent. The timing of introducing a preventive might impact its effectiveness. Some refractory cases require more intensive therapy, including hospitalization at a specialized tertiary center.

But before we look at detoxification from an overused agent, it’s important to review one of the best strategies of all in combatting MOH.

Continue to: First and best strategy

Select an appropriate abortive to reduce the risk of MOH. With regard to specific acute headache medications, some nuances other than type of headache should be considered. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as abortive therapy by the American Headache Society for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost. NSAIDs are protective against development of MOH if a patient’s baseline headache frequency is < 10/mo; at a frequency of 10 to 14 d/mo, however, the risk of MOH increases when using an NSAID.⁶ A similar effect has been seen with triptans.¹⁶ Longer-acting NSAIDs, such as nabumetone and naproxen, have been proposed as less likely to cause MOH, and are even used as bridging therapy sometimes (as long as neither of these was the overused medication).²⁶

The time it takes to develop MOH is shortest with triptans, followed by ergots, then analgesics.²⁷

Prospective cohort studies^6,16 have shown that barbiturates and opioids are more likely to induce MOH; for that reason, agents in these analgesic classes are almost universally avoided unless no other medically acceptable options exist. Using barbiturate-containing compounds or opioids > 4 d/mo exponentially increases the likelihood of MOH.

Promising preclinical data demonstrate that the gepant, or small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, class of medications used as abortive therapy does not induce medication overuse cutaneous allodynia.²⁸

Provide education. Primary prevention of MOH involves (1) increasing patients’ awareness of how to take medications appropriately and (2) restricting intake of over-the-counter abortive medications. Often, the expert recommendation is to limit abortives to approximately 2 d/wk because more frequent use places patients at risk of further increased use and subsequent MOH.

Continue to: A randomized controlled trial in Norway...

A randomized controlled trial in Norway compared outcomes in 2 groups of patients with MOH: One group was given advice on the disorder by a physician; the other group was not provided with advice. In the “business-as-usual” group, there was no significant improvement; however, when general practitioners provided simple advice (lasting roughly 9 minutes) about reducing abortive medication use to a safe level and cautioned patients that they would be “feeling worse before feeling better,” headache days were reduced by approximately 8 per month and medication days, by 16 per month.²

A subsequent, long-term follow-up study²⁹ of patients from the Norway trial² who had been given advice and education showed a relapse rate (ie, into overuse of headache medication) of only 8% and sustained reduction of headache days and medication use at 16 months.

Offer support and other nondrug interventions. A recent review of 3 studies²³ recommended that extra support for patients from a headache nurse, close follow-up, keeping an electronic diary that provides feedback, and undertaking a short course of psychotherapy can reduce medication overuse and prevent relapse.

If MOH develops, initiate withdrawal, introduce a preventive

Withdraw overused medication. Most current evidence suggests that withdrawal of the offending agent is the most effective factor in reducing headache days and improving quality of life. A randomized controlled trial compared the effects of (1) complete and immediate withdrawal of an abortive medication with (2) reducing its use (ie, limiting intake to 2 d/wk), on headache frequency, disability, and quality of life.³⁰ There was a reduction of headache days in both groups; however, reduction was much greater at 2 months in the complete withdrawal group than in the restricted intake group (respectively, a 41% and a 26% reduction in headache days per month). This effect was sustained at 6 and 12 months in both groups. The study confirmed the results of earlier research^2,15: Abrupt withdrawal leads to reversion to an episodic pattern at 2 to 6 months in approximately 40% to 60% of patients.

More studies are needed to determine the most appropriate treatment course for MOH; however, complete withdrawal of the causative drug is the most important intervention.

Continue to: Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment

Consider withdrawal plus preventive treatment. Use of sodium valproate, in addition to medication overuse detoxification, led to a significant reduction in headache days and improvement in quality of life at 12 weeks but no difference after 24 weeks, compared with detoxification alone in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.³¹

A study of 61 patients showed a larger reduction (by 7.2 d/mo) in headache frequency with any preventive medication in addition to medication withdrawal, compared to withdrawal alone (by 4.1 d/mo) after 3 months; however, the relative benefit was gone at 6 months.³²

A study of 98 patients compared immediate and delayed initiation of preventive medication upon withdrawal of overused abortive medication.³³ Response was defined as a > 50% reduction in headache frequency and was similar in both groups; results showed a 28% response with immediate initiation of a preventive; a 23% response with delayed (ie, 2 months after withdrawal) initiation; and a 48% response in both groups at 12 months.

Collectively, these studies suggest that adding a preventive medication at the time of withdrawal has the potential to reduce headache frequency more quickly than withdrawal alone. However, after 3 to 6 months, the outcome of reduced headache frequency is the same whether or not a preventive medication is used—as long as the offending agent has been withdrawn.

Do preventives work without withdrawing overused medication? Patients with MOH often show little or no improvement with addition of a preventive medication only; their response to a preventive improves after withdrawal of the overused medication. Patients without previous headache improvement after addition of a preventive, who also did not improve 2 months after withdrawal, then demonstrated an overall reduction in headache by 26% when a preventive was reintroduced after withdrawal.²

Continue to: The research evidence for preventives

The research evidence for preventives. Medications for headache prevention have not been extensively evaluated specifically for treating MOH. Here is what’s known:

• Flunarizine, amitriptyline, and beta-blockers usually are ineffective for MOH.²⁴
• Results for topiramate are mixed: A small, double-blind, placebo-controlled chronic migraine study in Europe showed that, in a subgroup of patients with MOH, topiramate led to a small but significant reduction (3.5 d/mo) in headache frequency, compared to placebo.²⁷ A similar study done in the United States did not show a significant difference between the active-treatment and placebo groups.³⁴
• Findings regarding onabotulinumtoxinA are intriguing: In a posthoc analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA to treat chronic migraine, patients with MOH who did not undergo detoxification had an 8 d/mo greater reduction in headache, compared to placebo.³⁵ However, when compared to placebo in conjunction with detoxification, onabotulinumtoxinA demonstrated no benefit.³⁶
• Newer CGRP antagonist and CGRP receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies are successful preventive medications that have demonstrated a reduction in acute medication use days per month and headache days per month³⁷; these compounds have not been compared to withdrawal alone.

Reducing the severity and duration of withdrawal symptoms

Withdrawal from overused abortive headache medications can lead to worsening headache, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, tachycardia, sleep disturbances, restlessness, anxiety, and nervousness. Symptoms usually last 2 to 10 days but can persist for as long as 4 weeks; duration of withdrawal symptoms varies with the medication that is being overused. In patients who have used a triptan, for example, mean duration of withdrawal is 4.1 days; ergotamine, 6.7 days; and NSAIDs, 9.5 days.²³ Tapered withdrawal is sometimes recommended with opioids and barbiturates to reduce withdrawal symptoms. It is unclear whether starting a preventive medication during withdrawal assists in reducing withdrawal symptoms.³⁸

Bridging therapy to reduce symptoms of withdrawal is often provided despite debatable utility. Available evidence does not favor one agent or method but suggests some strategies that could be helpful:

• A prednisone taper has a potential role during the first 6 days of withdrawal by reducing rebound headache and withdrawal symptoms³⁹; however, oral prednisolone has been shown to have no benefit.⁴⁰
• Alone, IV methylprednisolone seems not to be of benefit; however, in a retrospective study of 94 patients, IV methylprednisolone plus diazepam for 5 days led to a significant reduction in headache frequency and drug consumption that was sustained after 3 months.⁴¹
• Celecoxib was compared to prednisone over a 20-day course: a celecoxib dosage of 400 mg/d for the first 5 days, tapered by 100 mg every 5 days, and an oral prednisone dosage of 75 mg/d for the first 5 days, then tapered every 5 days. Patients taking celecoxib had lower headache intensity but there was no difference in headache frequency and acute medication intake between the groups.⁴²

Other strategies. Using antiemetics and NSAIDs to reduce withdrawal symptoms is widely practiced, but no placebo-­controlled trials have been conducted to support this strategy.

Reduce the risk of medication overuse headache by selecting an appropriate abortive; NSAIDs are recommended for their efficacy, favorable adverse effect profile, and low cost.

Patients in withdrawal might be more likely to benefit from inpatient care if they have a severe comorbidity, such as opioid or barbiturate use; failure to respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapse after withdrawal.³⁸

Continue to: Cognitive behavioral therapy...

Cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, a headache diary, and biofeedback should be considered in every patient’s treatment strategy because a multidisciplinary approach increases adherence and leads to improvement in headache frequency and a decrease in disability and medication use.⁴³

Predictors of Tx success

A prospective cohort study determined that the rate of MOH relapse is 31% at 6 months, 41% at 1 year, and 45% at 4 years, with the highest risk of relapse during the first year.⁴⁴ Looking at the correlation between type of medication overused and relapse rate, the research indicates that

• triptans have the lowest risk of relapse,⁴⁴
• simple analgesics have a higher risk of relapse than triptans,^22,44 and
• opioids have the highest risk of relapse.²²

Where the data don’t agree. Data on combination analgesics and on ergots are conflicting.²² In addition, data on whether the primary type of headache predicts relapse rate conflict; however, migraine might predict a better outcome than tension-type headache.²²

To recap and expand: Management pearls

The major goals of headache management generally are to rule out secondary headache, reach a correct diagnosis, reduce overall headache frequency, and provide effective abortive medication. A large component of reducing headache frequency is addressing and treating medication overuse.

Seek to understand the nature of the patient’s headache disorder. Components of the history are key in identifying the underlying headache diagnosis and ruling out other, more concerning secondary headache diagnoses. The ICHD-3 is an excellent resource for treating headache disorders because the classification lists specific diagnostic criteria for all recognized headache diagnoses.

Continue to: Medication withdrawal...

Medication withdrawal—with or without preventive medication—should reduce the frequency of MOH in 2 or 3 months. If headache does not become less frequent, however, the headache diagnosis might need to be reconsidered. Minimizing the use of abortive medication is generally recommended, but reduction or withdrawal of these medications does not guarantee that patients will revert to an episodic pattern of headache.

Inpatient care of withdrawal might be beneficial when a patient has a severe comorbidity; does not respond to, tolerate, or adhere to treatment; or relapses after withdrawal.

Treating withdrawal symptoms is a reasonable approach in some patients, but evidence does not support routinely providing bridging therapy.

Apply preventives carefully. Abortive medication withdrawal should generally be completed before initiating preventive medication; however, over the short term, starting preventive therapy while withdrawing the overused medication could assist in reducing headache frequency rapidly. This strategy can put patients at risk of medication adverse effects and using the medications longer than necessary, yet might be reasonable in certain patients, given their comorbidities, risk of relapse, and physician and patient preference. A preventive medication for an individual patient should generally be chosen in line with recommendations of the American Academy of Neurology⁴⁵ and on the basis of the history and comorbidities.

Provide education, which is essential to lowering barriers to success. Patients with MOH must be counseled to understand that (1) a headache treatment that is supposed to be making them feel better is, in fact, making them feel worse and (2) they will get worse before they get better. Many patients are afraid to be without medication to use as needed. It is helpful to educate them on the different types of treatments (abortive, preventive); how MOH interferes with headache prophylaxis and medication efficacy; how MOH alters brain function (ie, aforementioned physiologic changes in pain processing and functional imaging changes²³); and that such change is reversible when medication is withdrawn.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, for his support and editing assistance with the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Allison Crain, MD, 2927 N 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85013; [email protected].

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Federal officials on Thursday announced a plan to largely drop the so-called X-waiver requirement for buprenorphine prescriptions for physicians in a bid to remove an administrative procedure widely seen as a barrier to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.

The Department of Health & Human Services unveiled new practice guidelines that include an exemption from current certification requirements. The exemption applies to physicians already registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

A restriction included in the new HHS policy is a limit of treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. There is an exception to this limit for hospital-based physicians, such as those working in emergency departments, HHS said.

The policy change applies only to the prescription of drugs or formulations covered under the so-called X-waiver of the Controlled Substance Act, such as buprenorphine, and does not apply to methadone. The new guidelines say the date on which they will take effect will be added after publication in the Federal Register. HHS did not immediately answer a request from this news organization for a more specific timeline.
 

Welcomed change

The change in prescribing rule was widely welcomed, with the American Medical Association issuing a statement endorsing the revision. The AMA and many prescribers and researchers had seen the X-waiver as a hurdle to address the nation’s opioid epidemic.

There were more than 83,000 deaths attributed to drug overdoses in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. This is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period, HHS said in a press release, which cited data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a tweet about the new policy, Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston internist and author of the memoir “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” contrasted the relative ease with which clinicians can give medicines that carry a risk for abuse with the challenge that has existed in trying to provide patients with buprenorphine.

“Absolutely insane that we need a special waiver for buprenorphine to TREAT opioid addiction, but not to prescribe oxycodone, Vicodin, etc., which can get people in trouble in the first place!!” Dr. Grinspoon tweeted.

Patrice Harris, MD, chair of the AMA’s Opioid Task Force and the organization’s immediate past president, said removing the X-waiver requirement can help lessen the stigma associated with this OUD treatment. The AMA had urged HHS to change the regulation.

“With this change, office-based physicians and physician-led teams working with patients to manage their other medical conditions can also treat them for their opioid use disorder without being subjected to a separate and burdensome regulatory regime,” Dr. Harris said in the AMA statement.

Researchers have in recent years sought to highlight what they described as missed opportunities for OUD treatment because of the need for the X-waiver. 

Buprenorphine is a cost-effective treatment for opioid use disorder, which reduces the risk of injection-related infections and mortality risk, notes a study published online last month in JAMA Network Open.  

However, results showed that fewer than 2% of obstetrician-gynecologists who examined women enrolled in Medicaid were trained to prescribe buprenorphine. The study, which was based on data from 31, 211 ob.gyns. who accepted Medicaid insurance, was created to quantify how many were on the list of Drug Addiction Treatment Act buprenorphine-waived clinicians.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act has required 8 hours of training for physicians and 24 hours for nurse practitioners and physician assistants for the X-waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine, the investigators report.
 

‘X the X-waiver’

Only 10% of recent family residency graduates reported being adequately trained to prescribe buprenorphine and only 7% reported actually prescribing the drug, write Kevin Fiscella, MD, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and colleagues in a 2018 Viewpoint article published in JAMA Psychiatry.

In the article, which was subtitled “X the X Waiver,” they called for deregulation of buprenorphine as a way of mainstreaming treatment for OUD.

“The DATA 2000 has failed – too few physicians have obtained X-waivers,” the authors write. “Regulations reinforce the stigma surrounding buprenorphine prescribers and patients who receive it while constraining access and discouraging patient engagement and retention in treatment.”

The change, announced Jan. 14, leaves in place restrictions on prescribing for clinicians other than physicians. On a call with reporters, Adm. Brett P. Giroir, MD, assistant secretary for health, suggested that federal officials should take further steps to remove hurdles to buprenorphine prescriptions.

“Many people will say this has gone too far,” Dr. Giroir said of the drive to end the X-waiver for clinicians. “But I believe more people will say this has not gone far enough.”

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

Federal officials on Thursday announced a plan to largely drop the so-called X-waiver requirement for buprenorphine prescriptions for physicians in a bid to remove an administrative procedure widely seen as a barrier to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.

The Department of Health & Human Services unveiled new practice guidelines that include an exemption from current certification requirements. The exemption applies to physicians already registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

A restriction included in the new HHS policy is a limit of treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. There is an exception to this limit for hospital-based physicians, such as those working in emergency departments, HHS said.

The policy change applies only to the prescription of drugs or formulations covered under the so-called X-waiver of the Controlled Substance Act, such as buprenorphine, and does not apply to methadone. The new guidelines say the date on which they will take effect will be added after publication in the Federal Register. HHS did not immediately answer a request from this news organization for a more specific timeline.
 

Welcomed change

The change in prescribing rule was widely welcomed, with the American Medical Association issuing a statement endorsing the revision. The AMA and many prescribers and researchers had seen the X-waiver as a hurdle to address the nation’s opioid epidemic.

There were more than 83,000 deaths attributed to drug overdoses in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. This is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period, HHS said in a press release, which cited data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a tweet about the new policy, Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston internist and author of the memoir “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” contrasted the relative ease with which clinicians can give medicines that carry a risk for abuse with the challenge that has existed in trying to provide patients with buprenorphine.

“Absolutely insane that we need a special waiver for buprenorphine to TREAT opioid addiction, but not to prescribe oxycodone, Vicodin, etc., which can get people in trouble in the first place!!” Dr. Grinspoon tweeted.

Patrice Harris, MD, chair of the AMA’s Opioid Task Force and the organization’s immediate past president, said removing the X-waiver requirement can help lessen the stigma associated with this OUD treatment. The AMA had urged HHS to change the regulation.

“With this change, office-based physicians and physician-led teams working with patients to manage their other medical conditions can also treat them for their opioid use disorder without being subjected to a separate and burdensome regulatory regime,” Dr. Harris said in the AMA statement.

Researchers have in recent years sought to highlight what they described as missed opportunities for OUD treatment because of the need for the X-waiver. 

Buprenorphine is a cost-effective treatment for opioid use disorder, which reduces the risk of injection-related infections and mortality risk, notes a study published online last month in JAMA Network Open.  

However, results showed that fewer than 2% of obstetrician-gynecologists who examined women enrolled in Medicaid were trained to prescribe buprenorphine. The study, which was based on data from 31, 211 ob.gyns. who accepted Medicaid insurance, was created to quantify how many were on the list of Drug Addiction Treatment Act buprenorphine-waived clinicians.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act has required 8 hours of training for physicians and 24 hours for nurse practitioners and physician assistants for the X-waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine, the investigators report.
 

‘X the X-waiver’

Only 10% of recent family residency graduates reported being adequately trained to prescribe buprenorphine and only 7% reported actually prescribing the drug, write Kevin Fiscella, MD, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and colleagues in a 2018 Viewpoint article published in JAMA Psychiatry.

In the article, which was subtitled “X the X Waiver,” they called for deregulation of buprenorphine as a way of mainstreaming treatment for OUD.

“The DATA 2000 has failed – too few physicians have obtained X-waivers,” the authors write. “Regulations reinforce the stigma surrounding buprenorphine prescribers and patients who receive it while constraining access and discouraging patient engagement and retention in treatment.”

The change, announced Jan. 14, leaves in place restrictions on prescribing for clinicians other than physicians. On a call with reporters, Adm. Brett P. Giroir, MD, assistant secretary for health, suggested that federal officials should take further steps to remove hurdles to buprenorphine prescriptions.

“Many people will say this has gone too far,” Dr. Giroir said of the drive to end the X-waiver for clinicians. “But I believe more people will say this has not gone far enough.”

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

Federal officials on Thursday announced a plan to largely drop the so-called X-waiver requirement for buprenorphine prescriptions for physicians in a bid to remove an administrative procedure widely seen as a barrier to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.

The Department of Health & Human Services unveiled new practice guidelines that include an exemption from current certification requirements. The exemption applies to physicians already registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

A restriction included in the new HHS policy is a limit of treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. There is an exception to this limit for hospital-based physicians, such as those working in emergency departments, HHS said.

The policy change applies only to the prescription of drugs or formulations covered under the so-called X-waiver of the Controlled Substance Act, such as buprenorphine, and does not apply to methadone. The new guidelines say the date on which they will take effect will be added after publication in the Federal Register. HHS did not immediately answer a request from this news organization for a more specific timeline.
 

Welcomed change

The change in prescribing rule was widely welcomed, with the American Medical Association issuing a statement endorsing the revision. The AMA and many prescribers and researchers had seen the X-waiver as a hurdle to address the nation’s opioid epidemic.

There were more than 83,000 deaths attributed to drug overdoses in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. This is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period, HHS said in a press release, which cited data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a tweet about the new policy, Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston internist and author of the memoir “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” contrasted the relative ease with which clinicians can give medicines that carry a risk for abuse with the challenge that has existed in trying to provide patients with buprenorphine.

“Absolutely insane that we need a special waiver for buprenorphine to TREAT opioid addiction, but not to prescribe oxycodone, Vicodin, etc., which can get people in trouble in the first place!!” Dr. Grinspoon tweeted.

Patrice Harris, MD, chair of the AMA’s Opioid Task Force and the organization’s immediate past president, said removing the X-waiver requirement can help lessen the stigma associated with this OUD treatment. The AMA had urged HHS to change the regulation.

“With this change, office-based physicians and physician-led teams working with patients to manage their other medical conditions can also treat them for their opioid use disorder without being subjected to a separate and burdensome regulatory regime,” Dr. Harris said in the AMA statement.

Researchers have in recent years sought to highlight what they described as missed opportunities for OUD treatment because of the need for the X-waiver. 

Buprenorphine is a cost-effective treatment for opioid use disorder, which reduces the risk of injection-related infections and mortality risk, notes a study published online last month in JAMA Network Open.  

However, results showed that fewer than 2% of obstetrician-gynecologists who examined women enrolled in Medicaid were trained to prescribe buprenorphine. The study, which was based on data from 31, 211 ob.gyns. who accepted Medicaid insurance, was created to quantify how many were on the list of Drug Addiction Treatment Act buprenorphine-waived clinicians.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act has required 8 hours of training for physicians and 24 hours for nurse practitioners and physician assistants for the X-waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine, the investigators report.
 

‘X the X-waiver’

Only 10% of recent family residency graduates reported being adequately trained to prescribe buprenorphine and only 7% reported actually prescribing the drug, write Kevin Fiscella, MD, University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center and colleagues in a 2018 Viewpoint article published in JAMA Psychiatry.

In the article, which was subtitled “X the X Waiver,” they called for deregulation of buprenorphine as a way of mainstreaming treatment for OUD.

“The DATA 2000 has failed – too few physicians have obtained X-waivers,” the authors write. “Regulations reinforce the stigma surrounding buprenorphine prescribers and patients who receive it while constraining access and discouraging patient engagement and retention in treatment.”

The change, announced Jan. 14, leaves in place restrictions on prescribing for clinicians other than physicians. On a call with reporters, Adm. Brett P. Giroir, MD, assistant secretary for health, suggested that federal officials should take further steps to remove hurdles to buprenorphine prescriptions.

“Many people will say this has gone too far,” Dr. Giroir said of the drive to end the X-waiver for clinicians. “But I believe more people will say this has not gone far enough.”

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

Background: Prior studies have established an increased risk of overt stroke after noncardiac surgery, with significant associated morbidity and mortality. Similarly, covert stroke in the nonsurgical population is well described and has been shown to be associated with cognitive decline.

Covert stroke was detected in 78 (7%) of the study participants. Those with covert stroke had a higher incidence of cognitive decline at 1 year (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-3.2) with an absolute risk increase of 13%. Patients with covert stroke also had a higher rate of delirium within 3 days of surgery (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.06-4.73) and a higher rate of overt stroke and transient ischemic attack at 1 year (HR, 4.13; 95% CI, 1.14-14.99).

This study helps to establish the incidence of covert stroke after noncardiac surgery and provides support for covert stroke as a risk factor for cognitive impairment.

Bottom line: Covert stroke following noncardiac surgery is common, affecting 1 in 14 patients in this study, and it is associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline, perioperative delirium, and subsequent overt stroke.

Citation: The NeuroVISION Investigators (Mrkobrada M et al.). Perioperative covert stroke in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery (NeuroVISION): a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2019;394(10203):1022-9.

Dr. Herrle is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland and at Stephens Memorial Hospital in Norway, Maine.

Background: Prior studies have established an increased risk of overt stroke after noncardiac surgery, with significant associated morbidity and mortality. Similarly, covert stroke in the nonsurgical population is well described and has been shown to be associated with cognitive decline.

Covert stroke was detected in 78 (7%) of the study participants. Those with covert stroke had a higher incidence of cognitive decline at 1 year (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-3.2) with an absolute risk increase of 13%. Patients with covert stroke also had a higher rate of delirium within 3 days of surgery (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.06-4.73) and a higher rate of overt stroke and transient ischemic attack at 1 year (HR, 4.13; 95% CI, 1.14-14.99).

This study helps to establish the incidence of covert stroke after noncardiac surgery and provides support for covert stroke as a risk factor for cognitive impairment.

Bottom line: Covert stroke following noncardiac surgery is common, affecting 1 in 14 patients in this study, and it is associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline, perioperative delirium, and subsequent overt stroke.

Citation: The NeuroVISION Investigators (Mrkobrada M et al.). Perioperative covert stroke in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery (NeuroVISION): a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2019;394(10203):1022-9.

Dr. Herrle is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland and at Stephens Memorial Hospital in Norway, Maine.

Background: Prior studies have established an increased risk of overt stroke after noncardiac surgery, with significant associated morbidity and mortality. Similarly, covert stroke in the nonsurgical population is well described and has been shown to be associated with cognitive decline.

Covert stroke was detected in 78 (7%) of the study participants. Those with covert stroke had a higher incidence of cognitive decline at 1 year (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-3.2) with an absolute risk increase of 13%. Patients with covert stroke also had a higher rate of delirium within 3 days of surgery (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.06-4.73) and a higher rate of overt stroke and transient ischemic attack at 1 year (HR, 4.13; 95% CI, 1.14-14.99).

This study helps to establish the incidence of covert stroke after noncardiac surgery and provides support for covert stroke as a risk factor for cognitive impairment.

Bottom line: Covert stroke following noncardiac surgery is common, affecting 1 in 14 patients in this study, and it is associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline, perioperative delirium, and subsequent overt stroke.

Citation: The NeuroVISION Investigators (Mrkobrada M et al.). Perioperative covert stroke in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery (NeuroVISION): a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2019;394(10203):1022-9.

Dr. Herrle is a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center in Portland and at Stephens Memorial Hospital in Norway, Maine.

An alarming number of additional Alzheimer’s disease (AD) deaths have been reported across various states within the past several months, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data indicate that no less than 31,000 additional people with the neurodegenerative condition had died from the beginning of the pandemic through the end of September 2020. We know that long-term care facilities have been hit hardest, and access to adequate and/or prompt testing has been cited as the most pressing issue during the onset of the pandemic.¹

When ADLs become a matter of survival

For individuals affected with Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia, performing routine tasks may seem cumbersome and overwhelming. Many of these patients are dependent upon caregivers and family support to facilitate their activities of daily living (ADLs).

Transitioning into the “new normal” set by the pandemic milieu is not an easy task for the average AD individual, because they are now expected to comply with numerous safety instructions (for example, maintaining hygiene, social distancing, etc.). They are also expected to monitor and communicate information about the onset of any suspected symptom to their caregiver or health care clinician.

The additional tasks added to their list of ADLs are particularly distressing given their already compromised short-term memory and overall cognitive decline. Individuals with AD may also be dealing with a host of psychobehavioral challenges, such as the presence of depression, anxiety, and/or agitation amid self-isolation. Enforced social isolation tied to COVID-19 may compound those issues.
 

Resource diversion and mitigation strategies

Unfortunately, any disruption in services within a long-term care setting may lead to a suboptimal therapeutic environment for patients. The Washington State LTC, for example, reported experiencing a case fatality rate (CFR) exceeding more than a third of its residents; essential staff and health care clinicians were duly affected from exposure to the virus (the risk of transmission increases considerably during transport between facilities). Access to personal protective equipment (PPE) might have been hindered by availability.

Another issue with far-reaching consequences is diversion of resources for urgent care. Health care professionals may simply not be readily available for those with chronic care needs because of the enormous scale of the impact of COVID-19 upon health care systems.

Continuity of therapy might include evaluations or follow-up services via teleconferencing modalities, but an exhaustive initial onsite physical examination is often necessary for accurate diagnostics and care. Medication management for the newly diagnosed AD or dementia patient necessitates a thorough screening process involving appropriate in-person blood or laboratory work. It is for this reason that clinicians will need to plan ahead by preparing a contingency plan with the corresponding mitigation strategies (for example, telemedicine, proposed solutions to anticipated disruption of services, extended support, and feedback from family members, etc.).²
 

Resilience and recovery in a retrospective study

A research team from Wuhan Red Cross Hospital in China performed a retrospective cohort study on a sample of patients (n = 42) to determine the severity and prognostic features of COVID-19 pneumonia; 19 AD patients (as per National Institute on Aging/Alzheimer’s Association diagnostic guidelines) were directly compared with 23 age-matched non-AD COVID-19 patients in a similar treatment context.

The study yielded some rather unexpected findings, namely, AD patients experienced remarkably shorter hospital stays and better appetites, especially with respect to their non-AD counterparts. This is even more puzzling when considering that previous studies indicated that dementia patients with concomitant COVID-19 pneumonia are twice as likely to die as those without neurodegenerative compromise.

Aside from a seemingly inexplicable interest in food, the observable positive changes may be attributable to such factors that are particular to the nursing home – residents have immediate access to health care services, which generally allows for timely diagnosis and care. However, the authors of the study speculate that the pathophysiological response of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) confers to AD patients a therapeutic advantage as they have reduced expression.³ Despite the notoriously high mortality rates of COVID-19 pneumonia among the elderly population, AD patients may prove to be unusually resilient with respect to the recovery process, which underscores the importance of early diagnosis and intervention.
 

Genetic and environmental susceptibility

One of the more devastating observations about the ongoing pandemic environment is that a whopping 80% of dying patients committed to a long-term facility also include those with AD; it has been reported that almost half of all patients in nursing homes and related services have the neurodegenerative condition. The grim scenario is brought about by several factors, chief of which is the proximity of shared living arrangements within the context of a residential care setting. It should be noted that patients with AD exhibit comorbid conditions (for example, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or respiratory issues) that immediately put them at high risk for COVID exposure. Interestingly enough, the ApoE4 genotype, which is associated with an increased susceptibility for AD, is also correlated with COVID-19 prognosis and severity. Although exact numbers are difficult to come by, it is of utmost importance for clinicians to evaluate the overall scope of the situation, identify at-risk patients such as individuals with AD and related dementias, and work with caregivers to afford care to patients who need it the most.⁴

Transcending research design

The elderly population, unsurprisingly, experiences the highest COVID-19 mortality rate because of the presence of multiple risk factors, namely, compromised immunity and difficulties maintaining ADLs, and thereby adhering to safety protocols. As far as Alzheimer’s patients are concerned, numerous hurdles affect the domain of neurodegenerative research.

To safeguard the health and well-being of the participants and caregivers, site sponsors and investigators must explore various communication avenues with the goal of facilitating health education (for example, mitigation strategies, adverse effects monitoring, etc.), as well as implementing contingency plans in the event that a site becomes inaccessible (for example, site closure, traveling regulations, lockdowns, etc.).

Alternatives such as telemedicine present viable solutions for ensuring completion of studies. Given the nature of the pandemic, there is a possibility that a research participant may contract the virus, necessitating a break from the established protocol. It is for this reason that site sponsors and corresponding regulatory bodies are advised to proactively engage in dialogue and transparent communications with respect to ensuing protocol deviations. Institutional Review Boards can expedite the review process by making the necessary changes in a timely manner.⁵

 

References

1. Ritchie K. KJZZ. 2020 Nov 16.

2. Brown EE et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020 Jul;28(7):712-21.

3. Li J et al. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(1):67-73.

4. Perry G. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020 Jan 1;76(1):1.

5. Alzheimers Dement. 2020 Apr;16(4):587-8.

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Dhillon is a staff neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Dr. Dhillon is currently on the speaker bureau/advisory board for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme, and Teva Neuroscience.

Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. He has no disclosures.

An alarming number of additional Alzheimer’s disease (AD) deaths have been reported across various states within the past several months, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data indicate that no less than 31,000 additional people with the neurodegenerative condition had died from the beginning of the pandemic through the end of September 2020. We know that long-term care facilities have been hit hardest, and access to adequate and/or prompt testing has been cited as the most pressing issue during the onset of the pandemic.¹

When ADLs become a matter of survival

For individuals affected with Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia, performing routine tasks may seem cumbersome and overwhelming. Many of these patients are dependent upon caregivers and family support to facilitate their activities of daily living (ADLs).

Transitioning into the “new normal” set by the pandemic milieu is not an easy task for the average AD individual, because they are now expected to comply with numerous safety instructions (for example, maintaining hygiene, social distancing, etc.). They are also expected to monitor and communicate information about the onset of any suspected symptom to their caregiver or health care clinician.

The additional tasks added to their list of ADLs are particularly distressing given their already compromised short-term memory and overall cognitive decline. Individuals with AD may also be dealing with a host of psychobehavioral challenges, such as the presence of depression, anxiety, and/or agitation amid self-isolation. Enforced social isolation tied to COVID-19 may compound those issues.
 

Resource diversion and mitigation strategies

Unfortunately, any disruption in services within a long-term care setting may lead to a suboptimal therapeutic environment for patients. The Washington State LTC, for example, reported experiencing a case fatality rate (CFR) exceeding more than a third of its residents; essential staff and health care clinicians were duly affected from exposure to the virus (the risk of transmission increases considerably during transport between facilities). Access to personal protective equipment (PPE) might have been hindered by availability.

Another issue with far-reaching consequences is diversion of resources for urgent care. Health care professionals may simply not be readily available for those with chronic care needs because of the enormous scale of the impact of COVID-19 upon health care systems.

Continuity of therapy might include evaluations or follow-up services via teleconferencing modalities, but an exhaustive initial onsite physical examination is often necessary for accurate diagnostics and care. Medication management for the newly diagnosed AD or dementia patient necessitates a thorough screening process involving appropriate in-person blood or laboratory work. It is for this reason that clinicians will need to plan ahead by preparing a contingency plan with the corresponding mitigation strategies (for example, telemedicine, proposed solutions to anticipated disruption of services, extended support, and feedback from family members, etc.).²
 

Resilience and recovery in a retrospective study

A research team from Wuhan Red Cross Hospital in China performed a retrospective cohort study on a sample of patients (n = 42) to determine the severity and prognostic features of COVID-19 pneumonia; 19 AD patients (as per National Institute on Aging/Alzheimer’s Association diagnostic guidelines) were directly compared with 23 age-matched non-AD COVID-19 patients in a similar treatment context.

The study yielded some rather unexpected findings, namely, AD patients experienced remarkably shorter hospital stays and better appetites, especially with respect to their non-AD counterparts. This is even more puzzling when considering that previous studies indicated that dementia patients with concomitant COVID-19 pneumonia are twice as likely to die as those without neurodegenerative compromise.

Aside from a seemingly inexplicable interest in food, the observable positive changes may be attributable to such factors that are particular to the nursing home – residents have immediate access to health care services, which generally allows for timely diagnosis and care. However, the authors of the study speculate that the pathophysiological response of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) confers to AD patients a therapeutic advantage as they have reduced expression.³ Despite the notoriously high mortality rates of COVID-19 pneumonia among the elderly population, AD patients may prove to be unusually resilient with respect to the recovery process, which underscores the importance of early diagnosis and intervention.
 

Genetic and environmental susceptibility

One of the more devastating observations about the ongoing pandemic environment is that a whopping 80% of dying patients committed to a long-term facility also include those with AD; it has been reported that almost half of all patients in nursing homes and related services have the neurodegenerative condition. The grim scenario is brought about by several factors, chief of which is the proximity of shared living arrangements within the context of a residential care setting. It should be noted that patients with AD exhibit comorbid conditions (for example, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or respiratory issues) that immediately put them at high risk for COVID exposure. Interestingly enough, the ApoE4 genotype, which is associated with an increased susceptibility for AD, is also correlated with COVID-19 prognosis and severity. Although exact numbers are difficult to come by, it is of utmost importance for clinicians to evaluate the overall scope of the situation, identify at-risk patients such as individuals with AD and related dementias, and work with caregivers to afford care to patients who need it the most.⁴

Transcending research design

The elderly population, unsurprisingly, experiences the highest COVID-19 mortality rate because of the presence of multiple risk factors, namely, compromised immunity and difficulties maintaining ADLs, and thereby adhering to safety protocols. As far as Alzheimer’s patients are concerned, numerous hurdles affect the domain of neurodegenerative research.

To safeguard the health and well-being of the participants and caregivers, site sponsors and investigators must explore various communication avenues with the goal of facilitating health education (for example, mitigation strategies, adverse effects monitoring, etc.), as well as implementing contingency plans in the event that a site becomes inaccessible (for example, site closure, traveling regulations, lockdowns, etc.).

Alternatives such as telemedicine present viable solutions for ensuring completion of studies. Given the nature of the pandemic, there is a possibility that a research participant may contract the virus, necessitating a break from the established protocol. It is for this reason that site sponsors and corresponding regulatory bodies are advised to proactively engage in dialogue and transparent communications with respect to ensuing protocol deviations. Institutional Review Boards can expedite the review process by making the necessary changes in a timely manner.⁵

 

References

1. Ritchie K. KJZZ. 2020 Nov 16.

2. Brown EE et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020 Jul;28(7):712-21.

3. Li J et al. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(1):67-73.

4. Perry G. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020 Jan 1;76(1):1.

5. Alzheimers Dement. 2020 Apr;16(4):587-8.

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Dhillon is a staff neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Dr. Dhillon is currently on the speaker bureau/advisory board for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme, and Teva Neuroscience.

Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. He has no disclosures.

An alarming number of additional Alzheimer’s disease (AD) deaths have been reported across various states within the past several months, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data indicate that no less than 31,000 additional people with the neurodegenerative condition had died from the beginning of the pandemic through the end of September 2020. We know that long-term care facilities have been hit hardest, and access to adequate and/or prompt testing has been cited as the most pressing issue during the onset of the pandemic.¹

When ADLs become a matter of survival

For individuals affected with Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia, performing routine tasks may seem cumbersome and overwhelming. Many of these patients are dependent upon caregivers and family support to facilitate their activities of daily living (ADLs).

Transitioning into the “new normal” set by the pandemic milieu is not an easy task for the average AD individual, because they are now expected to comply with numerous safety instructions (for example, maintaining hygiene, social distancing, etc.). They are also expected to monitor and communicate information about the onset of any suspected symptom to their caregiver or health care clinician.

The additional tasks added to their list of ADLs are particularly distressing given their already compromised short-term memory and overall cognitive decline. Individuals with AD may also be dealing with a host of psychobehavioral challenges, such as the presence of depression, anxiety, and/or agitation amid self-isolation. Enforced social isolation tied to COVID-19 may compound those issues.
 

Resource diversion and mitigation strategies

Unfortunately, any disruption in services within a long-term care setting may lead to a suboptimal therapeutic environment for patients. The Washington State LTC, for example, reported experiencing a case fatality rate (CFR) exceeding more than a third of its residents; essential staff and health care clinicians were duly affected from exposure to the virus (the risk of transmission increases considerably during transport between facilities). Access to personal protective equipment (PPE) might have been hindered by availability.

Another issue with far-reaching consequences is diversion of resources for urgent care. Health care professionals may simply not be readily available for those with chronic care needs because of the enormous scale of the impact of COVID-19 upon health care systems.

Continuity of therapy might include evaluations or follow-up services via teleconferencing modalities, but an exhaustive initial onsite physical examination is often necessary for accurate diagnostics and care. Medication management for the newly diagnosed AD or dementia patient necessitates a thorough screening process involving appropriate in-person blood or laboratory work. It is for this reason that clinicians will need to plan ahead by preparing a contingency plan with the corresponding mitigation strategies (for example, telemedicine, proposed solutions to anticipated disruption of services, extended support, and feedback from family members, etc.).²
 

Resilience and recovery in a retrospective study

A research team from Wuhan Red Cross Hospital in China performed a retrospective cohort study on a sample of patients (n = 42) to determine the severity and prognostic features of COVID-19 pneumonia; 19 AD patients (as per National Institute on Aging/Alzheimer’s Association diagnostic guidelines) were directly compared with 23 age-matched non-AD COVID-19 patients in a similar treatment context.

The study yielded some rather unexpected findings, namely, AD patients experienced remarkably shorter hospital stays and better appetites, especially with respect to their non-AD counterparts. This is even more puzzling when considering that previous studies indicated that dementia patients with concomitant COVID-19 pneumonia are twice as likely to die as those without neurodegenerative compromise.

Aside from a seemingly inexplicable interest in food, the observable positive changes may be attributable to such factors that are particular to the nursing home – residents have immediate access to health care services, which generally allows for timely diagnosis and care. However, the authors of the study speculate that the pathophysiological response of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) confers to AD patients a therapeutic advantage as they have reduced expression.³ Despite the notoriously high mortality rates of COVID-19 pneumonia among the elderly population, AD patients may prove to be unusually resilient with respect to the recovery process, which underscores the importance of early diagnosis and intervention.
 

Genetic and environmental susceptibility

One of the more devastating observations about the ongoing pandemic environment is that a whopping 80% of dying patients committed to a long-term facility also include those with AD; it has been reported that almost half of all patients in nursing homes and related services have the neurodegenerative condition. The grim scenario is brought about by several factors, chief of which is the proximity of shared living arrangements within the context of a residential care setting. It should be noted that patients with AD exhibit comorbid conditions (for example, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or respiratory issues) that immediately put them at high risk for COVID exposure. Interestingly enough, the ApoE4 genotype, which is associated with an increased susceptibility for AD, is also correlated with COVID-19 prognosis and severity. Although exact numbers are difficult to come by, it is of utmost importance for clinicians to evaluate the overall scope of the situation, identify at-risk patients such as individuals with AD and related dementias, and work with caregivers to afford care to patients who need it the most.⁴

Transcending research design

The elderly population, unsurprisingly, experiences the highest COVID-19 mortality rate because of the presence of multiple risk factors, namely, compromised immunity and difficulties maintaining ADLs, and thereby adhering to safety protocols. As far as Alzheimer’s patients are concerned, numerous hurdles affect the domain of neurodegenerative research.

To safeguard the health and well-being of the participants and caregivers, site sponsors and investigators must explore various communication avenues with the goal of facilitating health education (for example, mitigation strategies, adverse effects monitoring, etc.), as well as implementing contingency plans in the event that a site becomes inaccessible (for example, site closure, traveling regulations, lockdowns, etc.).

Alternatives such as telemedicine present viable solutions for ensuring completion of studies. Given the nature of the pandemic, there is a possibility that a research participant may contract the virus, necessitating a break from the established protocol. It is for this reason that site sponsors and corresponding regulatory bodies are advised to proactively engage in dialogue and transparent communications with respect to ensuing protocol deviations. Institutional Review Boards can expedite the review process by making the necessary changes in a timely manner.⁵

 

References

1. Ritchie K. KJZZ. 2020 Nov 16.

2. Brown EE et al. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020 Jul;28(7):712-21.

3. Li J et al. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(1):67-73.

4. Perry G. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020 Jan 1;76(1):1.

5. Alzheimers Dement. 2020 Apr;16(4):587-8.

Dr. Islam is a medical adviser for the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation, Montreal, and is based in New York. He also is a postdoctoral fellow, psychopharmacologist, and a board-certified medical affairs specialist. Dr. Islam disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Dhillon is a staff neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Dr. Dhillon is currently on the speaker bureau/advisory board for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme, and Teva Neuroscience.

Dr. Choudhry is the chief scientific officer and head of the department of mental health and clinical research at the International Maternal and Child Health Foundation. He has no disclosures.