Neurology

Experts say pediatricians and primary care clinicians should do more to prevent the toxic effects of lead in their young patients following a 2023 outbreak of elevated levels of lead in children associated with consumption of contaminated applesauce.

Federal legislation in the 1970s eliminated lead from gasoline, paints, and other consumer products, and resulted in significantly reduced blood lead levels (BLLs) in children throughout the United States.

But recently published studies highlight persistent issues with lead in drinking water and consumer products, suggesting that the fight is not over.
 

It’s in the Water

In 2014 the city of Flint, Michigan, changed its water supply and high levels of lead were later found in the municipal water supply.

Effects of that crisis still plague the city today. An initial study found that elevated BLLs had doubled among children between 2013 and 2015.

Lead exposure in young children is associated with several negative outcomes, including decreased cognitive ability, brain volume, and social mobility, and increased anxiety/depression and impulsivity, and higher rates of criminal offenses later in life. 

Many other water systems still contain lead pipes, despite a 1986 ban by the US Environmental Protection Agency on using them for installing or repairing public water systems. The mayor of Chicago announced a plan to start replacing lead service lines in 2020; however, 400,000 households are still served by these pipes, the most in the nation.

Benjamin Huynh, a native of Chicago, was curious about the impact of all those lead service lines. Now an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, he and his colleagues researched how many children under the age of 6 years were exposed to contaminated water.

The results showed that lead contamination of water is widespread. 

“We’re estimating that 68% of kids under the age of 6 in Chicago were exposed to lead-contaminated drinking water,” Mr. Huynh said. 

He added that residents in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods had the highest risk for lead contamination in their water, but children living on these blocks were less likely to get tested, suggesting a need for more outreach to raise awareness.

Meanwhile, a little over one third of Chicago residents reported drinking bottled water as their main source of drinking water.

But even bottled water could contain lead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a limit for lead in bottled water to five parts per billion. The FDA threshold for taking action in public drinking water systems is 15 parts per billion. But the American Academy of Pediatrics states that no amount of lead in drinking water is considered safe for drinking. 

Mr. Huynh also pointed out that not all home water filters remove lead. Only devices that meet National Sanitation Foundation 53 standards are certified for lead removal. Consumers should verify that the filter package specifically lists the device as certified for removing contaminant lead.
 

Lead-tainted Cinnamon 

Last fall, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services identified several children with elevated levels of lead who had consumed WanaBana Apple Cinnamon Fruit Puree pouches.

An investigation by the FDA identified additional brands containing lead and issued a recall of applesauce pouches sold by retailers like Dollar Tree and Amazon.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 500 children were affected by the tainted applesauce. The FDA traced the source of the lead to cinnamon from a supplier in Ecuador.

An FDA spokesperson told this news organization the episode appears to have resulted from “economically motivated adulteration,” which occurs when a manufacturer leaves out or substitutes a valuable ingredient or part of a food. In the case of spices, lead may be added as a coloring agent or to increase the product weight.

“When we look at domestically made products from large, reputable companies, in general, they do a pretty good job of following safe product guidelines and regulations,” said Kevin Osterhoudt, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “But when we use third-party sellers and we import things from other countries that aren’t regulated as closely, we certainly take a lot more risk in the products that we receive.”

While the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 aimed to improve agency’s capacity to manage the ever-rising volume of food produced domestically and imported from overseas, the funding has stayed flat while the volume of inspections has increased. In the early 1990s, the number of shipments screened by the agency numbered in the thousands annually. Last year the FDA screened 15 million shipments from more than 200 countries, according to the agency.

Prompted by the finding of lead in applesauce, the FDA began a wider investigation into ground cinnamon by sampling the product from discount retail stores. It recalled an additional six brands of cinnamon sold in the United States containing lead.

Dr. Osterhoudt’s message to families who think their child might have been exposed to a contaminated product is to dispose of it as directed by FDA and CDC guidelines. 

In Philadelphia, where Dr. Osterhoudt practices as an emergency room physician, baseline rates of childhood lead poisoning are already high, so he advises families to “do a larger inventory of all the source potential sources of lead in their life and to reduce all the exposures as low as possible.” 

He also advises parents that a nutritious diet high in calcium and iron can protect their children from the deleterious effects of lead.
 

Current Standards for Lead Screening and Testing

Lead is ubiquitous. The common routes of exposure to humans include use of fossil fuels such as leaded gasoline, some types of industrial facilities, and past use of lead-based paint in homes. In addition to spices, lead has been found in a wide variety of products such as toys, jewelry, antiques, cosmetics, and dietary supplements imported from other countries.

Noah Buncher, DO, is a primary care pediatrician in South Philadelphia at Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania and the former director of a lead clinic in Boston that provides care for children with lead poisoning. He follows guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics that define an elevated BLL as ≥ 3.5 µg/dL. The guidelines recommend screening children for lead exposures during well child visits starting at age 6 months up to 6 years and obtaining a BLL if risks for lead exposure are present. 

Dr. Buncher starts with a basic environmental history that covers items like the age, condition, zip code of home, parental occupations, or hobbies that might result in exposing family members to lead, and if another child in the home has a history of elevated BLLs. 

But a careful history for potential lead exposures can be time-consuming. 

“There’s a lot to cover in a routine well child visit,” Dr. Buncher said. “We have maybe 15-20 minutes to cover a lot.” 

Clinics also vary on whether lead screening questions are put into workflows in the electronic medical record. Although parents can complete a written questionnaire about possible lead exposures, they may have difficulty answering questions about the age of their home or not know whether their occupation is high risk.

Transportation to a clinic is often a barrier for families, and sometimes patients must travel to a separate lab to be tested for lead. 

Dr. Buncher also pointed to the patchwork of local and state requirements that can lead to confusion among providers. Massachusetts, where he formerly practiced, has a universal requirement to test all children at ages 1, 2, and 3 years. But in Pennsylvania, screening laws vary from county to county. 

“Pennsylvania should implement universal screening recommendations for all kids under 6 regardless of what county you live in,” Dr. Buncher said.
 

Protective Measures 

Alan Woolf, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, and director of the Pediatric Environmental Health Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, has a few ideas about how providers can step up their lead game, including partnering with their local health department. 

The CDC funds Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Programs based in state and local health departments to work with clinicians to improve rates of blood lead testing, monitor the prevalence of lead in their jurisdictions, and ensure that a system of referral is available for treatment and lead remediation services in the home.

Dr. Woolf also suggested that clinicians refer patients under age 3 years with high BLLs to their local Early Intervention Program. 

“They’ll assess their child’s development, their speech, their motor skills, their social skills, and if they qualify, it’s free,” Dr. Woolf said. 

He cited research showing children with elevated lead levels who received early intervention services performed better in grade school than equally exposed children who did not access similar services.

Another key strategy for pediatric clinicians is to learn local or state regulations for testing children for lead and how to access lead surveillance data in their practice area. Children who reside in high-risk areas are automatic candidates for screening. 

Dr. Woolf pointed out that big cities are not the only localities with lead in the drinking water. If families are drawing water from their own well, they should collect that water annually to have it tested for lead and microbes.

At the clinic-wide level, Dr. Woolf recommends the use of blood lead testing as a quality improvement measure. For example, Akron Children’s Hospital developed a quality improvement initiative using a clinical decision support tool to raise screening rates in their network of 30 clinics. One year after beginning the project, lead screenings during 12-month well visits increased from 71% to 96%. 

“What we’re interested in as pediatric health professionals is eliminating all background sources of lead in a child’s environment,” Dr. Woolf said. “Whether that’s applesauce pouches, whether that’s lead-containing paint, lead in water, lead in spices, or lead in imported pottery or cookware — there are just a tremendous number of sources of lead that we can do something about.”

None of the subjects reported financial conflicts of interest.

A former pediatrician, Dr. Thomas is a freelance science writer living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Experts say pediatricians and primary care clinicians should do more to prevent the toxic effects of lead in their young patients following a 2023 outbreak of elevated levels of lead in children associated with consumption of contaminated applesauce.

Federal legislation in the 1970s eliminated lead from gasoline, paints, and other consumer products, and resulted in significantly reduced blood lead levels (BLLs) in children throughout the United States.

But recently published studies highlight persistent issues with lead in drinking water and consumer products, suggesting that the fight is not over.
 

It’s in the Water

In 2014 the city of Flint, Michigan, changed its water supply and high levels of lead were later found in the municipal water supply.

Effects of that crisis still plague the city today. An initial study found that elevated BLLs had doubled among children between 2013 and 2015.

Lead exposure in young children is associated with several negative outcomes, including decreased cognitive ability, brain volume, and social mobility, and increased anxiety/depression and impulsivity, and higher rates of criminal offenses later in life. 

Many other water systems still contain lead pipes, despite a 1986 ban by the US Environmental Protection Agency on using them for installing or repairing public water systems. The mayor of Chicago announced a plan to start replacing lead service lines in 2020; however, 400,000 households are still served by these pipes, the most in the nation.

Benjamin Huynh, a native of Chicago, was curious about the impact of all those lead service lines. Now an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, he and his colleagues researched how many children under the age of 6 years were exposed to contaminated water.

The results showed that lead contamination of water is widespread. 

“We’re estimating that 68% of kids under the age of 6 in Chicago were exposed to lead-contaminated drinking water,” Mr. Huynh said. 

He added that residents in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods had the highest risk for lead contamination in their water, but children living on these blocks were less likely to get tested, suggesting a need for more outreach to raise awareness.

Meanwhile, a little over one third of Chicago residents reported drinking bottled water as their main source of drinking water.

But even bottled water could contain lead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a limit for lead in bottled water to five parts per billion. The FDA threshold for taking action in public drinking water systems is 15 parts per billion. But the American Academy of Pediatrics states that no amount of lead in drinking water is considered safe for drinking. 

Mr. Huynh also pointed out that not all home water filters remove lead. Only devices that meet National Sanitation Foundation 53 standards are certified for lead removal. Consumers should verify that the filter package specifically lists the device as certified for removing contaminant lead.
 

Lead-tainted Cinnamon 

Last fall, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services identified several children with elevated levels of lead who had consumed WanaBana Apple Cinnamon Fruit Puree pouches.

An investigation by the FDA identified additional brands containing lead and issued a recall of applesauce pouches sold by retailers like Dollar Tree and Amazon.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 500 children were affected by the tainted applesauce. The FDA traced the source of the lead to cinnamon from a supplier in Ecuador.

An FDA spokesperson told this news organization the episode appears to have resulted from “economically motivated adulteration,” which occurs when a manufacturer leaves out or substitutes a valuable ingredient or part of a food. In the case of spices, lead may be added as a coloring agent or to increase the product weight.

“When we look at domestically made products from large, reputable companies, in general, they do a pretty good job of following safe product guidelines and regulations,” said Kevin Osterhoudt, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “But when we use third-party sellers and we import things from other countries that aren’t regulated as closely, we certainly take a lot more risk in the products that we receive.”

While the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 aimed to improve agency’s capacity to manage the ever-rising volume of food produced domestically and imported from overseas, the funding has stayed flat while the volume of inspections has increased. In the early 1990s, the number of shipments screened by the agency numbered in the thousands annually. Last year the FDA screened 15 million shipments from more than 200 countries, according to the agency.

Prompted by the finding of lead in applesauce, the FDA began a wider investigation into ground cinnamon by sampling the product from discount retail stores. It recalled an additional six brands of cinnamon sold in the United States containing lead.

Dr. Osterhoudt’s message to families who think their child might have been exposed to a contaminated product is to dispose of it as directed by FDA and CDC guidelines. 

In Philadelphia, where Dr. Osterhoudt practices as an emergency room physician, baseline rates of childhood lead poisoning are already high, so he advises families to “do a larger inventory of all the source potential sources of lead in their life and to reduce all the exposures as low as possible.” 

He also advises parents that a nutritious diet high in calcium and iron can protect their children from the deleterious effects of lead.
 

Current Standards for Lead Screening and Testing

Lead is ubiquitous. The common routes of exposure to humans include use of fossil fuels such as leaded gasoline, some types of industrial facilities, and past use of lead-based paint in homes. In addition to spices, lead has been found in a wide variety of products such as toys, jewelry, antiques, cosmetics, and dietary supplements imported from other countries.

Noah Buncher, DO, is a primary care pediatrician in South Philadelphia at Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania and the former director of a lead clinic in Boston that provides care for children with lead poisoning. He follows guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics that define an elevated BLL as ≥ 3.5 µg/dL. The guidelines recommend screening children for lead exposures during well child visits starting at age 6 months up to 6 years and obtaining a BLL if risks for lead exposure are present. 

Dr. Buncher starts with a basic environmental history that covers items like the age, condition, zip code of home, parental occupations, or hobbies that might result in exposing family members to lead, and if another child in the home has a history of elevated BLLs. 

But a careful history for potential lead exposures can be time-consuming. 

“There’s a lot to cover in a routine well child visit,” Dr. Buncher said. “We have maybe 15-20 minutes to cover a lot.” 

Clinics also vary on whether lead screening questions are put into workflows in the electronic medical record. Although parents can complete a written questionnaire about possible lead exposures, they may have difficulty answering questions about the age of their home or not know whether their occupation is high risk.

Transportation to a clinic is often a barrier for families, and sometimes patients must travel to a separate lab to be tested for lead. 

Dr. Buncher also pointed to the patchwork of local and state requirements that can lead to confusion among providers. Massachusetts, where he formerly practiced, has a universal requirement to test all children at ages 1, 2, and 3 years. But in Pennsylvania, screening laws vary from county to county. 

“Pennsylvania should implement universal screening recommendations for all kids under 6 regardless of what county you live in,” Dr. Buncher said.
 

Protective Measures 

Alan Woolf, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, and director of the Pediatric Environmental Health Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, has a few ideas about how providers can step up their lead game, including partnering with their local health department. 

The CDC funds Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Programs based in state and local health departments to work with clinicians to improve rates of blood lead testing, monitor the prevalence of lead in their jurisdictions, and ensure that a system of referral is available for treatment and lead remediation services in the home.

Dr. Woolf also suggested that clinicians refer patients under age 3 years with high BLLs to their local Early Intervention Program. 

“They’ll assess their child’s development, their speech, their motor skills, their social skills, and if they qualify, it’s free,” Dr. Woolf said. 

He cited research showing children with elevated lead levels who received early intervention services performed better in grade school than equally exposed children who did not access similar services.

Another key strategy for pediatric clinicians is to learn local or state regulations for testing children for lead and how to access lead surveillance data in their practice area. Children who reside in high-risk areas are automatic candidates for screening. 

Dr. Woolf pointed out that big cities are not the only localities with lead in the drinking water. If families are drawing water from their own well, they should collect that water annually to have it tested for lead and microbes.

At the clinic-wide level, Dr. Woolf recommends the use of blood lead testing as a quality improvement measure. For example, Akron Children’s Hospital developed a quality improvement initiative using a clinical decision support tool to raise screening rates in their network of 30 clinics. One year after beginning the project, lead screenings during 12-month well visits increased from 71% to 96%. 

“What we’re interested in as pediatric health professionals is eliminating all background sources of lead in a child’s environment,” Dr. Woolf said. “Whether that’s applesauce pouches, whether that’s lead-containing paint, lead in water, lead in spices, or lead in imported pottery or cookware — there are just a tremendous number of sources of lead that we can do something about.”

None of the subjects reported financial conflicts of interest.

A former pediatrician, Dr. Thomas is a freelance science writer living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Experts say pediatricians and primary care clinicians should do more to prevent the toxic effects of lead in their young patients following a 2023 outbreak of elevated levels of lead in children associated with consumption of contaminated applesauce.

Federal legislation in the 1970s eliminated lead from gasoline, paints, and other consumer products, and resulted in significantly reduced blood lead levels (BLLs) in children throughout the United States.

But recently published studies highlight persistent issues with lead in drinking water and consumer products, suggesting that the fight is not over.
 

It’s in the Water

In 2014 the city of Flint, Michigan, changed its water supply and high levels of lead were later found in the municipal water supply.

Effects of that crisis still plague the city today. An initial study found that elevated BLLs had doubled among children between 2013 and 2015.

Lead exposure in young children is associated with several negative outcomes, including decreased cognitive ability, brain volume, and social mobility, and increased anxiety/depression and impulsivity, and higher rates of criminal offenses later in life. 

Many other water systems still contain lead pipes, despite a 1986 ban by the US Environmental Protection Agency on using them for installing or repairing public water systems. The mayor of Chicago announced a plan to start replacing lead service lines in 2020; however, 400,000 households are still served by these pipes, the most in the nation.

Benjamin Huynh, a native of Chicago, was curious about the impact of all those lead service lines. Now an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, he and his colleagues researched how many children under the age of 6 years were exposed to contaminated water.

The results showed that lead contamination of water is widespread. 

“We’re estimating that 68% of kids under the age of 6 in Chicago were exposed to lead-contaminated drinking water,” Mr. Huynh said. 

He added that residents in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods had the highest risk for lead contamination in their water, but children living on these blocks were less likely to get tested, suggesting a need for more outreach to raise awareness.

Meanwhile, a little over one third of Chicago residents reported drinking bottled water as their main source of drinking water.

But even bottled water could contain lead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a limit for lead in bottled water to five parts per billion. The FDA threshold for taking action in public drinking water systems is 15 parts per billion. But the American Academy of Pediatrics states that no amount of lead in drinking water is considered safe for drinking. 

Mr. Huynh also pointed out that not all home water filters remove lead. Only devices that meet National Sanitation Foundation 53 standards are certified for lead removal. Consumers should verify that the filter package specifically lists the device as certified for removing contaminant lead.
 

Lead-tainted Cinnamon 

Last fall, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services identified several children with elevated levels of lead who had consumed WanaBana Apple Cinnamon Fruit Puree pouches.

An investigation by the FDA identified additional brands containing lead and issued a recall of applesauce pouches sold by retailers like Dollar Tree and Amazon.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 500 children were affected by the tainted applesauce. The FDA traced the source of the lead to cinnamon from a supplier in Ecuador.

An FDA spokesperson told this news organization the episode appears to have resulted from “economically motivated adulteration,” which occurs when a manufacturer leaves out or substitutes a valuable ingredient or part of a food. In the case of spices, lead may be added as a coloring agent or to increase the product weight.

“When we look at domestically made products from large, reputable companies, in general, they do a pretty good job of following safe product guidelines and regulations,” said Kevin Osterhoudt, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “But when we use third-party sellers and we import things from other countries that aren’t regulated as closely, we certainly take a lot more risk in the products that we receive.”

While the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 aimed to improve agency’s capacity to manage the ever-rising volume of food produced domestically and imported from overseas, the funding has stayed flat while the volume of inspections has increased. In the early 1990s, the number of shipments screened by the agency numbered in the thousands annually. Last year the FDA screened 15 million shipments from more than 200 countries, according to the agency.

Prompted by the finding of lead in applesauce, the FDA began a wider investigation into ground cinnamon by sampling the product from discount retail stores. It recalled an additional six brands of cinnamon sold in the United States containing lead.

Dr. Osterhoudt’s message to families who think their child might have been exposed to a contaminated product is to dispose of it as directed by FDA and CDC guidelines. 

In Philadelphia, where Dr. Osterhoudt practices as an emergency room physician, baseline rates of childhood lead poisoning are already high, so he advises families to “do a larger inventory of all the source potential sources of lead in their life and to reduce all the exposures as low as possible.” 

He also advises parents that a nutritious diet high in calcium and iron can protect their children from the deleterious effects of lead.
 

Current Standards for Lead Screening and Testing

Lead is ubiquitous. The common routes of exposure to humans include use of fossil fuels such as leaded gasoline, some types of industrial facilities, and past use of lead-based paint in homes. In addition to spices, lead has been found in a wide variety of products such as toys, jewelry, antiques, cosmetics, and dietary supplements imported from other countries.

Noah Buncher, DO, is a primary care pediatrician in South Philadelphia at Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania and the former director of a lead clinic in Boston that provides care for children with lead poisoning. He follows guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics that define an elevated BLL as ≥ 3.5 µg/dL. The guidelines recommend screening children for lead exposures during well child visits starting at age 6 months up to 6 years and obtaining a BLL if risks for lead exposure are present. 

Dr. Buncher starts with a basic environmental history that covers items like the age, condition, zip code of home, parental occupations, or hobbies that might result in exposing family members to lead, and if another child in the home has a history of elevated BLLs. 

But a careful history for potential lead exposures can be time-consuming. 

“There’s a lot to cover in a routine well child visit,” Dr. Buncher said. “We have maybe 15-20 minutes to cover a lot.” 

Clinics also vary on whether lead screening questions are put into workflows in the electronic medical record. Although parents can complete a written questionnaire about possible lead exposures, they may have difficulty answering questions about the age of their home or not know whether their occupation is high risk.

Transportation to a clinic is often a barrier for families, and sometimes patients must travel to a separate lab to be tested for lead. 

Dr. Buncher also pointed to the patchwork of local and state requirements that can lead to confusion among providers. Massachusetts, where he formerly practiced, has a universal requirement to test all children at ages 1, 2, and 3 years. But in Pennsylvania, screening laws vary from county to county. 

“Pennsylvania should implement universal screening recommendations for all kids under 6 regardless of what county you live in,” Dr. Buncher said.
 

Protective Measures 

Alan Woolf, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, and director of the Pediatric Environmental Health Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, has a few ideas about how providers can step up their lead game, including partnering with their local health department. 

The CDC funds Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Programs based in state and local health departments to work with clinicians to improve rates of blood lead testing, monitor the prevalence of lead in their jurisdictions, and ensure that a system of referral is available for treatment and lead remediation services in the home.

Dr. Woolf also suggested that clinicians refer patients under age 3 years with high BLLs to their local Early Intervention Program. 

“They’ll assess their child’s development, their speech, their motor skills, their social skills, and if they qualify, it’s free,” Dr. Woolf said. 

He cited research showing children with elevated lead levels who received early intervention services performed better in grade school than equally exposed children who did not access similar services.

Another key strategy for pediatric clinicians is to learn local or state regulations for testing children for lead and how to access lead surveillance data in their practice area. Children who reside in high-risk areas are automatic candidates for screening. 

Dr. Woolf pointed out that big cities are not the only localities with lead in the drinking water. If families are drawing water from their own well, they should collect that water annually to have it tested for lead and microbes.

At the clinic-wide level, Dr. Woolf recommends the use of blood lead testing as a quality improvement measure. For example, Akron Children’s Hospital developed a quality improvement initiative using a clinical decision support tool to raise screening rates in their network of 30 clinics. One year after beginning the project, lead screenings during 12-month well visits increased from 71% to 96%. 

“What we’re interested in as pediatric health professionals is eliminating all background sources of lead in a child’s environment,” Dr. Woolf said. “Whether that’s applesauce pouches, whether that’s lead-containing paint, lead in water, lead in spices, or lead in imported pottery or cookware — there are just a tremendous number of sources of lead that we can do something about.”

None of the subjects reported financial conflicts of interest.

A former pediatrician, Dr. Thomas is a freelance science writer living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Three recent publications highlight the ability of telestroke protocols not only to match the quality of in-person care, but in some instances to exceed it. These studies set the stage for larger studies comparing outcomes and efficiency of various telemedicine and transport models and gauging stakeholder satisfaction, authors said.

Surprising Results

In a single-site retrospective comparison of 252 patients with acute stroke assessed under an in-house telestroke protocol and 2437 assessed in person, telestroke provided statistically significant advantages in the following areas:

• Door-to-imaging times (median: 38 minutes vs 44)
• Rates of intravenous (18.2% vs 8.6%) and mechanical (10.4% vs 5.1%) treatment
• Length of stay (median: 6 days vs 8)
• Symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation rate (1.1% vs 5.1%)
• Mortality (6.7% vs 11.1%)

The better metrics observed in the telestroke group were especially surprising, said lead author Rodrigo Meirelles Massaud, MD, because the same team of neurologists conducted both types of evaluations. “This consistency ensures that the quality and expertise of medical care were maintained across both groups,” said Dr. Massaud, a neurologist at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, Brazil. The study appeared online in Frontiers in Neurology.

The findings also counter the preconceived notion that distance medicine could be inferior because of the inability to conduct direct physical examinations and the potential for communication failures, he said. The telestroke group’s younger average age (63.5 years vs 69.5 years) and lower initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores — 2 versus 3 — might explain the disparity, Dr. Massaud added, because both factors augur improved outcomes.

Conversely, the authors wrote that the in-person group’s lower median door-to-groin puncture time in ischemic stroke (103.5 minutes vs 151.5 for telemedicine) likely resulted from the need to transport patients from satellite facilities to a hub hospital with neurologists on continuous standby. After adjustment for initial NIHSS score and age, both groups achieved similar percentages of patients with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2 at discharge: 58.5% for in-person evaluation versus 61.9% for telemedicine (P = .028).
 

Acute Ischemic Stroke

In another study, a systematic review that included 7396 thrombolysed patients with acute ischemic stroke, odds ratios (ORs) revealed no significant differences between telestroke and in-person care for the percentage of mRS scores 0-2 at discharge (1.06; P = .5), 90-day mortality (OR, 1.16; P = .17), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.99; P = .93). The study appeared in the March International Journal of Stroke.

The lack of significant differences between telestroke and in-person care regarding mortality and mRS scores of 0-2 (which defines a good outcome) surprised researchers, said lead author Ahmed Mohamed, who is completing a master of health sciences degree in medical physiology at the University of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

“When we were starting this project,” he said, “we thought that telemedicine would probably take longer than conventional treatment.” And waiting longer for treatment — especially for patients with acute ischemic stroke — leads to worse outcomes. “However,” Mr. Mohamed said, “that wasn’t the case.” Additional measures that showed no significant differences included rates of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (ivtPA) use and endovascular mechanical thrombectomy.
 

Telestroke Expansion

Authors of a study that analyzed the impact of expanding telestroke coverage beyond community ERs credited many postexpansion improvements to the addition of advanced practice providers (APPs). ProMedica Stroke Network, Toledo, Ohio, added seven APPs in June 2020 to provide two-way audiovisual inpatient stroke and TIA consultations and follow-ups at 19 spoke facilities supported by vascular neurologists at the hub comprehensive stroke center (CSC).

Revamping the TS workflow resulted in a threefold increase in TS cart utilization, a 31% decrease in transfers to the CSC, and a higher home discharge rate from spoke hospitals than from the CSC (57.38% versus 52.8%, respectively). Diagnostic sensitivity also improved, with overall decreases in stroke and TIA diagnosis of 11.5% and 39.8%, respectively, and a 12.9% increase in identification of stroke mimics. The study was published in the March Annals of Neurology.
 

Future Directions

All three author groups called for larger, more granular follow-up studies. Mr. Mohamed said that the 7396-patient review of 33 studies does not show whether video consultations with neurologists produce better outcomes than phone calls, for example, or whether utilizing different telestroke modalities such as a third-party telemedicine service provides better outcomes than other methods. Additionally, authors wrote, future research should compare telestroke versus non-telestroke patient transport models to optimize treatment plans and outcomes and validate potential advantages and disadvantages of telemedicine for patients with acute ischemic stroke.

“There is also a need to understand the long-term outcomes of patients treated via telestroke versus in-person care,” said Dr. Massaud. Future studies could include randomized, controlled trials comparing telestroke to traditional care in various settings with larger sample sizes, he said. “Additionally, research into the cost-effectiveness of telestroke services, patient satisfaction, and the impact of telestroke on different subtypes of stroke could provide a more comprehensive understanding of its benefits and limitations.”

Dr. Massaud and Mr. Mohamed reported no relevant financial interests. Authors of all three studies reported no funding sources or potential conflicts of interest.

Three recent publications highlight the ability of telestroke protocols not only to match the quality of in-person care, but in some instances to exceed it. These studies set the stage for larger studies comparing outcomes and efficiency of various telemedicine and transport models and gauging stakeholder satisfaction, authors said.

Surprising Results

In a single-site retrospective comparison of 252 patients with acute stroke assessed under an in-house telestroke protocol and 2437 assessed in person, telestroke provided statistically significant advantages in the following areas:

• Door-to-imaging times (median: 38 minutes vs 44)
• Rates of intravenous (18.2% vs 8.6%) and mechanical (10.4% vs 5.1%) treatment
• Length of stay (median: 6 days vs 8)
• Symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation rate (1.1% vs 5.1%)
• Mortality (6.7% vs 11.1%)

The better metrics observed in the telestroke group were especially surprising, said lead author Rodrigo Meirelles Massaud, MD, because the same team of neurologists conducted both types of evaluations. “This consistency ensures that the quality and expertise of medical care were maintained across both groups,” said Dr. Massaud, a neurologist at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, Brazil. The study appeared online in Frontiers in Neurology.

The findings also counter the preconceived notion that distance medicine could be inferior because of the inability to conduct direct physical examinations and the potential for communication failures, he said. The telestroke group’s younger average age (63.5 years vs 69.5 years) and lower initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores — 2 versus 3 — might explain the disparity, Dr. Massaud added, because both factors augur improved outcomes.

Conversely, the authors wrote that the in-person group’s lower median door-to-groin puncture time in ischemic stroke (103.5 minutes vs 151.5 for telemedicine) likely resulted from the need to transport patients from satellite facilities to a hub hospital with neurologists on continuous standby. After adjustment for initial NIHSS score and age, both groups achieved similar percentages of patients with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2 at discharge: 58.5% for in-person evaluation versus 61.9% for telemedicine (P = .028).
 

Acute Ischemic Stroke

In another study, a systematic review that included 7396 thrombolysed patients with acute ischemic stroke, odds ratios (ORs) revealed no significant differences between telestroke and in-person care for the percentage of mRS scores 0-2 at discharge (1.06; P = .5), 90-day mortality (OR, 1.16; P = .17), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.99; P = .93). The study appeared in the March International Journal of Stroke.

The lack of significant differences between telestroke and in-person care regarding mortality and mRS scores of 0-2 (which defines a good outcome) surprised researchers, said lead author Ahmed Mohamed, who is completing a master of health sciences degree in medical physiology at the University of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

“When we were starting this project,” he said, “we thought that telemedicine would probably take longer than conventional treatment.” And waiting longer for treatment — especially for patients with acute ischemic stroke — leads to worse outcomes. “However,” Mr. Mohamed said, “that wasn’t the case.” Additional measures that showed no significant differences included rates of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (ivtPA) use and endovascular mechanical thrombectomy.
 

Telestroke Expansion

Authors of a study that analyzed the impact of expanding telestroke coverage beyond community ERs credited many postexpansion improvements to the addition of advanced practice providers (APPs). ProMedica Stroke Network, Toledo, Ohio, added seven APPs in June 2020 to provide two-way audiovisual inpatient stroke and TIA consultations and follow-ups at 19 spoke facilities supported by vascular neurologists at the hub comprehensive stroke center (CSC).

Revamping the TS workflow resulted in a threefold increase in TS cart utilization, a 31% decrease in transfers to the CSC, and a higher home discharge rate from spoke hospitals than from the CSC (57.38% versus 52.8%, respectively). Diagnostic sensitivity also improved, with overall decreases in stroke and TIA diagnosis of 11.5% and 39.8%, respectively, and a 12.9% increase in identification of stroke mimics. The study was published in the March Annals of Neurology.
 

Future Directions

All three author groups called for larger, more granular follow-up studies. Mr. Mohamed said that the 7396-patient review of 33 studies does not show whether video consultations with neurologists produce better outcomes than phone calls, for example, or whether utilizing different telestroke modalities such as a third-party telemedicine service provides better outcomes than other methods. Additionally, authors wrote, future research should compare telestroke versus non-telestroke patient transport models to optimize treatment plans and outcomes and validate potential advantages and disadvantages of telemedicine for patients with acute ischemic stroke.

“There is also a need to understand the long-term outcomes of patients treated via telestroke versus in-person care,” said Dr. Massaud. Future studies could include randomized, controlled trials comparing telestroke to traditional care in various settings with larger sample sizes, he said. “Additionally, research into the cost-effectiveness of telestroke services, patient satisfaction, and the impact of telestroke on different subtypes of stroke could provide a more comprehensive understanding of its benefits and limitations.”

Dr. Massaud and Mr. Mohamed reported no relevant financial interests. Authors of all three studies reported no funding sources or potential conflicts of interest.

Three recent publications highlight the ability of telestroke protocols not only to match the quality of in-person care, but in some instances to exceed it. These studies set the stage for larger studies comparing outcomes and efficiency of various telemedicine and transport models and gauging stakeholder satisfaction, authors said.

Surprising Results

In a single-site retrospective comparison of 252 patients with acute stroke assessed under an in-house telestroke protocol and 2437 assessed in person, telestroke provided statistically significant advantages in the following areas:

• Door-to-imaging times (median: 38 minutes vs 44)
• Rates of intravenous (18.2% vs 8.6%) and mechanical (10.4% vs 5.1%) treatment
• Length of stay (median: 6 days vs 8)
• Symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation rate (1.1% vs 5.1%)
• Mortality (6.7% vs 11.1%)

The better metrics observed in the telestroke group were especially surprising, said lead author Rodrigo Meirelles Massaud, MD, because the same team of neurologists conducted both types of evaluations. “This consistency ensures that the quality and expertise of medical care were maintained across both groups,” said Dr. Massaud, a neurologist at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, Brazil. The study appeared online in Frontiers in Neurology.

The findings also counter the preconceived notion that distance medicine could be inferior because of the inability to conduct direct physical examinations and the potential for communication failures, he said. The telestroke group’s younger average age (63.5 years vs 69.5 years) and lower initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores — 2 versus 3 — might explain the disparity, Dr. Massaud added, because both factors augur improved outcomes.

Conversely, the authors wrote that the in-person group’s lower median door-to-groin puncture time in ischemic stroke (103.5 minutes vs 151.5 for telemedicine) likely resulted from the need to transport patients from satellite facilities to a hub hospital with neurologists on continuous standby. After adjustment for initial NIHSS score and age, both groups achieved similar percentages of patients with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2 at discharge: 58.5% for in-person evaluation versus 61.9% for telemedicine (P = .028).
 

Acute Ischemic Stroke

In another study, a systematic review that included 7396 thrombolysed patients with acute ischemic stroke, odds ratios (ORs) revealed no significant differences between telestroke and in-person care for the percentage of mRS scores 0-2 at discharge (1.06; P = .5), 90-day mortality (OR, 1.16; P = .17), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.99; P = .93). The study appeared in the March International Journal of Stroke.

The lack of significant differences between telestroke and in-person care regarding mortality and mRS scores of 0-2 (which defines a good outcome) surprised researchers, said lead author Ahmed Mohamed, who is completing a master of health sciences degree in medical physiology at the University of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

“When we were starting this project,” he said, “we thought that telemedicine would probably take longer than conventional treatment.” And waiting longer for treatment — especially for patients with acute ischemic stroke — leads to worse outcomes. “However,” Mr. Mohamed said, “that wasn’t the case.” Additional measures that showed no significant differences included rates of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (ivtPA) use and endovascular mechanical thrombectomy.
 

Telestroke Expansion

Authors of a study that analyzed the impact of expanding telestroke coverage beyond community ERs credited many postexpansion improvements to the addition of advanced practice providers (APPs). ProMedica Stroke Network, Toledo, Ohio, added seven APPs in June 2020 to provide two-way audiovisual inpatient stroke and TIA consultations and follow-ups at 19 spoke facilities supported by vascular neurologists at the hub comprehensive stroke center (CSC).

Revamping the TS workflow resulted in a threefold increase in TS cart utilization, a 31% decrease in transfers to the CSC, and a higher home discharge rate from spoke hospitals than from the CSC (57.38% versus 52.8%, respectively). Diagnostic sensitivity also improved, with overall decreases in stroke and TIA diagnosis of 11.5% and 39.8%, respectively, and a 12.9% increase in identification of stroke mimics. The study was published in the March Annals of Neurology.
 

Future Directions

All three author groups called for larger, more granular follow-up studies. Mr. Mohamed said that the 7396-patient review of 33 studies does not show whether video consultations with neurologists produce better outcomes than phone calls, for example, or whether utilizing different telestroke modalities such as a third-party telemedicine service provides better outcomes than other methods. Additionally, authors wrote, future research should compare telestroke versus non-telestroke patient transport models to optimize treatment plans and outcomes and validate potential advantages and disadvantages of telemedicine for patients with acute ischemic stroke.

“There is also a need to understand the long-term outcomes of patients treated via telestroke versus in-person care,” said Dr. Massaud. Future studies could include randomized, controlled trials comparing telestroke to traditional care in various settings with larger sample sizes, he said. “Additionally, research into the cost-effectiveness of telestroke services, patient satisfaction, and the impact of telestroke on different subtypes of stroke could provide a more comprehensive understanding of its benefits and limitations.”

Dr. Massaud and Mr. Mohamed reported no relevant financial interests. Authors of all three studies reported no funding sources or potential conflicts of interest.

TOPLINE:

Earlier treatment with erenumab was associated with significantly better migraine prevention than that with nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with resistant episodic migraine. Based on this research, the investigators suggest clinicians should start erenumab early and not prolong use of OMPMs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 12-month prospective, international, multicenter, phase 4 randomized clinical APPRAISE trial included 621 adult patients (mean age, 41 years; 88% female) with a ≥ 12-month history of migraine and between 4 and 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs).
• Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who completed 12 months of the initially assigned treatment and experiencing a reduction of ≥ 50% from baseline in MMDs at the end of the year.
• Secondary endpoints included cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders (based on the Patients’ Global Impression of Change scale) at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• At month 12, patients receiving erenumab were six times more likely to report a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs than those receiving OMPMs (odds ratio [OR], 6.48; P < .001).
• Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab yielded a higher responder rate at 1 year (76% vs 19%; OR, 13.75; P < .001) and a significantly greater reduction in cumulative average MMDs (−4.32 days vs −2.65 days; P < .001).
• Substantially, fewer patients in the erenumab vs the OMPM group switched medication (2% vs 35%) or discontinued treatment due to adverse events (3% vs 23%).
• Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the treatment arms (75% vs 76%) until the researchers adjusted for exposure to treatment, which revealed a roughly 30% lower exposure-adjusted rate (per 100 patient-years) in the erenumab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Earlier initiation of erenumab may ultimately lead to fewer patients discontinuing or switching medication in a real-world clinical practice,” the authors wrote. In addition, the findings “lend further support to the recent guideline update issued by the European Headache Federation, in which CGRP-targeted mAbs are considered a first-line treatment option for patients with migraine who require preventive treatment.”

SOURCE:

Patricia Pozo-Rosich, MD, PhD, of the Headache and Neurological Pain Research Group, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Research, Department of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain, and the Headache Unit, Neurology Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

Only locally approved and marketed OMPMs at study onset were used as comparators. The open-label study design might have led to a placebo response, which could have played a role in the findings because erenumab can only be administered in a clinic and was administered subcutaneously.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Pozo-Rosich reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Novartis, and Teva and personal fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva outside the submitted work. The other authors’ disclosures were listed on the original paper.

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

TOPLINE:

Earlier treatment with erenumab was associated with significantly better migraine prevention than that with nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with resistant episodic migraine. Based on this research, the investigators suggest clinicians should start erenumab early and not prolong use of OMPMs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 12-month prospective, international, multicenter, phase 4 randomized clinical APPRAISE trial included 621 adult patients (mean age, 41 years; 88% female) with a ≥ 12-month history of migraine and between 4 and 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs).
• Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who completed 12 months of the initially assigned treatment and experiencing a reduction of ≥ 50% from baseline in MMDs at the end of the year.
• Secondary endpoints included cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders (based on the Patients’ Global Impression of Change scale) at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• At month 12, patients receiving erenumab were six times more likely to report a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs than those receiving OMPMs (odds ratio [OR], 6.48; P < .001).
• Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab yielded a higher responder rate at 1 year (76% vs 19%; OR, 13.75; P < .001) and a significantly greater reduction in cumulative average MMDs (−4.32 days vs −2.65 days; P < .001).
• Substantially, fewer patients in the erenumab vs the OMPM group switched medication (2% vs 35%) or discontinued treatment due to adverse events (3% vs 23%).
• Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the treatment arms (75% vs 76%) until the researchers adjusted for exposure to treatment, which revealed a roughly 30% lower exposure-adjusted rate (per 100 patient-years) in the erenumab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Earlier initiation of erenumab may ultimately lead to fewer patients discontinuing or switching medication in a real-world clinical practice,” the authors wrote. In addition, the findings “lend further support to the recent guideline update issued by the European Headache Federation, in which CGRP-targeted mAbs are considered a first-line treatment option for patients with migraine who require preventive treatment.”

SOURCE:

Patricia Pozo-Rosich, MD, PhD, of the Headache and Neurological Pain Research Group, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Research, Department of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain, and the Headache Unit, Neurology Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

Only locally approved and marketed OMPMs at study onset were used as comparators. The open-label study design might have led to a placebo response, which could have played a role in the findings because erenumab can only be administered in a clinic and was administered subcutaneously.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Pozo-Rosich reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Novartis, and Teva and personal fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva outside the submitted work. The other authors’ disclosures were listed on the original paper.

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

TOPLINE:

Earlier treatment with erenumab was associated with significantly better migraine prevention than that with nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with resistant episodic migraine. Based on this research, the investigators suggest clinicians should start erenumab early and not prolong use of OMPMs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 12-month prospective, international, multicenter, phase 4 randomized clinical APPRAISE trial included 621 adult patients (mean age, 41 years; 88% female) with a ≥ 12-month history of migraine and between 4 and 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs).
• Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who completed 12 months of the initially assigned treatment and experiencing a reduction of ≥ 50% from baseline in MMDs at the end of the year.
• Secondary endpoints included cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders (based on the Patients’ Global Impression of Change scale) at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• At month 12, patients receiving erenumab were six times more likely to report a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs than those receiving OMPMs (odds ratio [OR], 6.48; P < .001).
• Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab yielded a higher responder rate at 1 year (76% vs 19%; OR, 13.75; P < .001) and a significantly greater reduction in cumulative average MMDs (−4.32 days vs −2.65 days; P < .001).
• Substantially, fewer patients in the erenumab vs the OMPM group switched medication (2% vs 35%) or discontinued treatment due to adverse events (3% vs 23%).
• Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between the treatment arms (75% vs 76%) until the researchers adjusted for exposure to treatment, which revealed a roughly 30% lower exposure-adjusted rate (per 100 patient-years) in the erenumab group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Earlier initiation of erenumab may ultimately lead to fewer patients discontinuing or switching medication in a real-world clinical practice,” the authors wrote. In addition, the findings “lend further support to the recent guideline update issued by the European Headache Federation, in which CGRP-targeted mAbs are considered a first-line treatment option for patients with migraine who require preventive treatment.”

SOURCE:

Patricia Pozo-Rosich, MD, PhD, of the Headache and Neurological Pain Research Group, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Research, Department of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain, and the Headache Unit, Neurology Department, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

Only locally approved and marketed OMPMs at study onset were used as comparators. The open-label study design might have led to a placebo response, which could have played a role in the findings because erenumab can only be administered in a clinic and was administered subcutaneously.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Pozo-Rosich reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Novartis, and Teva and personal fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva outside the submitted work. The other authors’ disclosures were listed on the original paper.

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

TOPLINE:

Certain stimulants prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with a decreased risk for psychiatric and nonpsychiatric hospitalization and suicide, new data from a national cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used various medical and administrative databases in Sweden to identify individuals aged 16-65 years who were diagnosed with ADHD between January 2006 and December 2021.
• Participants were followed for up to 15 years (mean duration, 7 years) from date of diagnosis until death, emigration, or end of data linkage in December 2021.
• Researchers wanted to explore the link between ADHD meds and psychiatric hospitalization, nonpsychiatric hospitalization, and suicidal behavior.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort included 221,700 individuals with ADHD (mean age, 25 years; 54% male), and 56% had a psychiatric comorbidity such as an anxiety or stress-related disorder (24%), and depression or bipolar disorder (20%).
• Investigators found significantly lower risk for psychiatric hospitalization for the several medications. These included amphetamine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.74), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.80), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.88), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.93), and polytherapy (aHR, 0.85). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• ADHD medications associated with a significantly lower risk for nonpsychiatric hospitalization included amphetamine (aHR, 0.62), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.64), polytherapy (aHR, 0.67), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.72), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.80), and atomoxetine (aHR, 0.84). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• Use of dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.69; P < .001), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.76; P = .43), polytherapy (aHR, 0.85; P = .02), and methylphenidate (aHR, 0.92; P = .007) were associated with a significantly lower risk for suicidal behavior.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although concerns have been raised about the potential of amphetamines and methylphenidate for increasing the risk of adverse psychiatric outcomes, such as psychosis and mania, our results show that overall, the net effect on psychiatric outcomes is positive,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Heidi Taipale, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Due to the use of nationwide registers, there was a lack of detailed clinical data, including type and severity of symptoms. There was also no data on nonpharmacologic treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the AFA Insurance Agency. Dr. Taipale reported receiving personal fees from Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grants from Janssen and Eli Lilly outside of the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Certain stimulants prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with a decreased risk for psychiatric and nonpsychiatric hospitalization and suicide, new data from a national cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used various medical and administrative databases in Sweden to identify individuals aged 16-65 years who were diagnosed with ADHD between January 2006 and December 2021.
• Participants were followed for up to 15 years (mean duration, 7 years) from date of diagnosis until death, emigration, or end of data linkage in December 2021.
• Researchers wanted to explore the link between ADHD meds and psychiatric hospitalization, nonpsychiatric hospitalization, and suicidal behavior.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort included 221,700 individuals with ADHD (mean age, 25 years; 54% male), and 56% had a psychiatric comorbidity such as an anxiety or stress-related disorder (24%), and depression or bipolar disorder (20%).
• Investigators found significantly lower risk for psychiatric hospitalization for the several medications. These included amphetamine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.74), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.80), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.88), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.93), and polytherapy (aHR, 0.85). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• ADHD medications associated with a significantly lower risk for nonpsychiatric hospitalization included amphetamine (aHR, 0.62), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.64), polytherapy (aHR, 0.67), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.72), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.80), and atomoxetine (aHR, 0.84). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• Use of dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.69; P < .001), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.76; P = .43), polytherapy (aHR, 0.85; P = .02), and methylphenidate (aHR, 0.92; P = .007) were associated with a significantly lower risk for suicidal behavior.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although concerns have been raised about the potential of amphetamines and methylphenidate for increasing the risk of adverse psychiatric outcomes, such as psychosis and mania, our results show that overall, the net effect on psychiatric outcomes is positive,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Heidi Taipale, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Due to the use of nationwide registers, there was a lack of detailed clinical data, including type and severity of symptoms. There was also no data on nonpharmacologic treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the AFA Insurance Agency. Dr. Taipale reported receiving personal fees from Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grants from Janssen and Eli Lilly outside of the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Certain stimulants prescribed for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with a decreased risk for psychiatric and nonpsychiatric hospitalization and suicide, new data from a national cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used various medical and administrative databases in Sweden to identify individuals aged 16-65 years who were diagnosed with ADHD between January 2006 and December 2021.
• Participants were followed for up to 15 years (mean duration, 7 years) from date of diagnosis until death, emigration, or end of data linkage in December 2021.
• Researchers wanted to explore the link between ADHD meds and psychiatric hospitalization, nonpsychiatric hospitalization, and suicidal behavior.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cohort included 221,700 individuals with ADHD (mean age, 25 years; 54% male), and 56% had a psychiatric comorbidity such as an anxiety or stress-related disorder (24%), and depression or bipolar disorder (20%).
• Investigators found significantly lower risk for psychiatric hospitalization for the several medications. These included amphetamine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.74), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.80), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.88), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.93), and polytherapy (aHR, 0.85). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• ADHD medications associated with a significantly lower risk for nonpsychiatric hospitalization included amphetamine (aHR, 0.62), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.64), polytherapy (aHR, 0.67), dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.72), methylphenidate (aHR, 0.80), and atomoxetine (aHR, 0.84). All but atomoxetine was significant at the P < .001 level.
• Use of dexamphetamine (aHR, 0.69; P < .001), lisdexamphetamine (aHR, 0.76; P = .43), polytherapy (aHR, 0.85; P = .02), and methylphenidate (aHR, 0.92; P = .007) were associated with a significantly lower risk for suicidal behavior.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although concerns have been raised about the potential of amphetamines and methylphenidate for increasing the risk of adverse psychiatric outcomes, such as psychosis and mania, our results show that overall, the net effect on psychiatric outcomes is positive,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Heidi Taipale, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Due to the use of nationwide registers, there was a lack of detailed clinical data, including type and severity of symptoms. There was also no data on nonpharmacologic treatments.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the AFA Insurance Agency. Dr. Taipale reported receiving personal fees from Gedeon Richter, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grants from Janssen and Eli Lilly outside of the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

Studies in preclinical models hint that familial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may be transmissible via bone marrow transplant, but the researchers and outside experts caution against making the immediate leap to humans. 

The researchers observed that adoptive transplantation of donor bone marrow stem cells harboring a mutant human amyloid precursor protein (APP) transgene into both APP-deficient and healthy wild-type mice resulted in the rapid development of AD pathologic hallmarks. 

These pathologic features included compromised blood-brain barrier integrity, heightened cerebral vascular neoangiogenesis, elevated brain-associated beta-amyloid levels, and cognitive impairment.

In addition, symptoms of cognitive decline presented rapidly — 6 months after transplant in the APP-knockout mice and 9 months in the wild-type mice vs 12 months shown previously in AD transgenic mice.

“Contrary to prevailing beliefs regarding AD occurring solely in familial or sporadic forms, our study reveals an unexpected transplantable form of AD in a preclinical model, suggesting potential iatrogenic transmission in AD patients,” the investigators, led by Wilfred Jefferies, DPhil, write. 

Although this is probably an “infrequent” occurrence, it’s still “concerning,” Dr. Jefferies told this news organization, and it suggests that “human donors of blood, tissue, organ, and stem cells should be screened to prevent its inadvertent transfer of disease during blood product transfusions and cellular therapies.”

The study was published March 28 in Stem Cell Reports. 

Intriguing, but Limited Human Relevance

The researchers note the study also demonstrates that beta-amyloid accumulation originating outside of the central nervous system contributes to AD pathology, providing an opportunity for the development of new biomarkers for AD. 

Several experts weighed in on this research in a statement from the UK-based nonprofit and independent Science Media Centre (SMC).

David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with University College London’s Genetics Institute, United Kingdom, noted that the study suggests that “theoretically there could be a risk of acquiring Alzheimer’s disease if one received a stem cell transplant from somebody carrying the severe, familial form of the disease. However, this form is extremely rare so in practice the risk seems low and there are many safeguards around stem cell transplantation. I do not see that the risks extend to other areas such as organ transplantation or blood transfusion because these procedures do not involve large numbers of stem cells which can go on to form glial cells.”

Paul Morgan, PhD, with UK Dementia Research Institute Cardiff, Cardiff University, said the study is “scientifically intriguing” in demonstrating in this “very specific experimental situation, that bone marrow cells are sufficient to transfer the gene and the disease. Relevance to human organ and cell transplant is limited.”

Morgan cautioned against making the “gargantuan leap to propose that tissue, organ and cell transplantation, and even blood transfusion, carry a risk of transferring Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathologies in man.”

Bart De Strooper, MD, PhD, with University College London, agreed. “There is not sufficient evidence here to suggest that anyone receiving a bone marrow transplant is at risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease as a result of the procedure, and nobody should forgo a transplant for this reason,” he said in the SMC release. 

The study had no specific funding. The authors hold equity in the start-up company, Cava Healthcare, which possesses intellectual property related to these findings. This had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in the writing of the paper. Morgan, De Strooper, and Curtis have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies in preclinical models hint that familial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may be transmissible via bone marrow transplant, but the researchers and outside experts caution against making the immediate leap to humans. 

The researchers observed that adoptive transplantation of donor bone marrow stem cells harboring a mutant human amyloid precursor protein (APP) transgene into both APP-deficient and healthy wild-type mice resulted in the rapid development of AD pathologic hallmarks. 

These pathologic features included compromised blood-brain barrier integrity, heightened cerebral vascular neoangiogenesis, elevated brain-associated beta-amyloid levels, and cognitive impairment.

In addition, symptoms of cognitive decline presented rapidly — 6 months after transplant in the APP-knockout mice and 9 months in the wild-type mice vs 12 months shown previously in AD transgenic mice.

“Contrary to prevailing beliefs regarding AD occurring solely in familial or sporadic forms, our study reveals an unexpected transplantable form of AD in a preclinical model, suggesting potential iatrogenic transmission in AD patients,” the investigators, led by Wilfred Jefferies, DPhil, write. 

Although this is probably an “infrequent” occurrence, it’s still “concerning,” Dr. Jefferies told this news organization, and it suggests that “human donors of blood, tissue, organ, and stem cells should be screened to prevent its inadvertent transfer of disease during blood product transfusions and cellular therapies.”

The study was published March 28 in Stem Cell Reports. 

Intriguing, but Limited Human Relevance

The researchers note the study also demonstrates that beta-amyloid accumulation originating outside of the central nervous system contributes to AD pathology, providing an opportunity for the development of new biomarkers for AD. 

Several experts weighed in on this research in a statement from the UK-based nonprofit and independent Science Media Centre (SMC).

David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with University College London’s Genetics Institute, United Kingdom, noted that the study suggests that “theoretically there could be a risk of acquiring Alzheimer’s disease if one received a stem cell transplant from somebody carrying the severe, familial form of the disease. However, this form is extremely rare so in practice the risk seems low and there are many safeguards around stem cell transplantation. I do not see that the risks extend to other areas such as organ transplantation or blood transfusion because these procedures do not involve large numbers of stem cells which can go on to form glial cells.”

Paul Morgan, PhD, with UK Dementia Research Institute Cardiff, Cardiff University, said the study is “scientifically intriguing” in demonstrating in this “very specific experimental situation, that bone marrow cells are sufficient to transfer the gene and the disease. Relevance to human organ and cell transplant is limited.”

Morgan cautioned against making the “gargantuan leap to propose that tissue, organ and cell transplantation, and even blood transfusion, carry a risk of transferring Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathologies in man.”

Bart De Strooper, MD, PhD, with University College London, agreed. “There is not sufficient evidence here to suggest that anyone receiving a bone marrow transplant is at risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease as a result of the procedure, and nobody should forgo a transplant for this reason,” he said in the SMC release. 

The study had no specific funding. The authors hold equity in the start-up company, Cava Healthcare, which possesses intellectual property related to these findings. This had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in the writing of the paper. Morgan, De Strooper, and Curtis have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies in preclinical models hint that familial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may be transmissible via bone marrow transplant, but the researchers and outside experts caution against making the immediate leap to humans. 

The researchers observed that adoptive transplantation of donor bone marrow stem cells harboring a mutant human amyloid precursor protein (APP) transgene into both APP-deficient and healthy wild-type mice resulted in the rapid development of AD pathologic hallmarks. 

These pathologic features included compromised blood-brain barrier integrity, heightened cerebral vascular neoangiogenesis, elevated brain-associated beta-amyloid levels, and cognitive impairment.

In addition, symptoms of cognitive decline presented rapidly — 6 months after transplant in the APP-knockout mice and 9 months in the wild-type mice vs 12 months shown previously in AD transgenic mice.

“Contrary to prevailing beliefs regarding AD occurring solely in familial or sporadic forms, our study reveals an unexpected transplantable form of AD in a preclinical model, suggesting potential iatrogenic transmission in AD patients,” the investigators, led by Wilfred Jefferies, DPhil, write. 

Although this is probably an “infrequent” occurrence, it’s still “concerning,” Dr. Jefferies told this news organization, and it suggests that “human donors of blood, tissue, organ, and stem cells should be screened to prevent its inadvertent transfer of disease during blood product transfusions and cellular therapies.”

The study was published March 28 in Stem Cell Reports. 

Intriguing, but Limited Human Relevance

The researchers note the study also demonstrates that beta-amyloid accumulation originating outside of the central nervous system contributes to AD pathology, providing an opportunity for the development of new biomarkers for AD. 

Several experts weighed in on this research in a statement from the UK-based nonprofit and independent Science Media Centre (SMC).

David Curtis, MBBS, MD, PhD, with University College London’s Genetics Institute, United Kingdom, noted that the study suggests that “theoretically there could be a risk of acquiring Alzheimer’s disease if one received a stem cell transplant from somebody carrying the severe, familial form of the disease. However, this form is extremely rare so in practice the risk seems low and there are many safeguards around stem cell transplantation. I do not see that the risks extend to other areas such as organ transplantation or blood transfusion because these procedures do not involve large numbers of stem cells which can go on to form glial cells.”

Paul Morgan, PhD, with UK Dementia Research Institute Cardiff, Cardiff University, said the study is “scientifically intriguing” in demonstrating in this “very specific experimental situation, that bone marrow cells are sufficient to transfer the gene and the disease. Relevance to human organ and cell transplant is limited.”

Morgan cautioned against making the “gargantuan leap to propose that tissue, organ and cell transplantation, and even blood transfusion, carry a risk of transferring Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathologies in man.”

Bart De Strooper, MD, PhD, with University College London, agreed. “There is not sufficient evidence here to suggest that anyone receiving a bone marrow transplant is at risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease as a result of the procedure, and nobody should forgo a transplant for this reason,” he said in the SMC release. 

The study had no specific funding. The authors hold equity in the start-up company, Cava Healthcare, which possesses intellectual property related to these findings. This had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, or in the writing of the paper. Morgan, De Strooper, and Curtis have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two classes of chemicals present in common household products may impair the development of oligodendrocytes, the myelinating cells of the central nervous system (CNS), which are critical to brain development and function. However, the researchers as well as outside experts agree more research is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn. 

Quaternary ammonium compounds, ubiquitous in disinfecting agents and personal care products, and organophosphate flame retardants, which are commonly found in household items such as furniture and electronics had “surprising effects specifically on the non-nerve cells in the brain,” said lead researcher Paul Tesar, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Glial Sciences, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. 

“Other studies have shown that our exposures to the chemicals in disinfecting agents nearly doubled during the pandemic,” Dr. Tesar noted. The finding that quaternary ammonium chemicals in disinfecting agents are harmful to specific brain cells suggests “we need to think about our increased utilization and exposure,” he added.

The results were published online on March 25 in Nature Neuroscience. 
 

Motor Dysfunction

Exposure to various chemicals in the environment has been shown to impair brain development. However, most of this research has focused on neurons. Less is known about effects on oligodendrocytes, which form the electrical insulation around the axons of CNS cells. Oligodendrocyte development continues from before birth into adulthood, thus these cells may be particularly vulnerable to damage from toxic chemicals.

The researchers analyzed the effects of 1823 chemicals on mouse oligodendrocyte development in cell cultures. They identified 292 chemicals that cause oligodendrocytes to die and 47 that inhibit oligodendrocyte generation. These chemicals belonged to two different classes.

They found that quaternary compounds were potently and selectively cytotoxic to developing oligodendrocytes and that organophosphate flame retardants prematurely arrested oligodendrocyte maturation. These effects were confirmed in mice and cultured human oligodendrocytes.

In addition, an analysis of epidemiologic data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2018) showed that one flame retardant metabolite, bis(1,3-dichloro-2-propy) phosphate (BDCIPP), was present in nearly all urine samples of children aged 3-11 years who were examined (1753 out of 1763 children).

After adjustment for multiple confounding factors, results showed that compared with children with urinary BDCIPP concentration in the lowest quartile, those with concentrations in the highest quartile were twice as likely to require special education (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8) and were six times as likely to have gross motor dysfunction (aOR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.7-21.9).

Children with urinary BDCIPP concentration within the third quartile also had significantly increased odds of motor dysfunction (aOR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.1-16.2). 

“These results suggest that the identified chemicals are potentially hazardous to human health. However, we want to be clear that more studies are needed to make definitive connections between chemical exposure and human disease,” said Dr. Tesar.

“Future studies will need to deepen our understanding of the duration and timing of exposure required to initiate or exacerbate disease. This information is needed before specific recommendations, such as behavioral interventions, can be made to reduce exposure. Some of these chemicals have useful roles in our homes, but we need to consider how they’re being used and what level of exposure might be considered safe,” Dr. Tesar said. 

In his view, the results “provide a starting point to understand what exposure levels to these chemicals might be putting ourselves or kids at risk for toxicity.”
 

Too Soon to Tell

Commenting for this news organization, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who was not involved in the study, echoed the need for more research. 

“The biological mechanisms uncovered provide plausible pathways by which these chemicals could potentially impact human brain development related to oligodendrocytes and myelination. Oligodendrocytes play a critical role in plastic neurological processes throughout life, not just early neurodevelopment. So, disrupting their maturation and function theoretically could contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders as well as adult conditions like multiple sclerosis,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

“This study alone shouldn’t sound neurotoxicant alarms yet. We’ve seen many past chemical scares like saccharin and phthalates fizzle despite alarming lab results when real-world human brain impacts failed to materialize,” Dr. Lakhan cautioned. 

“Far more rigorous research directly linking household chemical exposures to cognitive deficits in people is still needed before drawing firm conclusions or prompting overreactions from the general public. Policymakers will eventually need to weigh potential risks vs benefits, but no definitive human health threat has currently been established,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

Sarah Evans, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, also emphasized the need for further study.

“Given that most of the experiments in this study were conducted in isolated cells and a mouse model, further research is needed to determine whether exposure to these chemicals at levels experienced by the general population during critical windows of development impairs myelination and leads to adverse health outcomes like learning and behavior problems in humans,” said Dr. Evans, who was involved in the study.

“The authors’ finding of an association between higher urinary levels of the organophosphate flame-retardant metabolite BDCIPP and gross motor problems or need for special education in children aged 3-11 years in the CDC National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey strengthens their laboratory findings and warrants further investigation,” Dr. Evans added. 

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and New York Stem Cell Foundation, and philanthropic support by sTF5 Care and the Long, Walter, Peterson, Goodman, and Geller families. Dr. Tesar, Dr. Lakhan, and Dr. Evans report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two classes of chemicals present in common household products may impair the development of oligodendrocytes, the myelinating cells of the central nervous system (CNS), which are critical to brain development and function. However, the researchers as well as outside experts agree more research is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn. 

Quaternary ammonium compounds, ubiquitous in disinfecting agents and personal care products, and organophosphate flame retardants, which are commonly found in household items such as furniture and electronics had “surprising effects specifically on the non-nerve cells in the brain,” said lead researcher Paul Tesar, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Glial Sciences, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. 

“Other studies have shown that our exposures to the chemicals in disinfecting agents nearly doubled during the pandemic,” Dr. Tesar noted. The finding that quaternary ammonium chemicals in disinfecting agents are harmful to specific brain cells suggests “we need to think about our increased utilization and exposure,” he added.

The results were published online on March 25 in Nature Neuroscience. 
 

Motor Dysfunction

Exposure to various chemicals in the environment has been shown to impair brain development. However, most of this research has focused on neurons. Less is known about effects on oligodendrocytes, which form the electrical insulation around the axons of CNS cells. Oligodendrocyte development continues from before birth into adulthood, thus these cells may be particularly vulnerable to damage from toxic chemicals.

The researchers analyzed the effects of 1823 chemicals on mouse oligodendrocyte development in cell cultures. They identified 292 chemicals that cause oligodendrocytes to die and 47 that inhibit oligodendrocyte generation. These chemicals belonged to two different classes.

They found that quaternary compounds were potently and selectively cytotoxic to developing oligodendrocytes and that organophosphate flame retardants prematurely arrested oligodendrocyte maturation. These effects were confirmed in mice and cultured human oligodendrocytes.

In addition, an analysis of epidemiologic data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2018) showed that one flame retardant metabolite, bis(1,3-dichloro-2-propy) phosphate (BDCIPP), was present in nearly all urine samples of children aged 3-11 years who were examined (1753 out of 1763 children).

After adjustment for multiple confounding factors, results showed that compared with children with urinary BDCIPP concentration in the lowest quartile, those with concentrations in the highest quartile were twice as likely to require special education (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8) and were six times as likely to have gross motor dysfunction (aOR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.7-21.9).

Children with urinary BDCIPP concentration within the third quartile also had significantly increased odds of motor dysfunction (aOR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.1-16.2). 

“These results suggest that the identified chemicals are potentially hazardous to human health. However, we want to be clear that more studies are needed to make definitive connections between chemical exposure and human disease,” said Dr. Tesar.

“Future studies will need to deepen our understanding of the duration and timing of exposure required to initiate or exacerbate disease. This information is needed before specific recommendations, such as behavioral interventions, can be made to reduce exposure. Some of these chemicals have useful roles in our homes, but we need to consider how they’re being used and what level of exposure might be considered safe,” Dr. Tesar said. 

In his view, the results “provide a starting point to understand what exposure levels to these chemicals might be putting ourselves or kids at risk for toxicity.”
 

Too Soon to Tell

Commenting for this news organization, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who was not involved in the study, echoed the need for more research. 

“The biological mechanisms uncovered provide plausible pathways by which these chemicals could potentially impact human brain development related to oligodendrocytes and myelination. Oligodendrocytes play a critical role in plastic neurological processes throughout life, not just early neurodevelopment. So, disrupting their maturation and function theoretically could contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders as well as adult conditions like multiple sclerosis,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

“This study alone shouldn’t sound neurotoxicant alarms yet. We’ve seen many past chemical scares like saccharin and phthalates fizzle despite alarming lab results when real-world human brain impacts failed to materialize,” Dr. Lakhan cautioned. 

“Far more rigorous research directly linking household chemical exposures to cognitive deficits in people is still needed before drawing firm conclusions or prompting overreactions from the general public. Policymakers will eventually need to weigh potential risks vs benefits, but no definitive human health threat has currently been established,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

Sarah Evans, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, also emphasized the need for further study.

“Given that most of the experiments in this study were conducted in isolated cells and a mouse model, further research is needed to determine whether exposure to these chemicals at levels experienced by the general population during critical windows of development impairs myelination and leads to adverse health outcomes like learning and behavior problems in humans,” said Dr. Evans, who was involved in the study.

“The authors’ finding of an association between higher urinary levels of the organophosphate flame-retardant metabolite BDCIPP and gross motor problems or need for special education in children aged 3-11 years in the CDC National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey strengthens their laboratory findings and warrants further investigation,” Dr. Evans added. 

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and New York Stem Cell Foundation, and philanthropic support by sTF5 Care and the Long, Walter, Peterson, Goodman, and Geller families. Dr. Tesar, Dr. Lakhan, and Dr. Evans report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two classes of chemicals present in common household products may impair the development of oligodendrocytes, the myelinating cells of the central nervous system (CNS), which are critical to brain development and function. However, the researchers as well as outside experts agree more research is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn. 

Quaternary ammonium compounds, ubiquitous in disinfecting agents and personal care products, and organophosphate flame retardants, which are commonly found in household items such as furniture and electronics had “surprising effects specifically on the non-nerve cells in the brain,” said lead researcher Paul Tesar, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Glial Sciences, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. 

“Other studies have shown that our exposures to the chemicals in disinfecting agents nearly doubled during the pandemic,” Dr. Tesar noted. The finding that quaternary ammonium chemicals in disinfecting agents are harmful to specific brain cells suggests “we need to think about our increased utilization and exposure,” he added.

The results were published online on March 25 in Nature Neuroscience. 
 

Motor Dysfunction

Exposure to various chemicals in the environment has been shown to impair brain development. However, most of this research has focused on neurons. Less is known about effects on oligodendrocytes, which form the electrical insulation around the axons of CNS cells. Oligodendrocyte development continues from before birth into adulthood, thus these cells may be particularly vulnerable to damage from toxic chemicals.

The researchers analyzed the effects of 1823 chemicals on mouse oligodendrocyte development in cell cultures. They identified 292 chemicals that cause oligodendrocytes to die and 47 that inhibit oligodendrocyte generation. These chemicals belonged to two different classes.

They found that quaternary compounds were potently and selectively cytotoxic to developing oligodendrocytes and that organophosphate flame retardants prematurely arrested oligodendrocyte maturation. These effects were confirmed in mice and cultured human oligodendrocytes.

In addition, an analysis of epidemiologic data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2018) showed that one flame retardant metabolite, bis(1,3-dichloro-2-propy) phosphate (BDCIPP), was present in nearly all urine samples of children aged 3-11 years who were examined (1753 out of 1763 children).

After adjustment for multiple confounding factors, results showed that compared with children with urinary BDCIPP concentration in the lowest quartile, those with concentrations in the highest quartile were twice as likely to require special education (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8) and were six times as likely to have gross motor dysfunction (aOR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.7-21.9).

Children with urinary BDCIPP concentration within the third quartile also had significantly increased odds of motor dysfunction (aOR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.1-16.2). 

“These results suggest that the identified chemicals are potentially hazardous to human health. However, we want to be clear that more studies are needed to make definitive connections between chemical exposure and human disease,” said Dr. Tesar.

“Future studies will need to deepen our understanding of the duration and timing of exposure required to initiate or exacerbate disease. This information is needed before specific recommendations, such as behavioral interventions, can be made to reduce exposure. Some of these chemicals have useful roles in our homes, but we need to consider how they’re being used and what level of exposure might be considered safe,” Dr. Tesar said. 

In his view, the results “provide a starting point to understand what exposure levels to these chemicals might be putting ourselves or kids at risk for toxicity.”
 

Too Soon to Tell

Commenting for this news organization, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, who was not involved in the study, echoed the need for more research. 

“The biological mechanisms uncovered provide plausible pathways by which these chemicals could potentially impact human brain development related to oligodendrocytes and myelination. Oligodendrocytes play a critical role in plastic neurological processes throughout life, not just early neurodevelopment. So, disrupting their maturation and function theoretically could contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders as well as adult conditions like multiple sclerosis,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

“This study alone shouldn’t sound neurotoxicant alarms yet. We’ve seen many past chemical scares like saccharin and phthalates fizzle despite alarming lab results when real-world human brain impacts failed to materialize,” Dr. Lakhan cautioned. 

“Far more rigorous research directly linking household chemical exposures to cognitive deficits in people is still needed before drawing firm conclusions or prompting overreactions from the general public. Policymakers will eventually need to weigh potential risks vs benefits, but no definitive human health threat has currently been established,” Dr. Lakhan said. 

Sarah Evans, PhD, MPH, assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, also emphasized the need for further study.

“Given that most of the experiments in this study were conducted in isolated cells and a mouse model, further research is needed to determine whether exposure to these chemicals at levels experienced by the general population during critical windows of development impairs myelination and leads to adverse health outcomes like learning and behavior problems in humans,” said Dr. Evans, who was involved in the study.

“The authors’ finding of an association between higher urinary levels of the organophosphate flame-retardant metabolite BDCIPP and gross motor problems or need for special education in children aged 3-11 years in the CDC National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey strengthens their laboratory findings and warrants further investigation,” Dr. Evans added. 

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and New York Stem Cell Foundation, and philanthropic support by sTF5 Care and the Long, Walter, Peterson, Goodman, and Geller families. Dr. Tesar, Dr. Lakhan, and Dr. Evans report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized stroke rates decreased in the United States between 1990 and 2019, while absolute stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates increased, a new study showed. Investigators noted the findings, which also show a significant increase in hemorrhagic stroke and an uptick in stroke among adults under 50 years in the South and Midwest, suggesting a significant shift in the US stroke burden.

METHODOLOGY:

• This in-depth, cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study included data on all-cause and ischemic strokes, intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs), and subarachnoid hemorrhages (SAHs) between 1990 and 2019 in the United States.
• Researchers focused on both overall and age-standardized estimates, stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and DALYs per 100,000 people.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 2019, the United States recorded 7.09 million prevalent strokes, 83% of which were ischemic and 57% of which occurred in women.
• The absolute numbers of stroke cases, mortality, and DALYs increased from 1990 to 2019, but the age-standardized rates either declined or remained steady.
• Overall incidence increased by 40% for ICH, 51% for SAH, and 13% for , and stroke mortality increased by 56% for ICH, 72% for SAH, and 5.4% for ischemic stroke.
• Age-adjusted analyses showed the results were not uniform across all geographical areas, with older adults (ages, 50-74 years) experiencing decreased incidence in coastal areas and younger individuals (ages, 15-49 years) experiencing an uptick in the South and Midwest United States.

IN PRACTICE:

“As the country prepares for an imminent swell in the aging population, coupled with a noticeable plateau in advancements against stroke mortality, it becomes evident that future directions must focus on a multipronged strategy,” the authors wrote. “This involves both embracing precision medicine’s potential and fortifying widespread public health campaigns.”

SOURCE:

Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of the Yale Center for Brain and Mind Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The accuracy of stroke ascertainment was limited by the data source, which may be prone to misclassification. The data lacked detailed information on race, ethnicity, and stroke characteristics other than stroke type.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Heart Association Medical Student Research Fellowship, grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the Yale Pepper Scholar Award, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research fellowship. Sheth reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and Hyperfine; personal fees/monitoring board fees/equity from Astrocyte, CSL Behring, Zoll, Sense, Bexorg, Rhaeos, and Alva and having a patent for Alva licensed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized stroke rates decreased in the United States between 1990 and 2019, while absolute stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates increased, a new study showed. Investigators noted the findings, which also show a significant increase in hemorrhagic stroke and an uptick in stroke among adults under 50 years in the South and Midwest, suggesting a significant shift in the US stroke burden.

METHODOLOGY:

• This in-depth, cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study included data on all-cause and ischemic strokes, intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs), and subarachnoid hemorrhages (SAHs) between 1990 and 2019 in the United States.
• Researchers focused on both overall and age-standardized estimates, stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and DALYs per 100,000 people.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 2019, the United States recorded 7.09 million prevalent strokes, 83% of which were ischemic and 57% of which occurred in women.
• The absolute numbers of stroke cases, mortality, and DALYs increased from 1990 to 2019, but the age-standardized rates either declined or remained steady.
• Overall incidence increased by 40% for ICH, 51% for SAH, and 13% for , and stroke mortality increased by 56% for ICH, 72% for SAH, and 5.4% for ischemic stroke.
• Age-adjusted analyses showed the results were not uniform across all geographical areas, with older adults (ages, 50-74 years) experiencing decreased incidence in coastal areas and younger individuals (ages, 15-49 years) experiencing an uptick in the South and Midwest United States.

IN PRACTICE:

“As the country prepares for an imminent swell in the aging population, coupled with a noticeable plateau in advancements against stroke mortality, it becomes evident that future directions must focus on a multipronged strategy,” the authors wrote. “This involves both embracing precision medicine’s potential and fortifying widespread public health campaigns.”

SOURCE:

Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of the Yale Center for Brain and Mind Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The accuracy of stroke ascertainment was limited by the data source, which may be prone to misclassification. The data lacked detailed information on race, ethnicity, and stroke characteristics other than stroke type.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Heart Association Medical Student Research Fellowship, grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the Yale Pepper Scholar Award, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research fellowship. Sheth reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and Hyperfine; personal fees/monitoring board fees/equity from Astrocyte, CSL Behring, Zoll, Sense, Bexorg, Rhaeos, and Alva and having a patent for Alva licensed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized stroke rates decreased in the United States between 1990 and 2019, while absolute stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates increased, a new study showed. Investigators noted the findings, which also show a significant increase in hemorrhagic stroke and an uptick in stroke among adults under 50 years in the South and Midwest, suggesting a significant shift in the US stroke burden.

METHODOLOGY:

• This in-depth, cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study included data on all-cause and ischemic strokes, intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs), and subarachnoid hemorrhages (SAHs) between 1990 and 2019 in the United States.
• Researchers focused on both overall and age-standardized estimates, stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and DALYs per 100,000 people.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 2019, the United States recorded 7.09 million prevalent strokes, 83% of which were ischemic and 57% of which occurred in women.
• The absolute numbers of stroke cases, mortality, and DALYs increased from 1990 to 2019, but the age-standardized rates either declined or remained steady.
• Overall incidence increased by 40% for ICH, 51% for SAH, and 13% for , and stroke mortality increased by 56% for ICH, 72% for SAH, and 5.4% for ischemic stroke.
• Age-adjusted analyses showed the results were not uniform across all geographical areas, with older adults (ages, 50-74 years) experiencing decreased incidence in coastal areas and younger individuals (ages, 15-49 years) experiencing an uptick in the South and Midwest United States.

IN PRACTICE:

“As the country prepares for an imminent swell in the aging population, coupled with a noticeable plateau in advancements against stroke mortality, it becomes evident that future directions must focus on a multipronged strategy,” the authors wrote. “This involves both embracing precision medicine’s potential and fortifying widespread public health campaigns.”

SOURCE:

Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of the Yale Center for Brain and Mind Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The accuracy of stroke ascertainment was limited by the data source, which may be prone to misclassification. The data lacked detailed information on race, ethnicity, and stroke characteristics other than stroke type.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Heart Association Medical Student Research Fellowship, grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the Yale Pepper Scholar Award, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research fellowship. Sheth reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and Hyperfine; personal fees/monitoring board fees/equity from Astrocyte, CSL Behring, Zoll, Sense, Bexorg, Rhaeos, and Alva and having a patent for Alva licensed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The size of the human brain has increased over time, a new finding that may help explain a previously reported decline in incident dementia.

A secular trends analysis using brain imaging data from the long-running Framingham Heart Study revealed an increase in intracranial volume (ICV), cortical gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes, as well as cortical surface area in people born in the 1970s versus those born in the 1930s.

“We hypothesize that the increased size of the brain will lead to increased ‘reserve’ against the diseases of aging, consequently reducing overall risk of dementia,” said Charles DeCarli, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and Imaging of Dementia and Aging Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Center for Neuroscience, University of California at Davis.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Dementia Protection?

An earlier report from the Framingham Heart Study suggested that dementia incidence is declining.

“This difference occurred among persons with at least a high school education and was not affected by differences in vascular risk. Our work was stimulated by this finding and the possibility that differences in brain size might be occurring over the three generations of the Framingham Heart Study which might explain an increased resilience to dementia,” said Dr. DeCarli.

The cross-sectional study used data from 3226 Framingham participants (53% women) born in the decades 1930–1970. None had dementia or a history of stroke. At a mean age of 57.7 years, they underwent brain MRI.

Compared with the 1930s birth decade, the 1970s birth decade had a 6.6% greater ICV (1321 mL vs 1234 mL), 7.7% greater white matter volume (476.3 mL vs 441.9 mL), 5.7% greater hippocampal volume (6.69 mL vs 6.51 mL), and 14.9% greater cortical surface area (2222 cm² vs 1933 cm²).

Cortical thickness was thinner by 21% over the same period, coinciding with larger intracranial volume, cerebral white matter volume, and cortical surface area. 

“We were surprised to find that the brain is getting larger, but the cortex is thinning very slightly. The apparent thinning of the cortex is related to the increased need for expansion of the cortical ribbon. This is based on hypotheses related to the effects of evolution and cortical development designed to make neuronal integration most efficient,” said Dr. DeCarli.

Repeat analysis applied to a subgroup of 1145 individuals of similar age range born in the 1940s (mean age, 60 years) and 1950s (mean age, 59 years) resulted in similar findings.

“These findings likely reflect both secular improvements in early life environmental influences through health, social-cultural, and educational factors, as well as secular improvements in modifiable dementia risk factors leading to better brain health and reserve,” the authors wrote.

While the effects observed are “likely to be small at the level of the individual, they are likely to be substantial at the population level, adding to growing literature that suggests optimized brain development and ideal health through modification of risk factors could substantially modify the effect of common neurodegenerative diseases such as stroke and Alzheiemer’s disease on dementia incidence,” they added.

Limitations included the predominately non-Hispanic White, healthy, and well-educated population that is the Framingham cohort, which is not representative of the broader US population. The cross-sectional nature of the study also limited causal inference. 
 

Exciting Work 

“If these results are confirmed by others and the observed differences by decade are as large as those reported, it has important implications for aging and dementia studies,” Prashanthi Lemuria, PhD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote in an accompanying editorial. 

“First, studies that use brain charts for the human life span to understand the mechanisms of aging, by stitching together data from individuals across the decades, are significantly overestimating the degree of brain health decline using volumes across the life span because the baseline brain health in individuals who are in their older decades is likely lower to begin with,” Dr. Lemuria noted.

“Second, cortical thickness measurements, often used in dementia studies as a cross-sectional marker for neurodegeneration, showed greatest decline due to secular trends and are not scaled for ICV. Therefore, these should be traded in favor of gray matter volumes after consideration of ICV to estimate the true degree of neurodegeneration,” Dr. Vemuri added.

The data also suggest that longitudinal imaging study designs should be preferred when testing hypotheses on brain health, Dr. Vemuri wrote.

Although this work is “exciting and will bring attention to secular trends in brain health, much work is yet to be done to validate and replicate these findings and, more importantly, understand the mechanistic basis of these trends,” she added. 

“Do these secular trends in improvement of brain health underlie the decrease in dementia risk? The jury may be still out, but the authors are commended for investigating new avenues,” Dr. Vemuri concluded.

Support for this research was provided by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. DeCarli reported serving as a consultant to Novartis on a safety study of heart failure during the conduct of the study and receiving consultant fees from Eisai and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lemuria had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The size of the human brain has increased over time, a new finding that may help explain a previously reported decline in incident dementia.

A secular trends analysis using brain imaging data from the long-running Framingham Heart Study revealed an increase in intracranial volume (ICV), cortical gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes, as well as cortical surface area in people born in the 1970s versus those born in the 1930s.

“We hypothesize that the increased size of the brain will lead to increased ‘reserve’ against the diseases of aging, consequently reducing overall risk of dementia,” said Charles DeCarli, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and Imaging of Dementia and Aging Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Center for Neuroscience, University of California at Davis.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Dementia Protection?

An earlier report from the Framingham Heart Study suggested that dementia incidence is declining.

“This difference occurred among persons with at least a high school education and was not affected by differences in vascular risk. Our work was stimulated by this finding and the possibility that differences in brain size might be occurring over the three generations of the Framingham Heart Study which might explain an increased resilience to dementia,” said Dr. DeCarli.

The cross-sectional study used data from 3226 Framingham participants (53% women) born in the decades 1930–1970. None had dementia or a history of stroke. At a mean age of 57.7 years, they underwent brain MRI.

Compared with the 1930s birth decade, the 1970s birth decade had a 6.6% greater ICV (1321 mL vs 1234 mL), 7.7% greater white matter volume (476.3 mL vs 441.9 mL), 5.7% greater hippocampal volume (6.69 mL vs 6.51 mL), and 14.9% greater cortical surface area (2222 cm² vs 1933 cm²).

Cortical thickness was thinner by 21% over the same period, coinciding with larger intracranial volume, cerebral white matter volume, and cortical surface area. 

“We were surprised to find that the brain is getting larger, but the cortex is thinning very slightly. The apparent thinning of the cortex is related to the increased need for expansion of the cortical ribbon. This is based on hypotheses related to the effects of evolution and cortical development designed to make neuronal integration most efficient,” said Dr. DeCarli.

Repeat analysis applied to a subgroup of 1145 individuals of similar age range born in the 1940s (mean age, 60 years) and 1950s (mean age, 59 years) resulted in similar findings.

“These findings likely reflect both secular improvements in early life environmental influences through health, social-cultural, and educational factors, as well as secular improvements in modifiable dementia risk factors leading to better brain health and reserve,” the authors wrote.

While the effects observed are “likely to be small at the level of the individual, they are likely to be substantial at the population level, adding to growing literature that suggests optimized brain development and ideal health through modification of risk factors could substantially modify the effect of common neurodegenerative diseases such as stroke and Alzheiemer’s disease on dementia incidence,” they added.

Limitations included the predominately non-Hispanic White, healthy, and well-educated population that is the Framingham cohort, which is not representative of the broader US population. The cross-sectional nature of the study also limited causal inference. 
 

Exciting Work 

“If these results are confirmed by others and the observed differences by decade are as large as those reported, it has important implications for aging and dementia studies,” Prashanthi Lemuria, PhD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote in an accompanying editorial. 

“First, studies that use brain charts for the human life span to understand the mechanisms of aging, by stitching together data from individuals across the decades, are significantly overestimating the degree of brain health decline using volumes across the life span because the baseline brain health in individuals who are in their older decades is likely lower to begin with,” Dr. Lemuria noted.

“Second, cortical thickness measurements, often used in dementia studies as a cross-sectional marker for neurodegeneration, showed greatest decline due to secular trends and are not scaled for ICV. Therefore, these should be traded in favor of gray matter volumes after consideration of ICV to estimate the true degree of neurodegeneration,” Dr. Vemuri added.

The data also suggest that longitudinal imaging study designs should be preferred when testing hypotheses on brain health, Dr. Vemuri wrote.

Although this work is “exciting and will bring attention to secular trends in brain health, much work is yet to be done to validate and replicate these findings and, more importantly, understand the mechanistic basis of these trends,” she added. 

“Do these secular trends in improvement of brain health underlie the decrease in dementia risk? The jury may be still out, but the authors are commended for investigating new avenues,” Dr. Vemuri concluded.

Support for this research was provided by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. DeCarli reported serving as a consultant to Novartis on a safety study of heart failure during the conduct of the study and receiving consultant fees from Eisai and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lemuria had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The size of the human brain has increased over time, a new finding that may help explain a previously reported decline in incident dementia.

A secular trends analysis using brain imaging data from the long-running Framingham Heart Study revealed an increase in intracranial volume (ICV), cortical gray matter, white matter, and hippocampal volumes, as well as cortical surface area in people born in the 1970s versus those born in the 1930s.

“We hypothesize that the increased size of the brain will lead to increased ‘reserve’ against the diseases of aging, consequently reducing overall risk of dementia,” said Charles DeCarli, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center and Imaging of Dementia and Aging Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Center for Neuroscience, University of California at Davis.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Dementia Protection?

An earlier report from the Framingham Heart Study suggested that dementia incidence is declining.

“This difference occurred among persons with at least a high school education and was not affected by differences in vascular risk. Our work was stimulated by this finding and the possibility that differences in brain size might be occurring over the three generations of the Framingham Heart Study which might explain an increased resilience to dementia,” said Dr. DeCarli.

The cross-sectional study used data from 3226 Framingham participants (53% women) born in the decades 1930–1970. None had dementia or a history of stroke. At a mean age of 57.7 years, they underwent brain MRI.

Compared with the 1930s birth decade, the 1970s birth decade had a 6.6% greater ICV (1321 mL vs 1234 mL), 7.7% greater white matter volume (476.3 mL vs 441.9 mL), 5.7% greater hippocampal volume (6.69 mL vs 6.51 mL), and 14.9% greater cortical surface area (2222 cm² vs 1933 cm²).

Cortical thickness was thinner by 21% over the same period, coinciding with larger intracranial volume, cerebral white matter volume, and cortical surface area. 

“We were surprised to find that the brain is getting larger, but the cortex is thinning very slightly. The apparent thinning of the cortex is related to the increased need for expansion of the cortical ribbon. This is based on hypotheses related to the effects of evolution and cortical development designed to make neuronal integration most efficient,” said Dr. DeCarli.

Repeat analysis applied to a subgroup of 1145 individuals of similar age range born in the 1940s (mean age, 60 years) and 1950s (mean age, 59 years) resulted in similar findings.

“These findings likely reflect both secular improvements in early life environmental influences through health, social-cultural, and educational factors, as well as secular improvements in modifiable dementia risk factors leading to better brain health and reserve,” the authors wrote.

While the effects observed are “likely to be small at the level of the individual, they are likely to be substantial at the population level, adding to growing literature that suggests optimized brain development and ideal health through modification of risk factors could substantially modify the effect of common neurodegenerative diseases such as stroke and Alzheiemer’s disease on dementia incidence,” they added.

Limitations included the predominately non-Hispanic White, healthy, and well-educated population that is the Framingham cohort, which is not representative of the broader US population. The cross-sectional nature of the study also limited causal inference. 
 

Exciting Work 

“If these results are confirmed by others and the observed differences by decade are as large as those reported, it has important implications for aging and dementia studies,” Prashanthi Lemuria, PhD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, wrote in an accompanying editorial. 

“First, studies that use brain charts for the human life span to understand the mechanisms of aging, by stitching together data from individuals across the decades, are significantly overestimating the degree of brain health decline using volumes across the life span because the baseline brain health in individuals who are in their older decades is likely lower to begin with,” Dr. Lemuria noted.

“Second, cortical thickness measurements, often used in dementia studies as a cross-sectional marker for neurodegeneration, showed greatest decline due to secular trends and are not scaled for ICV. Therefore, these should be traded in favor of gray matter volumes after consideration of ICV to estimate the true degree of neurodegeneration,” Dr. Vemuri added.

The data also suggest that longitudinal imaging study designs should be preferred when testing hypotheses on brain health, Dr. Vemuri wrote.

Although this work is “exciting and will bring attention to secular trends in brain health, much work is yet to be done to validate and replicate these findings and, more importantly, understand the mechanistic basis of these trends,” she added. 

“Do these secular trends in improvement of brain health underlie the decrease in dementia risk? The jury may be still out, but the authors are commended for investigating new avenues,” Dr. Vemuri concluded.

Support for this research was provided by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. DeCarli reported serving as a consultant to Novartis on a safety study of heart failure during the conduct of the study and receiving consultant fees from Eisai and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lemuria had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Breastfeeding by women with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are taking monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) appears to be safe for infants, new research confirmed.

Registry data showed no differences in health or development in the first 3 years of life among infants exposed to natalizumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab, compared with unexposed infants.

“Most monoclonal antibody medications for multiple sclerosis are not currently approved for use while a mother is breastfeeding,” even though the disease can develop during a person’s reproductive years, study investigator Kerstin Hellwig, MD, with Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, said in a news release.

“Our data show infants exposed to these medications through breastfeeding experienced no negative effects on health or development within the first 3 years of life,” Dr. Hellwig said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Registry Data and Analysis

Using the German MS and Pregnancy Registry, researchers identified 183 infants born to mothers taking mAbs while breastfeeding — 180 with a diagnosis of MS and three with a diagnosis of NMOSD. The infants were matched to 183 unexposed infants (control group).

Exposure to mAbs during lactation started a median of 19 days postpartum and lasted for a median of 172 days. The most commonly used mAb during lactation was natalizumab (125 women), followed by ocrelizumab (34 women), rituximab (11 women), and ofatumumab (10 women).

Among the entire infant cohort, two were first exposed to natalizumab and then ocrelizumab; one was exposed to rituximab and then ocrelizumab; three had been previously breastfed on glatiramer acetate and two on interferons.

The primary outcomes were hospitalizations, antibiotic use, developmental delay, and weight during the first 3 years of life in mAb-exposed versus unexposed infants.

In adjusted regression analyses, mAb exposure during breastfeeding was not significantly associated with annual hospitalization (rate ratio [RR], 1.23; P = .473), annual systemic antibiotic use (RR, 1.55; P = .093), developmental delay (odds ratio, 1.16; P = .716), or weight.

A limitation of the study was that only about a third of the infants were followed for the full 3 years. Therefore, Dr. Hellwig said, the results for the third year of life are less meaningful than for years 1 and 2.
 

‘Reassuring’ Data

Reached for comment, Edith L. Graham, MD, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, noted that this is the largest group of breastfed infants exposed to mAbs used to treat MS and said the data provide “reassuring infant outcomes with no increase in hospitalization, antibiotic use, or developmental delay.”

Dr. Graham noted that recent publications have reported more on the use of anti-CD20 mAbs (ocrelizumab/rituximab/ofatumumab) while breastfeeding, “and this study adds data for patients on natalizumab.”

“It will be important to know how infusion timing after birth impacts transfer of monoclonal antibodies depending on the milk stage as it transitions from colostrum to mature milk in the first month postpartum,” Dr. Graham said.

“While infection rates of infants are reassuring, data on allergies in the exposed infants would be interesting to look at as well,” she added. “While these infusions are not orally bioavailable, we do not know the full extent of impact on the neonatal gut microbiome.”

In addition, Dr. Graham said it would be important to know whether drugs administered monthly, such as natalizumab and ofatumumab, accumulate in the breast milk at higher levels than medications such as ocrelizumab and rituximab, which are administered twice a year.

The German MS and pregnancy registry was partly supported by the Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Biogen GmbH Germany, Hexal AG, Merck Serono GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Roche Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva GmbH. Dr. Hellwig and Dr. Graham had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Breastfeeding by women with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are taking monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) appears to be safe for infants, new research confirmed.

Registry data showed no differences in health or development in the first 3 years of life among infants exposed to natalizumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab, compared with unexposed infants.

“Most monoclonal antibody medications for multiple sclerosis are not currently approved for use while a mother is breastfeeding,” even though the disease can develop during a person’s reproductive years, study investigator Kerstin Hellwig, MD, with Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, said in a news release.

“Our data show infants exposed to these medications through breastfeeding experienced no negative effects on health or development within the first 3 years of life,” Dr. Hellwig said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Registry Data and Analysis

Using the German MS and Pregnancy Registry, researchers identified 183 infants born to mothers taking mAbs while breastfeeding — 180 with a diagnosis of MS and three with a diagnosis of NMOSD. The infants were matched to 183 unexposed infants (control group).

Exposure to mAbs during lactation started a median of 19 days postpartum and lasted for a median of 172 days. The most commonly used mAb during lactation was natalizumab (125 women), followed by ocrelizumab (34 women), rituximab (11 women), and ofatumumab (10 women).

Among the entire infant cohort, two were first exposed to natalizumab and then ocrelizumab; one was exposed to rituximab and then ocrelizumab; three had been previously breastfed on glatiramer acetate and two on interferons.

The primary outcomes were hospitalizations, antibiotic use, developmental delay, and weight during the first 3 years of life in mAb-exposed versus unexposed infants.

In adjusted regression analyses, mAb exposure during breastfeeding was not significantly associated with annual hospitalization (rate ratio [RR], 1.23; P = .473), annual systemic antibiotic use (RR, 1.55; P = .093), developmental delay (odds ratio, 1.16; P = .716), or weight.

A limitation of the study was that only about a third of the infants were followed for the full 3 years. Therefore, Dr. Hellwig said, the results for the third year of life are less meaningful than for years 1 and 2.
 

‘Reassuring’ Data

Reached for comment, Edith L. Graham, MD, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, noted that this is the largest group of breastfed infants exposed to mAbs used to treat MS and said the data provide “reassuring infant outcomes with no increase in hospitalization, antibiotic use, or developmental delay.”

Dr. Graham noted that recent publications have reported more on the use of anti-CD20 mAbs (ocrelizumab/rituximab/ofatumumab) while breastfeeding, “and this study adds data for patients on natalizumab.”

“It will be important to know how infusion timing after birth impacts transfer of monoclonal antibodies depending on the milk stage as it transitions from colostrum to mature milk in the first month postpartum,” Dr. Graham said.

“While infection rates of infants are reassuring, data on allergies in the exposed infants would be interesting to look at as well,” she added. “While these infusions are not orally bioavailable, we do not know the full extent of impact on the neonatal gut microbiome.”

In addition, Dr. Graham said it would be important to know whether drugs administered monthly, such as natalizumab and ofatumumab, accumulate in the breast milk at higher levels than medications such as ocrelizumab and rituximab, which are administered twice a year.

The German MS and pregnancy registry was partly supported by the Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Biogen GmbH Germany, Hexal AG, Merck Serono GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Roche Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva GmbH. Dr. Hellwig and Dr. Graham had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Breastfeeding by women with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are taking monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) appears to be safe for infants, new research confirmed.

Registry data showed no differences in health or development in the first 3 years of life among infants exposed to natalizumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab, compared with unexposed infants.

“Most monoclonal antibody medications for multiple sclerosis are not currently approved for use while a mother is breastfeeding,” even though the disease can develop during a person’s reproductive years, study investigator Kerstin Hellwig, MD, with Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, said in a news release.

“Our data show infants exposed to these medications through breastfeeding experienced no negative effects on health or development within the first 3 years of life,” Dr. Hellwig said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Registry Data and Analysis

Using the German MS and Pregnancy Registry, researchers identified 183 infants born to mothers taking mAbs while breastfeeding — 180 with a diagnosis of MS and three with a diagnosis of NMOSD. The infants were matched to 183 unexposed infants (control group).

Exposure to mAbs during lactation started a median of 19 days postpartum and lasted for a median of 172 days. The most commonly used mAb during lactation was natalizumab (125 women), followed by ocrelizumab (34 women), rituximab (11 women), and ofatumumab (10 women).

Among the entire infant cohort, two were first exposed to natalizumab and then ocrelizumab; one was exposed to rituximab and then ocrelizumab; three had been previously breastfed on glatiramer acetate and two on interferons.

The primary outcomes were hospitalizations, antibiotic use, developmental delay, and weight during the first 3 years of life in mAb-exposed versus unexposed infants.

In adjusted regression analyses, mAb exposure during breastfeeding was not significantly associated with annual hospitalization (rate ratio [RR], 1.23; P = .473), annual systemic antibiotic use (RR, 1.55; P = .093), developmental delay (odds ratio, 1.16; P = .716), or weight.

A limitation of the study was that only about a third of the infants were followed for the full 3 years. Therefore, Dr. Hellwig said, the results for the third year of life are less meaningful than for years 1 and 2.
 

‘Reassuring’ Data

Reached for comment, Edith L. Graham, MD, Department of Neurology, Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, noted that this is the largest group of breastfed infants exposed to mAbs used to treat MS and said the data provide “reassuring infant outcomes with no increase in hospitalization, antibiotic use, or developmental delay.”

Dr. Graham noted that recent publications have reported more on the use of anti-CD20 mAbs (ocrelizumab/rituximab/ofatumumab) while breastfeeding, “and this study adds data for patients on natalizumab.”

“It will be important to know how infusion timing after birth impacts transfer of monoclonal antibodies depending on the milk stage as it transitions from colostrum to mature milk in the first month postpartum,” Dr. Graham said.

“While infection rates of infants are reassuring, data on allergies in the exposed infants would be interesting to look at as well,” she added. “While these infusions are not orally bioavailable, we do not know the full extent of impact on the neonatal gut microbiome.”

In addition, Dr. Graham said it would be important to know whether drugs administered monthly, such as natalizumab and ofatumumab, accumulate in the breast milk at higher levels than medications such as ocrelizumab and rituximab, which are administered twice a year.

The German MS and pregnancy registry was partly supported by the Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Biogen GmbH Germany, Hexal AG, Merck Serono GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Roche Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Genzyme, and Teva GmbH. Dr. Hellwig and Dr. Graham had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 27-year-old woman presents requesting antibiotics for a sinus headache. She reports she has had 3-4 episodes a year with pain in her maxillary area and congestion. She has not had fevers with these episodes. She had the onset of this headache 6 hours ago. She has had resolution of the pain within 24 hours in the past with the use of antibiotics and decongestants. What would be the best treatment for her?

A. Amoxicillin

B. Amoxicillin/clavulanate

C. Amoxicillin + fluticasone nasal spray

D. Sumatriptan

The best treatment would be sumatriptan. This is very likely a variant of migraine headache and migraine-directed therapy is the best option. In regard to sinus headache, the International Headache Society (IHS) classification states that chronic sinusitis is not a cause of headache and facial pain unless it relapses into an acute sinusitis.¹

The recurrent nature of the headaches in this patient suggests a primary headache disorder with migraine being the most likely. In a study of 2991 patients with self-diagnosed or physician-diagnosed “sinus headaches,” 88% of the patients met IHS criteria for migraine.² In this study, most of the patients had symptoms suggesting sinus problems, with the most common symptoms being sinus pressure (84%), sinus pain (82%), and nasal congestion (63%). The likely cause for these symptoms in migraine patients is vasodilation of the nasal mucosa that can be part of the migraine event.

Foroughipour and colleagues found similar results.³ In their study, 58 patients with “sinus headache” were evaluated, with the final diagnosis of migraine in 40 patients (69%), tension-type headache in 16 patients (27%), and chronic sinusitis with recurrent acute episodes in 2 patients (3%). Recurrent antibiotic therapy had been given to 73% of the tension-type headache patients and 66% of the migraine patients.

Obermann et al. looked at how common trigeminal autonomic symptoms were in patients with migraine in a population-based study.⁴ They found of 841 patients who had migraine, 226 reported accompanying unilateral trigeminal autonomic symptoms (26.9%).

Al-Hashel et al. reported on how patients with frequent migraine are misdiagnosed and how long it takes when they present with sinus symptoms. A total of 130 migraine patients were recruited for the study; of these, 81.5% were misdiagnosed with sinusitis. The mean time delay of migraine diagnosis was almost 8 years.⁵

In a study by Dr. Elina Kari and Dr. John M. DelGaudio, patients who had a history of “sinus headaches” were treated as though all these headaches were migraines. Fifty-four patients were enrolled, and 38 patients completed the study. All patients had nasal endoscopy and sinus CT scans that were negative. They were then given migraine-directed treatment to use for their headaches. Of the 38 patient who completed the study, 31 patients (82%) had a significant reduction in headache pain with triptan use, and 35 patients (92%) had a significant response to migraine-directed therapy.⁶ An expert panel consisting of otolaryngologists, neurologists, allergists, and primary care physicians concluded that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines.⁷

These references aren’t new. This information has been known in the medical literature for more than 2 decades, but I believe that the majority of medical professionals are not aware of it. In my own practice I have found great success treating patients with sinus headache histories with migraine-directed therapy (mostly triptans) when they have return of their headaches.


Pearl: When your patients say they have another sinus headache, think migraine.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Jones NS. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9:439-44.

2. Schreiber CP et al. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1769-72.

3. Foroughipour M et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:1593-6.

4. Obermann M et al. Cephalalgia. 2007 Jun;27(6):504-9.

5. Al-Hashel JY et al. J Headache Pain. 2013 Dec 12;14(1):97.

6. Kari E and DelGaudi JM. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2235-9.

7. Levine HL et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Mar;134(3):516-23.

A 27-year-old woman presents requesting antibiotics for a sinus headache. She reports she has had 3-4 episodes a year with pain in her maxillary area and congestion. She has not had fevers with these episodes. She had the onset of this headache 6 hours ago. She has had resolution of the pain within 24 hours in the past with the use of antibiotics and decongestants. What would be the best treatment for her?

A. Amoxicillin

B. Amoxicillin/clavulanate

C. Amoxicillin + fluticasone nasal spray

D. Sumatriptan

The best treatment would be sumatriptan. This is very likely a variant of migraine headache and migraine-directed therapy is the best option. In regard to sinus headache, the International Headache Society (IHS) classification states that chronic sinusitis is not a cause of headache and facial pain unless it relapses into an acute sinusitis.¹

The recurrent nature of the headaches in this patient suggests a primary headache disorder with migraine being the most likely. In a study of 2991 patients with self-diagnosed or physician-diagnosed “sinus headaches,” 88% of the patients met IHS criteria for migraine.² In this study, most of the patients had symptoms suggesting sinus problems, with the most common symptoms being sinus pressure (84%), sinus pain (82%), and nasal congestion (63%). The likely cause for these symptoms in migraine patients is vasodilation of the nasal mucosa that can be part of the migraine event.

Foroughipour and colleagues found similar results.³ In their study, 58 patients with “sinus headache” were evaluated, with the final diagnosis of migraine in 40 patients (69%), tension-type headache in 16 patients (27%), and chronic sinusitis with recurrent acute episodes in 2 patients (3%). Recurrent antibiotic therapy had been given to 73% of the tension-type headache patients and 66% of the migraine patients.

Obermann et al. looked at how common trigeminal autonomic symptoms were in patients with migraine in a population-based study.⁴ They found of 841 patients who had migraine, 226 reported accompanying unilateral trigeminal autonomic symptoms (26.9%).

Al-Hashel et al. reported on how patients with frequent migraine are misdiagnosed and how long it takes when they present with sinus symptoms. A total of 130 migraine patients were recruited for the study; of these, 81.5% were misdiagnosed with sinusitis. The mean time delay of migraine diagnosis was almost 8 years.⁵

In a study by Dr. Elina Kari and Dr. John M. DelGaudio, patients who had a history of “sinus headaches” were treated as though all these headaches were migraines. Fifty-four patients were enrolled, and 38 patients completed the study. All patients had nasal endoscopy and sinus CT scans that were negative. They were then given migraine-directed treatment to use for their headaches. Of the 38 patient who completed the study, 31 patients (82%) had a significant reduction in headache pain with triptan use, and 35 patients (92%) had a significant response to migraine-directed therapy.⁶ An expert panel consisting of otolaryngologists, neurologists, allergists, and primary care physicians concluded that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines.⁷

These references aren’t new. This information has been known in the medical literature for more than 2 decades, but I believe that the majority of medical professionals are not aware of it. In my own practice I have found great success treating patients with sinus headache histories with migraine-directed therapy (mostly triptans) when they have return of their headaches.


Pearl: When your patients say they have another sinus headache, think migraine.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Jones NS. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9:439-44.

2. Schreiber CP et al. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1769-72.

3. Foroughipour M et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:1593-6.

4. Obermann M et al. Cephalalgia. 2007 Jun;27(6):504-9.

5. Al-Hashel JY et al. J Headache Pain. 2013 Dec 12;14(1):97.

6. Kari E and DelGaudi JM. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2235-9.

7. Levine HL et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Mar;134(3):516-23.

A 27-year-old woman presents requesting antibiotics for a sinus headache. She reports she has had 3-4 episodes a year with pain in her maxillary area and congestion. She has not had fevers with these episodes. She had the onset of this headache 6 hours ago. She has had resolution of the pain within 24 hours in the past with the use of antibiotics and decongestants. What would be the best treatment for her?

A. Amoxicillin

B. Amoxicillin/clavulanate

C. Amoxicillin + fluticasone nasal spray

D. Sumatriptan

The best treatment would be sumatriptan. This is very likely a variant of migraine headache and migraine-directed therapy is the best option. In regard to sinus headache, the International Headache Society (IHS) classification states that chronic sinusitis is not a cause of headache and facial pain unless it relapses into an acute sinusitis.¹

The recurrent nature of the headaches in this patient suggests a primary headache disorder with migraine being the most likely. In a study of 2991 patients with self-diagnosed or physician-diagnosed “sinus headaches,” 88% of the patients met IHS criteria for migraine.² In this study, most of the patients had symptoms suggesting sinus problems, with the most common symptoms being sinus pressure (84%), sinus pain (82%), and nasal congestion (63%). The likely cause for these symptoms in migraine patients is vasodilation of the nasal mucosa that can be part of the migraine event.

Foroughipour and colleagues found similar results.³ In their study, 58 patients with “sinus headache” were evaluated, with the final diagnosis of migraine in 40 patients (69%), tension-type headache in 16 patients (27%), and chronic sinusitis with recurrent acute episodes in 2 patients (3%). Recurrent antibiotic therapy had been given to 73% of the tension-type headache patients and 66% of the migraine patients.

Obermann et al. looked at how common trigeminal autonomic symptoms were in patients with migraine in a population-based study.⁴ They found of 841 patients who had migraine, 226 reported accompanying unilateral trigeminal autonomic symptoms (26.9%).

Al-Hashel et al. reported on how patients with frequent migraine are misdiagnosed and how long it takes when they present with sinus symptoms. A total of 130 migraine patients were recruited for the study; of these, 81.5% were misdiagnosed with sinusitis. The mean time delay of migraine diagnosis was almost 8 years.⁵

In a study by Dr. Elina Kari and Dr. John M. DelGaudio, patients who had a history of “sinus headaches” were treated as though all these headaches were migraines. Fifty-four patients were enrolled, and 38 patients completed the study. All patients had nasal endoscopy and sinus CT scans that were negative. They were then given migraine-directed treatment to use for their headaches. Of the 38 patient who completed the study, 31 patients (82%) had a significant reduction in headache pain with triptan use, and 35 patients (92%) had a significant response to migraine-directed therapy.⁶ An expert panel consisting of otolaryngologists, neurologists, allergists, and primary care physicians concluded that the majority of sinus headaches can actually be classified as migraines.⁷

These references aren’t new. This information has been known in the medical literature for more than 2 decades, but I believe that the majority of medical professionals are not aware of it. In my own practice I have found great success treating patients with sinus headache histories with migraine-directed therapy (mostly triptans) when they have return of their headaches.


Pearl: When your patients say they have another sinus headache, think migraine.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Jones NS. Expert Rev Neurother. 2009;9:439-44.

2. Schreiber CP et al. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1769-72.

3. Foroughipour M et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268:1593-6.

4. Obermann M et al. Cephalalgia. 2007 Jun;27(6):504-9.

5. Al-Hashel JY et al. J Headache Pain. 2013 Dec 12;14(1):97.

6. Kari E and DelGaudi JM. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2235-9.

7. Levine HL et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Mar;134(3):516-23.