Neurology

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with epilepsy with gene variants in subunits of the neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) may benefit from treatment with a nicotine patch, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Of four epilepsy patients at one center who received nicotine-patch treatment, three had a good clinical response, one of whom became seizure free.

“We confirm that, in select patients, treatment with a nicotine patch ... can be an effective precision therapy for epilepsy. We propose consideration of nicotine-patch treatment in refractory patients with known cholinergic nicotine receptor subunit variants, especially those with a clinical history consistent with autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy (ADNFLE),” said Jordana Fox, DO, and Alison Dolce, MD, both with the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Gene variants in CHRAn4,CHRNA2, and CHRNB2 can cause ADNFLE. Preclinical and n-of-1 studies have suggested that nicotine may be a precision treatment for ADNFLE.

Dr. Fox and Dr. Dolce reviewed next-generation sequencing epilepsy panels from patients seen at Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, during 2011-2015 to identify patients with nAChR gene variants (CHNRA4, CHRNA2, CHRNB2, and CHRNA7). They reviewed patients’ medical and laboratory records, including genetic variant details and treatment history, and focused on patients who underwent a trial of nicotine-patch treatment.

Of the 21 patients who had nAChR gene variants, 4 tried treatment with a nicotine patch, either 7 mg or 14 mg. The patients who received nicotine-patch treatment had genetic variants in CHRNA4, CHRNB2, and CHRNA2. Three of the patients who tried nicotine-patch treatment had a greater than 50% reduction in seizures, whereas one had no treatment response.

“One patient became seizure free and is now treated with the nicotine patch as monotherapy,” Dr. Fox said.

The patient with complete resolution of seizures had a heterozygous disease–causing mutation in CHRNB2. This patient had nocturnal focal seizures, normal neuroimaging, and had been receiving treatment with oxcarbazepine and zonisamide.

The review identified four patients with nAChR gene variants and the ADNFLE phenotype who have not been treated with nicotine. Further phenotype-genotype characterizations and preclinical studies will help neurologists understand the mechanisms of these complex gene variants.

The researchers received no funding for the study and had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fox J et al. AES 2018, Abstract 1.230.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with epilepsy with gene variants in subunits of the neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) may benefit from treatment with a nicotine patch, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Of four epilepsy patients at one center who received nicotine-patch treatment, three had a good clinical response, one of whom became seizure free.

“We confirm that, in select patients, treatment with a nicotine patch ... can be an effective precision therapy for epilepsy. We propose consideration of nicotine-patch treatment in refractory patients with known cholinergic nicotine receptor subunit variants, especially those with a clinical history consistent with autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy (ADNFLE),” said Jordana Fox, DO, and Alison Dolce, MD, both with the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Gene variants in CHRAn4,CHRNA2, and CHRNB2 can cause ADNFLE. Preclinical and n-of-1 studies have suggested that nicotine may be a precision treatment for ADNFLE.

Dr. Fox and Dr. Dolce reviewed next-generation sequencing epilepsy panels from patients seen at Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, during 2011-2015 to identify patients with nAChR gene variants (CHNRA4, CHRNA2, CHRNB2, and CHRNA7). They reviewed patients’ medical and laboratory records, including genetic variant details and treatment history, and focused on patients who underwent a trial of nicotine-patch treatment.

Of the 21 patients who had nAChR gene variants, 4 tried treatment with a nicotine patch, either 7 mg or 14 mg. The patients who received nicotine-patch treatment had genetic variants in CHRNA4, CHRNB2, and CHRNA2. Three of the patients who tried nicotine-patch treatment had a greater than 50% reduction in seizures, whereas one had no treatment response.

“One patient became seizure free and is now treated with the nicotine patch as monotherapy,” Dr. Fox said.

The patient with complete resolution of seizures had a heterozygous disease–causing mutation in CHRNB2. This patient had nocturnal focal seizures, normal neuroimaging, and had been receiving treatment with oxcarbazepine and zonisamide.

The review identified four patients with nAChR gene variants and the ADNFLE phenotype who have not been treated with nicotine. Further phenotype-genotype characterizations and preclinical studies will help neurologists understand the mechanisms of these complex gene variants.

The researchers received no funding for the study and had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fox J et al. AES 2018, Abstract 1.230.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with epilepsy with gene variants in subunits of the neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) may benefit from treatment with a nicotine patch, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Of four epilepsy patients at one center who received nicotine-patch treatment, three had a good clinical response, one of whom became seizure free.

“We confirm that, in select patients, treatment with a nicotine patch ... can be an effective precision therapy for epilepsy. We propose consideration of nicotine-patch treatment in refractory patients with known cholinergic nicotine receptor subunit variants, especially those with a clinical history consistent with autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy (ADNFLE),” said Jordana Fox, DO, and Alison Dolce, MD, both with the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Gene variants in CHRAn4,CHRNA2, and CHRNB2 can cause ADNFLE. Preclinical and n-of-1 studies have suggested that nicotine may be a precision treatment for ADNFLE.

Dr. Fox and Dr. Dolce reviewed next-generation sequencing epilepsy panels from patients seen at Children’s Medical Center, Dallas, during 2011-2015 to identify patients with nAChR gene variants (CHNRA4, CHRNA2, CHRNB2, and CHRNA7). They reviewed patients’ medical and laboratory records, including genetic variant details and treatment history, and focused on patients who underwent a trial of nicotine-patch treatment.

Of the 21 patients who had nAChR gene variants, 4 tried treatment with a nicotine patch, either 7 mg or 14 mg. The patients who received nicotine-patch treatment had genetic variants in CHRNA4, CHRNB2, and CHRNA2. Three of the patients who tried nicotine-patch treatment had a greater than 50% reduction in seizures, whereas one had no treatment response.

“One patient became seizure free and is now treated with the nicotine patch as monotherapy,” Dr. Fox said.

The patient with complete resolution of seizures had a heterozygous disease–causing mutation in CHRNB2. This patient had nocturnal focal seizures, normal neuroimaging, and had been receiving treatment with oxcarbazepine and zonisamide.

The review identified four patients with nAChR gene variants and the ADNFLE phenotype who have not been treated with nicotine. Further phenotype-genotype characterizations and preclinical studies will help neurologists understand the mechanisms of these complex gene variants.

The researchers received no funding for the study and had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fox J et al. AES 2018, Abstract 1.230.

NEW ORLEANS – The most commonly used antiepileptic drugs modestly increased the risk of major congenital malformations among prenatally exposed infants in the MONEAD study.

Malformations occurred among 5% of pregnancies exposed to the medications – higher than the 2% background rate – but this was still much lower than the 9%-10% rate associated with valproate.

Overall, however, the message of the Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic (MONEAD) study is quite reassuring, Kimford J. Meador, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. MONEAD is an ongoing, prospective study to determine both maternal outcomes and long-term childhood neurodevelopmental outcomes associated with the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) during pregnancy.

“The rate of malformations was higher than I thought it would be, and higher than the 2% background rate, but it’s still a modest increase and most babies are born completely normal,” Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurosciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “I think the news here is good, and it’s especially reassuring when you put it in the context that, 60 years ago, there were laws that women with epilepsy couldn’t get married, and some states even had laws to sterilize women. I think that’s absurd when most infants born to these women are without malformations and the risk of miscarriage is very low.”

Another positive finding, he said, is that valproate use among pregnant women is now practically nonexistent. Only 1 of 351 pregnant women with epilepsy and just 2 of a comparator group of 109 nonpregnant women with epilepsy were taking it. That’s great news, said Dr. Meador, who also initiated the NEAD (Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs) study in the early 2000s. NEAD determined the drug’s serious teratogenic potential.


In addition to the cohorts of pregnant and nonpregnant women with epilepsy, 105 healthy pregnant women enrolled in the MONEAD study. Women will be monitored during pregnancy and postpartum to measure maternal outcomes and their children will be monitored from birth through age 6 years to measure their health and developmental outcomes.

The study has six primary outcomes, three for the women and three for their children.

• Determine if women with epilepsy have increased seizures during pregnancy and delineate the contributing factors.
• Determine if C-section rate is increased in women with epilepsy and delineate contributing factors.
• Determine if women with epilepsy have an increased risk for depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period and characterize risk factors.
• Determine the long-term effects of in utero AED exposure on verbal intellectual abilities and other neurobehavioral outcomes.
• Determine if small-for-gestational age and other adverse neonatal outcomes are increased.
• Determine if breastfeeding when taking AEDs impairs the child’s ultimate verbal and other cognitive outcomes.

Rates of miscarriage and neonatal malformations were not primary study outcomes, but the descriptive data were collected and are of high interest, Dr. Meador said.

At baseline, all the women had a mean age of about 30 years. Most (75%) were on monotherapy, 20% were on polytherapy, and the rest were not taking an AED. About 60% had focal epilepsy, 31% had generalized epilepsy, and the remainder had an unclassified seizure disorder. Three subjects had multiple seizure types. The most commonly used AEDs were lamotrigine and levetiracetam (both about 30%); 4% were taking zonisamide, 4% carbamazepine, and 4% oxcarbazepine. Topiramate was being used for 2% of the pregnant woman and 5% of the nonpregnant woman. The combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam was used for 9.0% of pregnant and 5.5% of nonpregnant women, and other polytherapies in 12.0% of the pregnant and 14.0% of the nonpregnant woman. About 4% of the pregnant and 1% of the nonpregnant women were not taking any AED.

There were 10 (2.8%) spontaneous miscarriages among the pregnant women with epilepsy and none among the healthy pregnant women. Spontaneous miscarriages weren’t associated with acute seizures, and there were no major congenital malformations reported among them. There were also two elective abortions among the pregnant women with epilepsy.

There were 18 major congenital malformations among the pregnant woman with epilepsy (5%). A total of 14 were among pregnancies exposed to monotherapy, 3 were in polytherapy-exposed pregnancies, and 1 was in the group not taking any AEDs.

The malformations were:

• Carbamazepine (one case) – hydronephrosis.
• Gabapentin (one case) – inguinal hernia.
• Lamotrigine (five cases) – aortic coarctation, cryptorchidism, hydronephrosis, pectus excavatum, and morning glory syndrome (a funnel-shaped optic nerve disc associated with impaired visual acuity).
• Levetiracetam (five cases) – atrial septal defect, buried penis syndrome, cryptorchidism, hypoplastic aortic valve, ventricular septal defect.
• Topiramate (one case) – ventricular septal defect.
• Zonisamide (one case) – inguinal hernia, absent pinna.
• Lamotrigine plus clonazepam (one case) – cardiomyopathy.
• Lamotrigine plus levetiracetam (one case) – microcephaly, myelomeningocele, Chiari II malformation.
• Levetiracetam plus phenobarbital (one case) – bilateral inguinal hernia.

MONEAD is funded by the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Meador reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Meador KJ et al. AES 2018, Abstract 3.231.

NEW ORLEANS – The most commonly used antiepileptic drugs modestly increased the risk of major congenital malformations among prenatally exposed infants in the MONEAD study.

Malformations occurred among 5% of pregnancies exposed to the medications – higher than the 2% background rate – but this was still much lower than the 9%-10% rate associated with valproate.

Overall, however, the message of the Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic (MONEAD) study is quite reassuring, Kimford J. Meador, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. MONEAD is an ongoing, prospective study to determine both maternal outcomes and long-term childhood neurodevelopmental outcomes associated with the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) during pregnancy.

“The rate of malformations was higher than I thought it would be, and higher than the 2% background rate, but it’s still a modest increase and most babies are born completely normal,” Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurosciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “I think the news here is good, and it’s especially reassuring when you put it in the context that, 60 years ago, there were laws that women with epilepsy couldn’t get married, and some states even had laws to sterilize women. I think that’s absurd when most infants born to these women are without malformations and the risk of miscarriage is very low.”

Another positive finding, he said, is that valproate use among pregnant women is now practically nonexistent. Only 1 of 351 pregnant women with epilepsy and just 2 of a comparator group of 109 nonpregnant women with epilepsy were taking it. That’s great news, said Dr. Meador, who also initiated the NEAD (Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs) study in the early 2000s. NEAD determined the drug’s serious teratogenic potential.


In addition to the cohorts of pregnant and nonpregnant women with epilepsy, 105 healthy pregnant women enrolled in the MONEAD study. Women will be monitored during pregnancy and postpartum to measure maternal outcomes and their children will be monitored from birth through age 6 years to measure their health and developmental outcomes.

The study has six primary outcomes, three for the women and three for their children.

• Determine if women with epilepsy have increased seizures during pregnancy and delineate the contributing factors.
• Determine if C-section rate is increased in women with epilepsy and delineate contributing factors.
• Determine if women with epilepsy have an increased risk for depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period and characterize risk factors.
• Determine the long-term effects of in utero AED exposure on verbal intellectual abilities and other neurobehavioral outcomes.
• Determine if small-for-gestational age and other adverse neonatal outcomes are increased.
• Determine if breastfeeding when taking AEDs impairs the child’s ultimate verbal and other cognitive outcomes.

Rates of miscarriage and neonatal malformations were not primary study outcomes, but the descriptive data were collected and are of high interest, Dr. Meador said.

At baseline, all the women had a mean age of about 30 years. Most (75%) were on monotherapy, 20% were on polytherapy, and the rest were not taking an AED. About 60% had focal epilepsy, 31% had generalized epilepsy, and the remainder had an unclassified seizure disorder. Three subjects had multiple seizure types. The most commonly used AEDs were lamotrigine and levetiracetam (both about 30%); 4% were taking zonisamide, 4% carbamazepine, and 4% oxcarbazepine. Topiramate was being used for 2% of the pregnant woman and 5% of the nonpregnant woman. The combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam was used for 9.0% of pregnant and 5.5% of nonpregnant women, and other polytherapies in 12.0% of the pregnant and 14.0% of the nonpregnant woman. About 4% of the pregnant and 1% of the nonpregnant women were not taking any AED.

There were 10 (2.8%) spontaneous miscarriages among the pregnant women with epilepsy and none among the healthy pregnant women. Spontaneous miscarriages weren’t associated with acute seizures, and there were no major congenital malformations reported among them. There were also two elective abortions among the pregnant women with epilepsy.

There were 18 major congenital malformations among the pregnant woman with epilepsy (5%). A total of 14 were among pregnancies exposed to monotherapy, 3 were in polytherapy-exposed pregnancies, and 1 was in the group not taking any AEDs.

The malformations were:

• Carbamazepine (one case) – hydronephrosis.
• Gabapentin (one case) – inguinal hernia.
• Lamotrigine (five cases) – aortic coarctation, cryptorchidism, hydronephrosis, pectus excavatum, and morning glory syndrome (a funnel-shaped optic nerve disc associated with impaired visual acuity).
• Levetiracetam (five cases) – atrial septal defect, buried penis syndrome, cryptorchidism, hypoplastic aortic valve, ventricular septal defect.
• Topiramate (one case) – ventricular septal defect.
• Zonisamide (one case) – inguinal hernia, absent pinna.
• Lamotrigine plus clonazepam (one case) – cardiomyopathy.
• Lamotrigine plus levetiracetam (one case) – microcephaly, myelomeningocele, Chiari II malformation.
• Levetiracetam plus phenobarbital (one case) – bilateral inguinal hernia.

MONEAD is funded by the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Meador reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Meador KJ et al. AES 2018, Abstract 3.231.

NEW ORLEANS – The most commonly used antiepileptic drugs modestly increased the risk of major congenital malformations among prenatally exposed infants in the MONEAD study.

Malformations occurred among 5% of pregnancies exposed to the medications – higher than the 2% background rate – but this was still much lower than the 9%-10% rate associated with valproate.

Overall, however, the message of the Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic (MONEAD) study is quite reassuring, Kimford J. Meador, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. MONEAD is an ongoing, prospective study to determine both maternal outcomes and long-term childhood neurodevelopmental outcomes associated with the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) during pregnancy.

“The rate of malformations was higher than I thought it would be, and higher than the 2% background rate, but it’s still a modest increase and most babies are born completely normal,” Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurosciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “I think the news here is good, and it’s especially reassuring when you put it in the context that, 60 years ago, there were laws that women with epilepsy couldn’t get married, and some states even had laws to sterilize women. I think that’s absurd when most infants born to these women are without malformations and the risk of miscarriage is very low.”

Another positive finding, he said, is that valproate use among pregnant women is now practically nonexistent. Only 1 of 351 pregnant women with epilepsy and just 2 of a comparator group of 109 nonpregnant women with epilepsy were taking it. That’s great news, said Dr. Meador, who also initiated the NEAD (Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs) study in the early 2000s. NEAD determined the drug’s serious teratogenic potential.


In addition to the cohorts of pregnant and nonpregnant women with epilepsy, 105 healthy pregnant women enrolled in the MONEAD study. Women will be monitored during pregnancy and postpartum to measure maternal outcomes and their children will be monitored from birth through age 6 years to measure their health and developmental outcomes.

The study has six primary outcomes, three for the women and three for their children.

• Determine if women with epilepsy have increased seizures during pregnancy and delineate the contributing factors.
• Determine if C-section rate is increased in women with epilepsy and delineate contributing factors.
• Determine if women with epilepsy have an increased risk for depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period and characterize risk factors.
• Determine the long-term effects of in utero AED exposure on verbal intellectual abilities and other neurobehavioral outcomes.
• Determine if small-for-gestational age and other adverse neonatal outcomes are increased.
• Determine if breastfeeding when taking AEDs impairs the child’s ultimate verbal and other cognitive outcomes.

Rates of miscarriage and neonatal malformations were not primary study outcomes, but the descriptive data were collected and are of high interest, Dr. Meador said.

At baseline, all the women had a mean age of about 30 years. Most (75%) were on monotherapy, 20% were on polytherapy, and the rest were not taking an AED. About 60% had focal epilepsy, 31% had generalized epilepsy, and the remainder had an unclassified seizure disorder. Three subjects had multiple seizure types. The most commonly used AEDs were lamotrigine and levetiracetam (both about 30%); 4% were taking zonisamide, 4% carbamazepine, and 4% oxcarbazepine. Topiramate was being used for 2% of the pregnant woman and 5% of the nonpregnant woman. The combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam was used for 9.0% of pregnant and 5.5% of nonpregnant women, and other polytherapies in 12.0% of the pregnant and 14.0% of the nonpregnant woman. About 4% of the pregnant and 1% of the nonpregnant women were not taking any AED.

There were 10 (2.8%) spontaneous miscarriages among the pregnant women with epilepsy and none among the healthy pregnant women. Spontaneous miscarriages weren’t associated with acute seizures, and there were no major congenital malformations reported among them. There were also two elective abortions among the pregnant women with epilepsy.

There were 18 major congenital malformations among the pregnant woman with epilepsy (5%). A total of 14 were among pregnancies exposed to monotherapy, 3 were in polytherapy-exposed pregnancies, and 1 was in the group not taking any AEDs.

The malformations were:

• Carbamazepine (one case) – hydronephrosis.
• Gabapentin (one case) – inguinal hernia.
• Lamotrigine (five cases) – aortic coarctation, cryptorchidism, hydronephrosis, pectus excavatum, and morning glory syndrome (a funnel-shaped optic nerve disc associated with impaired visual acuity).
• Levetiracetam (five cases) – atrial septal defect, buried penis syndrome, cryptorchidism, hypoplastic aortic valve, ventricular septal defect.
• Topiramate (one case) – ventricular septal defect.
• Zonisamide (one case) – inguinal hernia, absent pinna.
• Lamotrigine plus clonazepam (one case) – cardiomyopathy.
• Lamotrigine plus levetiracetam (one case) – microcephaly, myelomeningocele, Chiari II malformation.
• Levetiracetam plus phenobarbital (one case) – bilateral inguinal hernia.

MONEAD is funded by the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Meador reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Meador KJ et al. AES 2018, Abstract 3.231.

MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.

In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.

In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.

Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.

The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.

The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.

BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.


 

MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.

In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.

In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.

Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.

The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.

The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.

BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.


 

MONTREAL – A randomized trial designed to definitively test the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic strokes caused by basilar artery occlusion fell victim to slow recruitment and crossovers that muddied the intention-to-treat results, but the per-protocol and as-treated analyses both showed that thrombectomy was superior to best medical therapy in a multicenter, randomized study with 131 Chinese patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Our findings should be considered in the context of the best evidence currently available, and progressive loss of equipoise for endovascular therapy for severe, large-vessel occlusion strokes,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. “This was not a perfect trial, but it’s the best data we have, by far, at least for now” on the value of mechanical thrombectomy for treating acute ischemic stroke caused by a basilar artery occlusion, added Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology and director of the neuroendovascular service at Emory University, Atlanta.

In the study’s per-protocol analysis, which considered patients who received their randomized treatment, the study’s primary endpoint of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days after treatment was 44% in 63 patients who underwent thrombectomy and 26% in 51 patients randomized to best medical therapy who remained on that regimen, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Nogueira reported. In the as-treated analysis, which considered all enrolled patients based on the treatment they actually received regardless of randomization group, 77 patients treated with thrombectomy had a 47% rate of achieving the primary outcome, compared with 24% of 54 controls, also a statistically significant difference.

In contrast, the prespecified primary analysis for the study, the intention-to-treat analysis that considered patients based on their randomization assignment regardless of the treatment they actually received, showed that after 90 days the rate of patients with a mRS score of 0-3 was 42% in 66 thrombectomy patients and 32% among 65 controls, a difference that was not significant; this is a finding that, from a purist’s standpoint, makes the trial’s result neutral. The per-protocol and as-treated analyses were also prespecified steps in the study’s design, but not primary endpoints.

Despite the shortcoming for the primary analysis, Dr. Nogueira said that he found the per-protocol and as-treated findings very persuasive. “I personally could not randomize these patients” in the future to not receive mechanical thrombectomy, he confessed from the podium.

The BEST trial randomized 131 patients at any of 28 Chinese sites between April 2015 and September 2017. Patients had to enter within 8 hours of stroke onset. The original trial design called for enrolling 344 patients, but the steering committee decided in 2017 to prematurely stop the study because of a progressive drop in enrollment of patients, and “excessive” crossovers from the control arm to thrombectomy, a total of 14 patients. During the final month of the trial, 6 of 10 patients assigned by randomization to receive best medical care instead underwent thrombectomy. “At that point, we pretty much had to stop,” Dr. Nogueira said. Enrolled patients averaged about 65 years old, about 90% had a basilar artery occlusion and about 10% a vertebral artery occlusion, about 30% received intravenous alteplase, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at entry was about 30.

The major adverse effect from thrombectomy seen in the study was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred in 5 of the 77 patients (6%) actually treated with thrombectomy, compared with none of the 54 patients not treated with thrombectomy. This modest rate of intracranial hemorrhages was “not unexpected,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

Acute ischemic strokes caused by a basilar artery occlusion are relatively uncommon, accounting for about 1% of all acute ischemic strokes and 5%-10% of acute ischemic strokes caused by occlusion of a proximal intracranial artery. But when these strokes occur, they are a “neurological catastrophe,” Dr. Nogueira said, causing severe disability or mortality in about 70% of patients.

BEST had no commercial funding. Dr. Nogueira reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):227, Abstract 978.


 

CHICAGO – A recent history of GI bleeding or malignancy may not be a valid contraindication to thrombolytic therapy in patients with an acute ischemic stroke, based on a review of outcomes from more than 40,000 U.S. stroke patients.

The analysis showed that, among 40,396 U.S. patients who had an acute ischemic stroke during 2009-2015 and received timely treatment with alteplase, “we did not find statistically significant increased rates of in-hospital mortality or bleeding” in the small number of patients who received alteplase (Activase) despite a recent GI bleed or diagnosed GI malignancy, Taku Inohara, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke deemed thrombolytic therapy with alteplase in these types of patients contraindicated, based on consensus expert opinion (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e66-e110).

“Further study is needed to evaluate the safety of recombinant tissue–type plasminogen activator [alteplase] in this specific population,” suggested Dr. Inohara, a cardiologist and research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

His analysis used data collected by the Get With the Guidelines–Stroke program, a voluntary quality promotion and improvement program that during 2009-2015 included records for more than 633,000 U.S. stroke patients that could be linked with records kept by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. From this database, 40,396 patients (6%) treated with alteplase within 4.5 hours of stroke onset were identified. The alteplase-treated patients included 93 with a diagnosis code during the prior year for a GI malignancy and 43 with a diagnostic code within the prior 21 days for a GI bleed.


Dr. Inohara and his associates determined patients’ mortality during their stroke hospitalization, as well as several measures of functional recovery at hospital discharge and thrombolysis-related complications. For each of these endpoints, the rate among patients with a GI malignancy, a GI bleed, or the rate among a combined group of both patients showed no statistically significant differences, compared with the more than 40,000 other patients without a GI complication after adjustment for several demographic and clinical between-group differences. However, Dr. Inohara cautioned that residual or unmeasured confounding may exist that distorts these findings. The rate of in-hospital mortality, the prespecified primary endpoint for the analysis, was 10% among patients with either type of GI complication and 9% in those without. The rate of serious thrombolysis-related complications was 7% in the patients with GI disease and 9% in those without.

In a separate analysis of the complete database of more than 633,000 patients, Dr. Inohara and his associates found 148 patients who had either a GI bleed or malignancy and otherwise qualified for thrombolytic therapy but did not receive this treatment. This meant that overall, in this large U.S. experience, 136 of 284 (48%) acute ischemic stroke patients who qualified for thrombolysis but had a GI complication nonetheless received thrombolysis. Further analysis showed that the patients not treated with thrombolysis had at admission an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 11, compared with an average score of 14 among patients who received thrombolysis.

This apparent selection for thrombolytic treatment of patients with more severe strokes “may have overestimated risk in the patients with GI disease,” Dr. Inohara said.

Dr. Inohara reported receiving research funding from Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Inohara T et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138[suppl 1], Abstract 12291.

CHICAGO – A recent history of GI bleeding or malignancy may not be a valid contraindication to thrombolytic therapy in patients with an acute ischemic stroke, based on a review of outcomes from more than 40,000 U.S. stroke patients.

The analysis showed that, among 40,396 U.S. patients who had an acute ischemic stroke during 2009-2015 and received timely treatment with alteplase, “we did not find statistically significant increased rates of in-hospital mortality or bleeding” in the small number of patients who received alteplase (Activase) despite a recent GI bleed or diagnosed GI malignancy, Taku Inohara, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke deemed thrombolytic therapy with alteplase in these types of patients contraindicated, based on consensus expert opinion (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e66-e110).

“Further study is needed to evaluate the safety of recombinant tissue–type plasminogen activator [alteplase] in this specific population,” suggested Dr. Inohara, a cardiologist and research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

His analysis used data collected by the Get With the Guidelines–Stroke program, a voluntary quality promotion and improvement program that during 2009-2015 included records for more than 633,000 U.S. stroke patients that could be linked with records kept by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. From this database, 40,396 patients (6%) treated with alteplase within 4.5 hours of stroke onset were identified. The alteplase-treated patients included 93 with a diagnosis code during the prior year for a GI malignancy and 43 with a diagnostic code within the prior 21 days for a GI bleed.


Dr. Inohara and his associates determined patients’ mortality during their stroke hospitalization, as well as several measures of functional recovery at hospital discharge and thrombolysis-related complications. For each of these endpoints, the rate among patients with a GI malignancy, a GI bleed, or the rate among a combined group of both patients showed no statistically significant differences, compared with the more than 40,000 other patients without a GI complication after adjustment for several demographic and clinical between-group differences. However, Dr. Inohara cautioned that residual or unmeasured confounding may exist that distorts these findings. The rate of in-hospital mortality, the prespecified primary endpoint for the analysis, was 10% among patients with either type of GI complication and 9% in those without. The rate of serious thrombolysis-related complications was 7% in the patients with GI disease and 9% in those without.

In a separate analysis of the complete database of more than 633,000 patients, Dr. Inohara and his associates found 148 patients who had either a GI bleed or malignancy and otherwise qualified for thrombolytic therapy but did not receive this treatment. This meant that overall, in this large U.S. experience, 136 of 284 (48%) acute ischemic stroke patients who qualified for thrombolysis but had a GI complication nonetheless received thrombolysis. Further analysis showed that the patients not treated with thrombolysis had at admission an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 11, compared with an average score of 14 among patients who received thrombolysis.

This apparent selection for thrombolytic treatment of patients with more severe strokes “may have overestimated risk in the patients with GI disease,” Dr. Inohara said.

Dr. Inohara reported receiving research funding from Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Inohara T et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138[suppl 1], Abstract 12291.

CHICAGO – A recent history of GI bleeding or malignancy may not be a valid contraindication to thrombolytic therapy in patients with an acute ischemic stroke, based on a review of outcomes from more than 40,000 U.S. stroke patients.

The analysis showed that, among 40,396 U.S. patients who had an acute ischemic stroke during 2009-2015 and received timely treatment with alteplase, “we did not find statistically significant increased rates of in-hospital mortality or bleeding” in the small number of patients who received alteplase (Activase) despite a recent GI bleed or diagnosed GI malignancy, Taku Inohara, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke deemed thrombolytic therapy with alteplase in these types of patients contraindicated, based on consensus expert opinion (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e66-e110).

“Further study is needed to evaluate the safety of recombinant tissue–type plasminogen activator [alteplase] in this specific population,” suggested Dr. Inohara, a cardiologist and research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

His analysis used data collected by the Get With the Guidelines–Stroke program, a voluntary quality promotion and improvement program that during 2009-2015 included records for more than 633,000 U.S. stroke patients that could be linked with records kept by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. From this database, 40,396 patients (6%) treated with alteplase within 4.5 hours of stroke onset were identified. The alteplase-treated patients included 93 with a diagnosis code during the prior year for a GI malignancy and 43 with a diagnostic code within the prior 21 days for a GI bleed.


Dr. Inohara and his associates determined patients’ mortality during their stroke hospitalization, as well as several measures of functional recovery at hospital discharge and thrombolysis-related complications. For each of these endpoints, the rate among patients with a GI malignancy, a GI bleed, or the rate among a combined group of both patients showed no statistically significant differences, compared with the more than 40,000 other patients without a GI complication after adjustment for several demographic and clinical between-group differences. However, Dr. Inohara cautioned that residual or unmeasured confounding may exist that distorts these findings. The rate of in-hospital mortality, the prespecified primary endpoint for the analysis, was 10% among patients with either type of GI complication and 9% in those without. The rate of serious thrombolysis-related complications was 7% in the patients with GI disease and 9% in those without.

In a separate analysis of the complete database of more than 633,000 patients, Dr. Inohara and his associates found 148 patients who had either a GI bleed or malignancy and otherwise qualified for thrombolytic therapy but did not receive this treatment. This meant that overall, in this large U.S. experience, 136 of 284 (48%) acute ischemic stroke patients who qualified for thrombolysis but had a GI complication nonetheless received thrombolysis. Further analysis showed that the patients not treated with thrombolysis had at admission an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 11, compared with an average score of 14 among patients who received thrombolysis.

This apparent selection for thrombolytic treatment of patients with more severe strokes “may have overestimated risk in the patients with GI disease,” Dr. Inohara said.

Dr. Inohara reported receiving research funding from Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Inohara T et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138[suppl 1], Abstract 12291.

BARCELONA – A malfunctioning inhaler may have scotched the results of an intranasal insulin study for patients with early Alzheimer’s disease – but in an unexpected way.

Instead of doing poorly, patients using the faulty device actually experienced better outcomes than did those who entered the study later and used a more reliable inhaler, Suzanne Craft, PhD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.

A secondary analysis of the ViaNase device subgroup “replicated findings in our original studies,” which used the same atomizer, said Dr. Craft, a professor of gerontology and geriatric medicine at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. “We remain optimistic, but clearly we are at the beginning of understanding optimal insulin doses and delivery techniques for this population.”

The 289-patient, placebo-controlled study was predicated by a prior successful study by Dr. Craft and her colleagues, published in 2012 in JAMA Neurology. That trial randomized 104 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild-moderate Alzheimer’s to placebo or intranasal insulin 20 or 40 IU. After 4 months, subjects in both insulin groups showed preserved cognition and functional abilities, as well as increased cerebral glucose metabolism.

The ViaNase device was manufactured by Kurve Technology. But the company redesigned it for the new trial, adding an electronic timing component, which Dr. Craft said, was supposed to increase ease of use.

“Unfortunately, there were frequent malfunctions of this mechanism for the first 49 patients – so much so that we had to discontinue using the device and switch to a newer one,” for the other 240 patients in the study. This intranasal drug-delivery system, called the Precisions Olfactory Delivery (POD) device, is made by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Craft’s trial is its first investigation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

The new study randomized 289 patients with MCI or mild Alzheimer’s to twice-daily sprays with a placebo device, or to intranasal insulin 40 IU for 12 months, followed by a 6-month, open-label period. The primary outcome was the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognition measure (ADAS-Cog 12). Secondary outcomes were the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (CDR-sb) a memory composite measure, activities of daily living, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, and MRI of the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex.

Because of the device problems, Dr. Craft conducted separate analyses for the user groups. The primary was an intent-to-treat (ITT), mixed-model, repeat-measures analysis of the 240 using the POD device. The model controlled for age, sex, genetic risk status, and investigation site. An exploratory ITT analysis looked only at the ADAS-Cog 12 in the 49 who used the ViaNase device. Patients were a mean of 71 years old, with a mean Mini Mental State Exam score of 25. About 42% were positive for the high-risk apolipoprotein E epsilon-4 allele.

At 12 months, there was no between-group difference on the ADAS-Cog 12 measure; both groups increased by about 4 points, indicating worsening. Nor were there any changes in any of the Alzheimer’s-related biomarkers: amyloid-beta 40 and 42, total tau, or phosphorylated tau. There was a small but statistically significant difference in the sizes of the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex.

The ViaNase group fared somewhat better in the secondary analysis of the ADAS-Cog12. The measure increased by about 5 points in the placebo group, and about 2.5 points in the insulin group. The significant separation was evident at 3 months and continued to widen over the course of the study.

Compliance was very good in the larger group – around 85%. It was lower in the ViaNase group, probably because of the device’s unreliability. Retention was good in both groups. There were no significant differences in adverse events and no obvious safety issues.

The 6-month, open-label period will close out before the end of the year. In the meantime, Dr. Craft is conducting additional subgroup analyses on the 12-month data.

Dr. Craft has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline and Accera.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Craft S et al. J Prev Alz Dis 2018;5(S1):S9, Abstract OC2.

BARCELONA – A malfunctioning inhaler may have scotched the results of an intranasal insulin study for patients with early Alzheimer’s disease – but in an unexpected way.

Instead of doing poorly, patients using the faulty device actually experienced better outcomes than did those who entered the study later and used a more reliable inhaler, Suzanne Craft, PhD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.

A secondary analysis of the ViaNase device subgroup “replicated findings in our original studies,” which used the same atomizer, said Dr. Craft, a professor of gerontology and geriatric medicine at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. “We remain optimistic, but clearly we are at the beginning of understanding optimal insulin doses and delivery techniques for this population.”

The 289-patient, placebo-controlled study was predicated by a prior successful study by Dr. Craft and her colleagues, published in 2012 in JAMA Neurology. That trial randomized 104 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild-moderate Alzheimer’s to placebo or intranasal insulin 20 or 40 IU. After 4 months, subjects in both insulin groups showed preserved cognition and functional abilities, as well as increased cerebral glucose metabolism.

The ViaNase device was manufactured by Kurve Technology. But the company redesigned it for the new trial, adding an electronic timing component, which Dr. Craft said, was supposed to increase ease of use.

“Unfortunately, there were frequent malfunctions of this mechanism for the first 49 patients – so much so that we had to discontinue using the device and switch to a newer one,” for the other 240 patients in the study. This intranasal drug-delivery system, called the Precisions Olfactory Delivery (POD) device, is made by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Craft’s trial is its first investigation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

The new study randomized 289 patients with MCI or mild Alzheimer’s to twice-daily sprays with a placebo device, or to intranasal insulin 40 IU for 12 months, followed by a 6-month, open-label period. The primary outcome was the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognition measure (ADAS-Cog 12). Secondary outcomes were the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (CDR-sb) a memory composite measure, activities of daily living, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, and MRI of the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex.

Because of the device problems, Dr. Craft conducted separate analyses for the user groups. The primary was an intent-to-treat (ITT), mixed-model, repeat-measures analysis of the 240 using the POD device. The model controlled for age, sex, genetic risk status, and investigation site. An exploratory ITT analysis looked only at the ADAS-Cog 12 in the 49 who used the ViaNase device. Patients were a mean of 71 years old, with a mean Mini Mental State Exam score of 25. About 42% were positive for the high-risk apolipoprotein E epsilon-4 allele.

At 12 months, there was no between-group difference on the ADAS-Cog 12 measure; both groups increased by about 4 points, indicating worsening. Nor were there any changes in any of the Alzheimer’s-related biomarkers: amyloid-beta 40 and 42, total tau, or phosphorylated tau. There was a small but statistically significant difference in the sizes of the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex.

The ViaNase group fared somewhat better in the secondary analysis of the ADAS-Cog12. The measure increased by about 5 points in the placebo group, and about 2.5 points in the insulin group. The significant separation was evident at 3 months and continued to widen over the course of the study.

Compliance was very good in the larger group – around 85%. It was lower in the ViaNase group, probably because of the device’s unreliability. Retention was good in both groups. There were no significant differences in adverse events and no obvious safety issues.

The 6-month, open-label period will close out before the end of the year. In the meantime, Dr. Craft is conducting additional subgroup analyses on the 12-month data.

Dr. Craft has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline and Accera.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Craft S et al. J Prev Alz Dis 2018;5(S1):S9, Abstract OC2.

BARCELONA – A malfunctioning inhaler may have scotched the results of an intranasal insulin study for patients with early Alzheimer’s disease – but in an unexpected way.

Instead of doing poorly, patients using the faulty device actually experienced better outcomes than did those who entered the study later and used a more reliable inhaler, Suzanne Craft, PhD, said at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease conference.

A secondary analysis of the ViaNase device subgroup “replicated findings in our original studies,” which used the same atomizer, said Dr. Craft, a professor of gerontology and geriatric medicine at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. “We remain optimistic, but clearly we are at the beginning of understanding optimal insulin doses and delivery techniques for this population.”

The 289-patient, placebo-controlled study was predicated by a prior successful study by Dr. Craft and her colleagues, published in 2012 in JAMA Neurology. That trial randomized 104 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild-moderate Alzheimer’s to placebo or intranasal insulin 20 or 40 IU. After 4 months, subjects in both insulin groups showed preserved cognition and functional abilities, as well as increased cerebral glucose metabolism.

The ViaNase device was manufactured by Kurve Technology. But the company redesigned it for the new trial, adding an electronic timing component, which Dr. Craft said, was supposed to increase ease of use.

“Unfortunately, there were frequent malfunctions of this mechanism for the first 49 patients – so much so that we had to discontinue using the device and switch to a newer one,” for the other 240 patients in the study. This intranasal drug-delivery system, called the Precisions Olfactory Delivery (POD) device, is made by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Craft’s trial is its first investigation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

The new study randomized 289 patients with MCI or mild Alzheimer’s to twice-daily sprays with a placebo device, or to intranasal insulin 40 IU for 12 months, followed by a 6-month, open-label period. The primary outcome was the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognition measure (ADAS-Cog 12). Secondary outcomes were the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (CDR-sb) a memory composite measure, activities of daily living, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, and MRI of the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex.

Because of the device problems, Dr. Craft conducted separate analyses for the user groups. The primary was an intent-to-treat (ITT), mixed-model, repeat-measures analysis of the 240 using the POD device. The model controlled for age, sex, genetic risk status, and investigation site. An exploratory ITT analysis looked only at the ADAS-Cog 12 in the 49 who used the ViaNase device. Patients were a mean of 71 years old, with a mean Mini Mental State Exam score of 25. About 42% were positive for the high-risk apolipoprotein E epsilon-4 allele.

At 12 months, there was no between-group difference on the ADAS-Cog 12 measure; both groups increased by about 4 points, indicating worsening. Nor were there any changes in any of the Alzheimer’s-related biomarkers: amyloid-beta 40 and 42, total tau, or phosphorylated tau. There was a small but statistically significant difference in the sizes of the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex.

The ViaNase group fared somewhat better in the secondary analysis of the ADAS-Cog12. The measure increased by about 5 points in the placebo group, and about 2.5 points in the insulin group. The significant separation was evident at 3 months and continued to widen over the course of the study.

Compliance was very good in the larger group – around 85%. It was lower in the ViaNase group, probably because of the device’s unreliability. Retention was good in both groups. There were no significant differences in adverse events and no obvious safety issues.

The 6-month, open-label period will close out before the end of the year. In the meantime, Dr. Craft is conducting additional subgroup analyses on the 12-month data.

Dr. Craft has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline and Accera.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Craft S et al. J Prev Alz Dis 2018;5(S1):S9, Abstract OC2.

NEW ORLEANS – Concurrent surgical resection and implanted strip electrodes eliminated refractory focal seizures in two patients with focal cortical dysplasia and reduced them by 62% in a third patient, according a report presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

None of the patients had been considered surgical candidates because their seizure foci were in eloquent cortical regions; if fully resected, patients would have experienced marked neurologic deficits. But the combination procedure of flanking the incomplete resected foci with implanted electrodes allowed neurosurgeons to remove less tissue, preserving function while effectively treating previously untreatable seizures, Emily Mirro said at the meeting.

The two-in-one technique makes good surgical sense for these patients, she said in an interview. “If we simply performed the resection and closed without implanting the electrodes, just waiting to see if seizures develop or not, then going back to implant the electrodes, the surgery is riskier and more difficult,” said Ms. Mirro, director of field clinical engineering for NeuroPace, which makes the stimulator system.

At the meeting, she presented three case studies on behalf of primary authors Lawrence Shuer, MD, and Babak Razavi, MD, PhD, both of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The first patient was a 26-year-old with a focal cortical dysplasia in the right parietal region, causing about six seizures each month. At the time of surgery, surgeons flanked the resected region with four cortical strip leads over sensory cortex. The RNS System detected the first postsurgical seizure 1 month afterward. Five months later, the system was enabled at 0.5 milliamps. For the next year, the patient received about 100 stimulations per day, amounting to a total daily stimulation time of about 20 seconds. Electrographic seizures did return, at which point the system increased neurostimulation to about 2,000 per day (a total stimulation time of about 7 minutes per day). At 1.3 years, the patient remains seizure free.

Patient two was a 20-year-old with a left frontal transmantle cortical dysplasia that involved the inferior frontal sulcus. The baseline seizure frequency was about two per day. Surgeons removed the dysplastic area with a 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm resection; the deficit was flanked with two left-front cortical strip leads. In the following 9 days, the patient experienced eight seizures. At 14 days out, the system was enabled at 1 milliamp. This patient became seizure free and remains so at 1.3 years, with about 100 stimulations per day to suppress electrographic abnormalities.

The third patient, also 20 years old, had a left-parietal resection to the margin of the motor cortex. The baseline seizure frequency was up to 150 nocturnal events per month and several seizures during each day as well. The resection was flanked by one strip lead over the motor cortex; one depth lead implanted into it. Immediately after surgery, the patient experienced both electrographic and clinical seizures. The stimulator was enabled a week after surgery at 0.5 milliamps; this was titrated to 3 milliamps over 1.4 years. At last follow-up, the patient had about a 62% reduction in seizure frequency; all are now nocturnal.

None of the patients experienced any peri- or postoperative surgical complications.

Ms. Mirro is an employee of NeuroPace.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Razavi B et al. AES 2018, Abstract 2.315

NEW ORLEANS – Concurrent surgical resection and implanted strip electrodes eliminated refractory focal seizures in two patients with focal cortical dysplasia and reduced them by 62% in a third patient, according a report presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

None of the patients had been considered surgical candidates because their seizure foci were in eloquent cortical regions; if fully resected, patients would have experienced marked neurologic deficits. But the combination procedure of flanking the incomplete resected foci with implanted electrodes allowed neurosurgeons to remove less tissue, preserving function while effectively treating previously untreatable seizures, Emily Mirro said at the meeting.

The two-in-one technique makes good surgical sense for these patients, she said in an interview. “If we simply performed the resection and closed without implanting the electrodes, just waiting to see if seizures develop or not, then going back to implant the electrodes, the surgery is riskier and more difficult,” said Ms. Mirro, director of field clinical engineering for NeuroPace, which makes the stimulator system.

At the meeting, she presented three case studies on behalf of primary authors Lawrence Shuer, MD, and Babak Razavi, MD, PhD, both of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The first patient was a 26-year-old with a focal cortical dysplasia in the right parietal region, causing about six seizures each month. At the time of surgery, surgeons flanked the resected region with four cortical strip leads over sensory cortex. The RNS System detected the first postsurgical seizure 1 month afterward. Five months later, the system was enabled at 0.5 milliamps. For the next year, the patient received about 100 stimulations per day, amounting to a total daily stimulation time of about 20 seconds. Electrographic seizures did return, at which point the system increased neurostimulation to about 2,000 per day (a total stimulation time of about 7 minutes per day). At 1.3 years, the patient remains seizure free.

Patient two was a 20-year-old with a left frontal transmantle cortical dysplasia that involved the inferior frontal sulcus. The baseline seizure frequency was about two per day. Surgeons removed the dysplastic area with a 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm resection; the deficit was flanked with two left-front cortical strip leads. In the following 9 days, the patient experienced eight seizures. At 14 days out, the system was enabled at 1 milliamp. This patient became seizure free and remains so at 1.3 years, with about 100 stimulations per day to suppress electrographic abnormalities.

The third patient, also 20 years old, had a left-parietal resection to the margin of the motor cortex. The baseline seizure frequency was up to 150 nocturnal events per month and several seizures during each day as well. The resection was flanked by one strip lead over the motor cortex; one depth lead implanted into it. Immediately after surgery, the patient experienced both electrographic and clinical seizures. The stimulator was enabled a week after surgery at 0.5 milliamps; this was titrated to 3 milliamps over 1.4 years. At last follow-up, the patient had about a 62% reduction in seizure frequency; all are now nocturnal.

None of the patients experienced any peri- or postoperative surgical complications.

Ms. Mirro is an employee of NeuroPace.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Razavi B et al. AES 2018, Abstract 2.315

NEW ORLEANS – Concurrent surgical resection and implanted strip electrodes eliminated refractory focal seizures in two patients with focal cortical dysplasia and reduced them by 62% in a third patient, according a report presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

None of the patients had been considered surgical candidates because their seizure foci were in eloquent cortical regions; if fully resected, patients would have experienced marked neurologic deficits. But the combination procedure of flanking the incomplete resected foci with implanted electrodes allowed neurosurgeons to remove less tissue, preserving function while effectively treating previously untreatable seizures, Emily Mirro said at the meeting.

The two-in-one technique makes good surgical sense for these patients, she said in an interview. “If we simply performed the resection and closed without implanting the electrodes, just waiting to see if seizures develop or not, then going back to implant the electrodes, the surgery is riskier and more difficult,” said Ms. Mirro, director of field clinical engineering for NeuroPace, which makes the stimulator system.

At the meeting, she presented three case studies on behalf of primary authors Lawrence Shuer, MD, and Babak Razavi, MD, PhD, both of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The first patient was a 26-year-old with a focal cortical dysplasia in the right parietal region, causing about six seizures each month. At the time of surgery, surgeons flanked the resected region with four cortical strip leads over sensory cortex. The RNS System detected the first postsurgical seizure 1 month afterward. Five months later, the system was enabled at 0.5 milliamps. For the next year, the patient received about 100 stimulations per day, amounting to a total daily stimulation time of about 20 seconds. Electrographic seizures did return, at which point the system increased neurostimulation to about 2,000 per day (a total stimulation time of about 7 minutes per day). At 1.3 years, the patient remains seizure free.

Patient two was a 20-year-old with a left frontal transmantle cortical dysplasia that involved the inferior frontal sulcus. The baseline seizure frequency was about two per day. Surgeons removed the dysplastic area with a 2.0 cm x 0.5 cm resection; the deficit was flanked with two left-front cortical strip leads. In the following 9 days, the patient experienced eight seizures. At 14 days out, the system was enabled at 1 milliamp. This patient became seizure free and remains so at 1.3 years, with about 100 stimulations per day to suppress electrographic abnormalities.

The third patient, also 20 years old, had a left-parietal resection to the margin of the motor cortex. The baseline seizure frequency was up to 150 nocturnal events per month and several seizures during each day as well. The resection was flanked by one strip lead over the motor cortex; one depth lead implanted into it. Immediately after surgery, the patient experienced both electrographic and clinical seizures. The stimulator was enabled a week after surgery at 0.5 milliamps; this was titrated to 3 milliamps over 1.4 years. At last follow-up, the patient had about a 62% reduction in seizure frequency; all are now nocturnal.

None of the patients experienced any peri- or postoperative surgical complications.

Ms. Mirro is an employee of NeuroPace.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Razavi B et al. AES 2018, Abstract 2.315

NEW ORLEANS – Women with epilepsy may have greater rates of infertility and impaired fecundity, compared with the general population, based on a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Data recorded in the 2010-2014 Epilepsy Birth Control Registry indicates a 9.2% infertility rate and a 22.5% impaired fecundity rate among American women with epilepsy. Both rates are higher than the general population infertility rate of 6.0% and the 12.1% rate of impaired fecundity cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, differences between the study of women with epilepsy and the study of the general population may limit the validity of this comparison, said Devon B. MacEachern, clinical and research coordinator at Neuroendocrine Associates in Wellesley Hills, Mass.

It is likewise uncertain whether use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) affects women’s fertility or fecundity.

The Epilepsy Birth Control Registry collected data from an Internet-based survey of 1,144 community-dwelling women with epilepsy aged 18-47 years. Participants provided information about demographics, epilepsy, AEDs, reproduction, and contraception.

The researchers focused on rates of infertility, impaired fecundity, and live birth or unaborted pregnancy among 978 American women, and additionally examined whether these outcomes were related to AED use.

Infertility was defined as the percentage of participants who had unprotected sex but did not become pregnant by 1 year. Impaired fecundity was the percentage of participants who were infertile or did not carry a pregnancy to live birth. The study excluded from the impaired fecundity analysis the 41 respondents whose only outcomes were induced abortions. The 18% of pregnancies that terminated as induced abortions were excluded from the live birth rate analysis.

In all, 373 registry participants had 724 pregnancies and 422 births between 1981 and 2013. The women had an average of 2.15 pregnancies at a mean age of 24.9 years (range, 13-44 years). In addition, 38 women (9.2%) tried to conceive, but were infertile. Of 306 women with a first pregnancy, 222 (72.5%) had a live birth. Among 292 women with two pregnancies, 260 (89.0%) had at least one live birth, and 180 (61.6%) had two live births.

Of the 373 women, 84 (22.5%) with pregnancies had impaired fecundity. The risk of impaired fecundity tended to be higher among women on AED polytherapy than among women on no AED (risk ratio, 1.74).

The ratio of live births to pregnancy (71.0%) was similar among women on no AEDs (71.3%), those on AED monotherapy (71.8%), and those on polytherapy (69.7%). The live birth rate was 67.5% for women taking enzyme-inducing AEDs, 89.1% for women taking glucuronidated AEDs, 72.8% for women taking nonenzyme-inducing AEDs, 63.3% for women taking enzyme-inhibiting AEDs, and 69.7% for women on polytherapy. Lamotrigine use was associated with the highest ratio of live births to pregnancies at 89.1%; valproate use was associated with the lowest ratio of live births to pregnancies at 63.3%.

The investigation was funded by the Epilepsy Foundation and Lundbeck.

[email protected]

SOURCE: MacEachern DB et al. AES 2018, Abstract 1.426.

NEW ORLEANS – Women with epilepsy may have greater rates of infertility and impaired fecundity, compared with the general population, based on a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Data recorded in the 2010-2014 Epilepsy Birth Control Registry indicates a 9.2% infertility rate and a 22.5% impaired fecundity rate among American women with epilepsy. Both rates are higher than the general population infertility rate of 6.0% and the 12.1% rate of impaired fecundity cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, differences between the study of women with epilepsy and the study of the general population may limit the validity of this comparison, said Devon B. MacEachern, clinical and research coordinator at Neuroendocrine Associates in Wellesley Hills, Mass.

It is likewise uncertain whether use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) affects women’s fertility or fecundity.

The Epilepsy Birth Control Registry collected data from an Internet-based survey of 1,144 community-dwelling women with epilepsy aged 18-47 years. Participants provided information about demographics, epilepsy, AEDs, reproduction, and contraception.

The researchers focused on rates of infertility, impaired fecundity, and live birth or unaborted pregnancy among 978 American women, and additionally examined whether these outcomes were related to AED use.

Infertility was defined as the percentage of participants who had unprotected sex but did not become pregnant by 1 year. Impaired fecundity was the percentage of participants who were infertile or did not carry a pregnancy to live birth. The study excluded from the impaired fecundity analysis the 41 respondents whose only outcomes were induced abortions. The 18% of pregnancies that terminated as induced abortions were excluded from the live birth rate analysis.

In all, 373 registry participants had 724 pregnancies and 422 births between 1981 and 2013. The women had an average of 2.15 pregnancies at a mean age of 24.9 years (range, 13-44 years). In addition, 38 women (9.2%) tried to conceive, but were infertile. Of 306 women with a first pregnancy, 222 (72.5%) had a live birth. Among 292 women with two pregnancies, 260 (89.0%) had at least one live birth, and 180 (61.6%) had two live births.

Of the 373 women, 84 (22.5%) with pregnancies had impaired fecundity. The risk of impaired fecundity tended to be higher among women on AED polytherapy than among women on no AED (risk ratio, 1.74).

The ratio of live births to pregnancy (71.0%) was similar among women on no AEDs (71.3%), those on AED monotherapy (71.8%), and those on polytherapy (69.7%). The live birth rate was 67.5% for women taking enzyme-inducing AEDs, 89.1% for women taking glucuronidated AEDs, 72.8% for women taking nonenzyme-inducing AEDs, 63.3% for women taking enzyme-inhibiting AEDs, and 69.7% for women on polytherapy. Lamotrigine use was associated with the highest ratio of live births to pregnancies at 89.1%; valproate use was associated with the lowest ratio of live births to pregnancies at 63.3%.

The investigation was funded by the Epilepsy Foundation and Lundbeck.

[email protected]

SOURCE: MacEachern DB et al. AES 2018, Abstract 1.426.

NEW ORLEANS – Women with epilepsy may have greater rates of infertility and impaired fecundity, compared with the general population, based on a retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Data recorded in the 2010-2014 Epilepsy Birth Control Registry indicates a 9.2% infertility rate and a 22.5% impaired fecundity rate among American women with epilepsy. Both rates are higher than the general population infertility rate of 6.0% and the 12.1% rate of impaired fecundity cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, differences between the study of women with epilepsy and the study of the general population may limit the validity of this comparison, said Devon B. MacEachern, clinical and research coordinator at Neuroendocrine Associates in Wellesley Hills, Mass.

It is likewise uncertain whether use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) affects women’s fertility or fecundity.

The Epilepsy Birth Control Registry collected data from an Internet-based survey of 1,144 community-dwelling women with epilepsy aged 18-47 years. Participants provided information about demographics, epilepsy, AEDs, reproduction, and contraception.

The researchers focused on rates of infertility, impaired fecundity, and live birth or unaborted pregnancy among 978 American women, and additionally examined whether these outcomes were related to AED use.

Infertility was defined as the percentage of participants who had unprotected sex but did not become pregnant by 1 year. Impaired fecundity was the percentage of participants who were infertile or did not carry a pregnancy to live birth. The study excluded from the impaired fecundity analysis the 41 respondents whose only outcomes were induced abortions. The 18% of pregnancies that terminated as induced abortions were excluded from the live birth rate analysis.

In all, 373 registry participants had 724 pregnancies and 422 births between 1981 and 2013. The women had an average of 2.15 pregnancies at a mean age of 24.9 years (range, 13-44 years). In addition, 38 women (9.2%) tried to conceive, but were infertile. Of 306 women with a first pregnancy, 222 (72.5%) had a live birth. Among 292 women with two pregnancies, 260 (89.0%) had at least one live birth, and 180 (61.6%) had two live births.

Of the 373 women, 84 (22.5%) with pregnancies had impaired fecundity. The risk of impaired fecundity tended to be higher among women on AED polytherapy than among women on no AED (risk ratio, 1.74).

The ratio of live births to pregnancy (71.0%) was similar among women on no AEDs (71.3%), those on AED monotherapy (71.8%), and those on polytherapy (69.7%). The live birth rate was 67.5% for women taking enzyme-inducing AEDs, 89.1% for women taking glucuronidated AEDs, 72.8% for women taking nonenzyme-inducing AEDs, 63.3% for women taking enzyme-inhibiting AEDs, and 69.7% for women on polytherapy. Lamotrigine use was associated with the highest ratio of live births to pregnancies at 89.1%; valproate use was associated with the lowest ratio of live births to pregnancies at 63.3%.

The investigation was funded by the Epilepsy Foundation and Lundbeck.

[email protected]

SOURCE: MacEachern DB et al. AES 2018, Abstract 1.426.

NEW ORLEANS – Seizure frequency increased during pregnancy for 53% of women with frontal lobe epilepsy, based on a study reported by Paula E. Voinescu, MD, PhD, at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Jacob Remaly/MDedge News

The single center study included data on 76 pregnancies in women with focal epilepsy –17 of them in patients with frontal lobe epilepsy – and 38 pregnancies in women with generalized epilepsy. Seizures were more frequent during pregnancy, compared with baseline, in 5.5% of women with generalized epilepsy, 22.6% of women with focal epilepsies, and 53.0% of women with frontal lobe epilepsy, said Dr. Voinescu, lead author of the study and a neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Frontal lobe epilepsy is known to be difficult to manage in general and often resistant to therapy, but it isn’t clear why the seizures got worse among pregnant women because the levels of medication in their blood was considered adequate. Until more research provides treatment guidance, doctors should carefully monitor their pregnant patients who have focal epilepsy to see if their seizures increase despite adequate blood levels and then adjust their medication if necessary,” she advised. “As we know from other research, seizures during pregnancy can increase the risk of distress and neurodevelopmental delays for the baby, as well as the risk of miscarriage.”

For the study, Dr. Voinescu and her colleagues analyzed prospectively collected clinical data from 99 pregnant women followed at Brigham and Women’s Hospital between 2013 and 2018.

The researchers excluded patients with abortions, seizure onset during pregnancy, poorly defined preconception seizure frequency, nonepileptic seizures, antiepileptic drug (AED) noncompliance, and pregnancies that were enrolled in other studies. The investigators documented patients’ seizure types and AED regimens and recorded seizure frequency during the 9 months before conception, during pregnancy, and 9 months postpartum. The researchers summed all seizures for each individual for each interval. They defined seizure frequency worsening as any increase above the preconception baseline, and evaluated differences between focal and generalized epilepsy and between frontal lobe and other focal epilepsies.

Increased seizure activity tended to occur in women on more than one AED, according to Dr. Voinescu. In women with frontal lobe epilepsy, seizure worsening during pregnancy was most likely to begin in the second trimester.

The gap in seizure frequency between the groups narrowed in the 9-month postpartum period. Seizures were more frequent during the postpartum period, compared with baseline, in 12.12% of women with generalized epilepsy, 20.14% of women with focal epilepsies, and 20.00% of women with frontal lobe epilepsy.

Future analyses will evaluate the influence of AED type and concentration and specific timing on seizure control during pregnancy and the postpartum period, Dr. Voinescu said. Future studies should also include measures of sleep, which may be a contributory mechanism to the differences found between these epilepsy types.

Dr. Voinescu reported receiving funding from the American Brain Foundation, the American Epilepsy Society, and the Epilepsy Foundation through the Susan Spencer Clinical Research Fellowship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Voinescu PE et al. AES 2018, Abstract 3.236.

NEW ORLEANS – Seizure frequency increased during pregnancy for 53% of women with frontal lobe epilepsy, based on a study reported by Paula E. Voinescu, MD, PhD, at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Jacob Remaly/MDedge News

The single center study included data on 76 pregnancies in women with focal epilepsy –17 of them in patients with frontal lobe epilepsy – and 38 pregnancies in women with generalized epilepsy. Seizures were more frequent during pregnancy, compared with baseline, in 5.5% of women with generalized epilepsy, 22.6% of women with focal epilepsies, and 53.0% of women with frontal lobe epilepsy, said Dr. Voinescu, lead author of the study and a neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Frontal lobe epilepsy is known to be difficult to manage in general and often resistant to therapy, but it isn’t clear why the seizures got worse among pregnant women because the levels of medication in their blood was considered adequate. Until more research provides treatment guidance, doctors should carefully monitor their pregnant patients who have focal epilepsy to see if their seizures increase despite adequate blood levels and then adjust their medication if necessary,” she advised. “As we know from other research, seizures during pregnancy can increase the risk of distress and neurodevelopmental delays for the baby, as well as the risk of miscarriage.”

For the study, Dr. Voinescu and her colleagues analyzed prospectively collected clinical data from 99 pregnant women followed at Brigham and Women’s Hospital between 2013 and 2018.

The researchers excluded patients with abortions, seizure onset during pregnancy, poorly defined preconception seizure frequency, nonepileptic seizures, antiepileptic drug (AED) noncompliance, and pregnancies that were enrolled in other studies. The investigators documented patients’ seizure types and AED regimens and recorded seizure frequency during the 9 months before conception, during pregnancy, and 9 months postpartum. The researchers summed all seizures for each individual for each interval. They defined seizure frequency worsening as any increase above the preconception baseline, and evaluated differences between focal and generalized epilepsy and between frontal lobe and other focal epilepsies.

Increased seizure activity tended to occur in women on more than one AED, according to Dr. Voinescu. In women with frontal lobe epilepsy, seizure worsening during pregnancy was most likely to begin in the second trimester.

The gap in seizure frequency between the groups narrowed in the 9-month postpartum period. Seizures were more frequent during the postpartum period, compared with baseline, in 12.12% of women with generalized epilepsy, 20.14% of women with focal epilepsies, and 20.00% of women with frontal lobe epilepsy.

Future analyses will evaluate the influence of AED type and concentration and specific timing on seizure control during pregnancy and the postpartum period, Dr. Voinescu said. Future studies should also include measures of sleep, which may be a contributory mechanism to the differences found between these epilepsy types.

Dr. Voinescu reported receiving funding from the American Brain Foundation, the American Epilepsy Society, and the Epilepsy Foundation through the Susan Spencer Clinical Research Fellowship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Voinescu PE et al. AES 2018, Abstract 3.236.

NEW ORLEANS – Seizure frequency increased during pregnancy for 53% of women with frontal lobe epilepsy, based on a study reported by Paula E. Voinescu, MD, PhD, at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Jacob Remaly/MDedge News

The single center study included data on 76 pregnancies in women with focal epilepsy –17 of them in patients with frontal lobe epilepsy – and 38 pregnancies in women with generalized epilepsy. Seizures were more frequent during pregnancy, compared with baseline, in 5.5% of women with generalized epilepsy, 22.6% of women with focal epilepsies, and 53.0% of women with frontal lobe epilepsy, said Dr. Voinescu, lead author of the study and a neurologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Frontal lobe epilepsy is known to be difficult to manage in general and often resistant to therapy, but it isn’t clear why the seizures got worse among pregnant women because the levels of medication in their blood was considered adequate. Until more research provides treatment guidance, doctors should carefully monitor their pregnant patients who have focal epilepsy to see if their seizures increase despite adequate blood levels and then adjust their medication if necessary,” she advised. “As we know from other research, seizures during pregnancy can increase the risk of distress and neurodevelopmental delays for the baby, as well as the risk of miscarriage.”

For the study, Dr. Voinescu and her colleagues analyzed prospectively collected clinical data from 99 pregnant women followed at Brigham and Women’s Hospital between 2013 and 2018.

The researchers excluded patients with abortions, seizure onset during pregnancy, poorly defined preconception seizure frequency, nonepileptic seizures, antiepileptic drug (AED) noncompliance, and pregnancies that were enrolled in other studies. The investigators documented patients’ seizure types and AED regimens and recorded seizure frequency during the 9 months before conception, during pregnancy, and 9 months postpartum. The researchers summed all seizures for each individual for each interval. They defined seizure frequency worsening as any increase above the preconception baseline, and evaluated differences between focal and generalized epilepsy and between frontal lobe and other focal epilepsies.

Increased seizure activity tended to occur in women on more than one AED, according to Dr. Voinescu. In women with frontal lobe epilepsy, seizure worsening during pregnancy was most likely to begin in the second trimester.

The gap in seizure frequency between the groups narrowed in the 9-month postpartum period. Seizures were more frequent during the postpartum period, compared with baseline, in 12.12% of women with generalized epilepsy, 20.14% of women with focal epilepsies, and 20.00% of women with frontal lobe epilepsy.

Future analyses will evaluate the influence of AED type and concentration and specific timing on seizure control during pregnancy and the postpartum period, Dr. Voinescu said. Future studies should also include measures of sleep, which may be a contributory mechanism to the differences found between these epilepsy types.

Dr. Voinescu reported receiving funding from the American Brain Foundation, the American Epilepsy Society, and the Epilepsy Foundation through the Susan Spencer Clinical Research Fellowship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Voinescu PE et al. AES 2018, Abstract 3.236.

Marijuana, which is still illegal under federal law but legal in 30 states for medical purposes as of this writing, has shown promising results for treating peripheral neuropathy. Studies suggest that cannabis may be an option for patients whose pain responds poorly to standard treatments; however, its use may be restricted by cognitive and psychiatric adverse effects, particularly at high doses.¹

See related editorial

In this article, we discuss the basic pharmacology of cannabis and how it may affect neuropathic pain. We review clinical trials on its use for peripheral neuropathy and provide guidance for its use.

PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY IS COMMON AND COMPLEX

An estimated 20 million people in the United States suffer from neuropathic pain. The prevalence is higher in certain populations, with 26% of people over age 65 and 30% of patients with diabetes mellitus affected.^2–4

Peripheral neuropathy is a complex, chronic state that occurs when nerve fibers are damaged, dysfunctional, or injured, sending incorrect signals to pain centers in the central nervous system.⁵ It is characterized by weakness, pain, and paresthesias that typically begin in the hands or feet and progress proximally.⁴ Symptoms depend on the number and types of nerves affected.

In many cases, peripheral neuropathy is idiopathic, but common causes include diabetes, alcoholism, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and autoimmune disease. Others include toxicity from chemotherapy and heavy metals.

Peripheral neuropathy significantly worsens quality of life and function. Many patients experience emotional, cognitive, and functional problems, resulting in high rates of medical and psychiatric comorbidities and occupational impairment.^4,6,7 Yet despite its clinical and epidemiologic significance, it is often undertreated.⁸

STANDARD TREATMENTS INADEQUATE

Peripheral neuropathy occurs in patients with a wide range of comorbidities and is especially difficult to treat. Mainstays of therapy include anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.⁹ A more invasive option is spinal cord stimulation.

These treatments can have considerable adverse effects, and response rates remain suboptimal, with pain relief insufficient to improve quality of life for many patients.^9,10 Better treatments are needed to improve clinical outcomes and patient experience.¹¹

CANNABIS: A MIX OF COMPOUNDS

Cannabis sativa has been used as an analgesic for centuries. The plant contains more than 400 chemical compounds and is often used for its euphoric properties. Long-term use may lead to addiction and cognitive impairment.^12,13

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are the main components and the 2 best-studied cannabinoids with analgesic effects.

THC is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis. Its effects include relaxation, altered perception, heightened sensations, increased libido, and perceptual distortions of time and space. Temporary effects may include decreased short-term memory, dry mouth, impaired motor function, conjunctival injection, paranoia, and anxiety.

CBD is nonpsychoactive and has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. It has been shown to reduce pain and inflammation without the effects of THC.¹⁴

Other compounds in the cannabis plant include phytocannabinoids, flavonoids, and tapenoids, which may produce individual, interactive, or synergistic effects.¹⁵ Different strains of cannabis have varying amounts of the individual components, making comparisons among clinical studies difficult.

THE ENDOCANNABINOID SYSTEM

The endogenous mammalian cannabinoid system plays a regulatory role in the development, homeostasis, and neuroplasticity of the central nervous system. It is also involved in modulating pain transmission in the nociceptive pathway.

Two of the most abundant cannabinoid endogenous ligands are anandamide and 2-arachidonylglycerol.⁹ These endocanna­b­inoids are produced on demand in the central nervous system to reduce pain by acting as a circuit breaker.^16–18 They target the G protein-coupled cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, located throughout the central and peripheral nervous system and in organs and tissues.¹²

CB1 receptors are found primarily in the central nervous system, specifically in areas involved in movement, such as the basal ganglia and cerebellum, as well as in areas involved in memory, such as the hippocampus.¹² They are also abundant in brain regions implicated in conducting and modulating pain signals, including the periaqueductal gray and the dorsal horn of the spinal cord.^16–20

CB2 receptors are mostly found in peripheral tissues and organs, mainly those involved in the immune system, including splenic, tonsillar, and hematopoietic cells.¹² They help regulate inflammation, allodynia, and hyperalgesia.¹⁷

Modifying response to injury

Following a nerve injury, neurons along the nociceptive pathway may become more reactive and responsive in a process known as sensitization.²¹ The process involves a cascade of cellular events that result in sprouting of pain-sensitive nerve endings.^21,22

Cannabinoids are thought to reduce pain by modifying these cellular events. They also inhibit nociceptive conduction in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord and in the ascending spinothalamic tract.²⁰ CB1 receptors found in nociceptive terminals along the peripheral nervous system impede pain conduction, while activation of CB2 receptors in immune cells decreases the release of nociceptive agents.

A number of studies have evaluated cannabis for treating neuropathic pain. Overall, available data support the efficacy of smoked or inhaled cannabis in its flower form when used as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for relief of neuropathic pain of various etiologies. Many studies also report secondary benefits, including better sleep and functional improvement.^23,24

However, adverse effects are common, especially at high doses, and include difficulty concentrating, lightheadedness, fatigue, and tachycardia. More serious reported adverse effects include anxiety, paranoia, and psychosis.

Wilsey et al, 2008: Neuropathic pain reduced

Wilsey et al²⁵ conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study that assessed the effects of smoking cannabis in 38 patients with central or peripheral neuropathic pain. Participants were assigned to smoke either high- or low-dose cannabis (7% or 3.5% delta-9-THC) or placebo cigarettes. Cigarettes were smoked during treatment sessions using the following regimen: 2 puffs at 60 minutes from baseline, 3 puffs at 120 minutes, and 4 puffs at 180 minutes. Patients were assessed after each set of puffs and for 2 hours afterwards. The primary outcome was spontaneous relief of pain as measured by a visual analog scale.

Pain intensity was comparable and significantly reduced in both treatment groups compared with placebo. At the high dose, some participants experienced neurocognitive impairment in attention, learning, memory, and psychomotor speed; only learning and memory declined at the low dose.

Ellis et al, 2009: Pain reduction in HIV neuropathy

Ellis et al²³ conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial in patients with HIV neuropathy that was unresponsive to at least 2 analgesics with different modes of action. During each treatment week, participants were randomly assigned to smoke either active cannabis or placebo, while continuing their standard therapy. Titration started at 4% THC and was adjusted based on tolerability and efficacy. Twenty-eight of the 34 enrolled patients completed both cannabis and placebo treatments. The principal outcome was change in pain intensity from baseline at the end of each week, using the Descriptor Differential Scale of Pain Intensity.

Of the 28 patients, 46% achieved an average pain reduction of 3.3 points (30%). One patient experienced cannabis-induced psychosis, and another developed an intractable cough, which resolved with smoking cessation.

Ware et al, 2010: Reduced posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain

Ware et al²⁴ performed a randomized crossover trial in 21 patients with posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain. Participants inhaled 4 different formulations of cannabis (containing 0%, 2.5%, 6.0%, and 9.4% THC) during 4 14-day periods. They inhaled a 25-mg dose through a pipe 3 times a day for the first 5 days of each cycle, followed by a 9-day washout period. Daily average pain intensity was measured using a numeric rating scale. The investigators also assessed mood, sleep, quality of life, and adverse effects.

Patients in the 9.4% THC group reported significantly less pain and better sleep, with average pain scores decreasing from 6.1 to 5.4 on an 11-point scale. Although the benefit was modest, the authors noted that the pain had been refractory to standard treatments.

The number of reported adverse events increased with greater potency and were most commonly throat irritation, burning sensation, headache, dizziness, and fatigue. This study suggests that THC potency affects tolerability, with higher doses eliciting clinically important adverse effects, some of which may reduce the ability to perform activities of daily living, such as driving.

Wilsey et al, 2013: Use in resistant neuropathic pain

Wilsey et al²⁶ conducted another double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study assessing the effect of vaporized cannabis on central and peripheral neuropathic pain resistant to first-line pharmacotherapies. Dose-effect relationships were explored using medium-dose (3.5%), low-dose (1.3%), and placebo cannabis. The primary outcome measure was a 30% reduction in pain intensity based on a visual analog scale.

In the placebo group, 26% of patients achieved this vs 57% of the low-dose cannabis group and 61% of those receiving the medium dose. No significant difference was found between the 2 active doses in reducing neuropathic pain, and both were more effective than placebo. The number needed to treat to achieve a 30% reduction in pain was about 3 for both cannabis groups compared with placebo. Psychoactive effects were minimal, of short duration, and reversible.

Wallace et al, 2015: Use in diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Wallace et al²⁷ conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study evaluating cannabis for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in 16 patients. Each had experienced at least 6 months of neuropathic pain in their feet. The participants inhaled a single dose of 1%, 4%, or 7% THC cannabis or placebo. Spontaneous pain was reported with a visual analog scale and also tested with a foam brush and von Frey filament at intervals until 4 hours after treatment.

Pain scores were lower with treatment compared with placebo, with high-dose cannabis having the greatest analgesic effect. Pain reduction lasted for the full duration of the test. Cannabis recipients had declines in attention and working memory, with the high-dose group experiencing the greatest impact 15 minutes after treatment. High-dose recipients also had poorer scores on testing of quick task-switching, with the greatest effect at 2 hours.²⁷

Research and market cannabis are not equal

Results of US studies must be qualified. Most have used cannabis provided by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA),^23–26 which differs in potency from commercially available preparations. This limits the clinical usefulness of the analysis of benefits and risks.

Vergara et al²⁸ found that NIDA varieties contained much lower THC levels and as much as 23 times the cannabinol content as cannabis in state-legalized markets.

Studies based on NIDA varieties likely underestimate the risks of consumer-purchased cannabis, as THC is believed to be most responsible for the risk of psychosis and impaired driving and cognition.^24,28

Studies of CBD alone are limited to preclinical data.²⁹ Evidence suggests that CBD alone or combined with THC can suppress chronic neuropathic pain, and that CBD may have a protective effect after nerve injury.³⁰

Nabiximols, an oromucosal spray preparation with equal amounts of THC and CBD, has been approved in Canada as well as in European countries including the United Kingdom. Although its use has not been associated with many of the adverse effects of inhaled cannabis,^30–32 evidence of efficacy from clinical trials has been mixed.

Lynch et al,³¹ in a 2014 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover pilot study³¹ evaluated nabiximols in 16 patients with neuropathic pain related to chemotherapy. No statistically significant difference was found between treatment and placebo. However, the trial was underpowered.

Serpell et al,³² in a 2014 European randomized, placebo-controlled parallel-group study, evaluated 246 patients with peripheral neuropathy with allodynia, with 128 receiving active treatment (THC-CBD oromucosal spray) and 118 receiving placebo. Over the 15-week study, participants continued their current analgesic treatments.

Pain was reduced in the treatment group, but the difference from placebo was not statistically significant. However, the treatment group reported significantly better sleep quality and Patient Global Impression of Change measures (reflecting a patient’s belief of treatment efficacy).

META-ANALYSES CONFIRM EFFECT

Three meta-analyses of available studies of the effects of cannabis on neuropathic pain have been completed.

Andreae et al, 2015: 5 trials, 178 patients

Andreae et al¹ evaluated 5 randomized controlled trials in 178 patients in North America. All had had neuropathy for at least 3 months, with a pain level of at least about 3 on a scale of 10. Two studies had patients with HIV-related neuropathy; the other 3 involved patients with neuropathy related to trauma, diabetes, complex regional pain syndrome, or spinal cord injury. All trials used whole cannabis plant provided by NIDA, and the main outcomes were patient-reported pain scales. No study evaluated pain beyond 2 weeks after trial termination.

They found that 1 of every 5 to 6 patients treated with cannabis had at least a 30% pain reduction.

Nugent et al, 2017: 13 trials, 246 patients

Nugent et al³³ reviewed 13 trials in 246 patients that evaluated the effects of different cannabis-based preparations on either central or peripheral neuropathic pain from various conditions. Actively treated patients were more likely to report a 30% improvement in neuropathic pain. Again, studies tended to be small and brief.

Cochrane review, 2018: 16 trials, 1,750 patients

A Cochrane review³⁴ analyzed 16 trials (in 1,750 patients) lasting 2 to 26 weeks. Treatments included an oromucosal spray with a plant-derived combination of THC and CBD, nabilone, inhaled herbal cannabis, and plant-derived THC.

With cannabis-based treatments, significantly more people achieved 50% or greater pain relief than with placebo (21% vs 17%, number needed to treat 20); 30% pain reduction was achieved in 39% of treated patients vs 33% of patients taking placebo (number needed to treat 11).

On the other hand, significantly more participants withdrew from studies because of adverse events with cannabis-based treatments than placebo (10% vs 5%), with psychiatric disorders occurring in 17% of patients receiving active treatment vs 5% of those receiving placebo (number needed to harm 10). 

The primary studies suffered from methodologic limitations including small size, short duration, and inconsistency of formulations and study designs. Further evaluation of long-term efficacy, tolerability, and addiction potential is critical to determine the risk-benefit ratio.

RISKS OF CANNABIS USE

Like any drug therapy, cannabis has effects that may limit its use. Cannabis can affect a person’s psyche, physiology, and lifestyle.

Impaired attention, task speed

Neurocognitive changes associated with cannabis use—especially dizziness, fatigue, and slowed task-switching—could affect driving and other complex tasks. Evidence indicates that such activities should be avoided in the hours after treatment.^26,27,32,33

Concern over brain development

Most worrisome is the effect of long-term cannabis use on brain development in young adults. Regular use of cannabis at an early age is associated with lower IQ, decline in school performance, and lower rates of high school graduation.³⁵

Avoid in psychiatric patients

It is unlikely that cannabis can be safely used in patients with psychiatric illnesses. Anxiety, depression, and psychotic disorders can be exacerbated by the regular use of cannabis, and the risk of developing these conditions is increased while using cannabis.^36,37

High concentrations of THC (the highest concentration used in the above studies was 9.5%) can cause anxiety, paranoia, and psychosis.

Respiratory effects

Long-term cannabis smoking may cause wheezing, cough, dyspnea, and exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. There is some evidence that symptoms improve after stopping smoking.^33,38

SHOULD WE RECOMMEND CANNABIS?

Where cannabis can be legally used, doctors should be familiar with the literature and its limitations so that they can counsel patients on the best use and potential risks and benefits of cannabis treatment.

A recent conceptualization of pain suggests that a pain score reflects a composite of sensory factors (eg, tissue damage), cognitive factors (eg, beliefs about pain), and affective factors (eg, anxiety, depression).³⁹ Physicians should keep this in mind when evaluating patients to better assess the risks and benefits of cannabis. While pharmacotherapy may address sensory factors, cognitive behavioral therapy may help alter beliefs about the pain as well as anxiety and depressive symptoms that might influence subjective reports.

Ideally, patients being considered for cannabis treatment would have a type of neuropathic pain proven to respond to cannabis in randomized, controlled studies, as well as evidence of failed first-line treatments.

Relative contraindications include depression, anxiety, substance use, psychotic disorders, and respiratory conditions, and these should also be considered.

Although current research shows an analgesic benefit of cannabis on neuropathic pain comparable to that of gabapentin,⁴⁰ further investigation is needed to better evaluate long-term safety, efficacy, and interactions with standard therapies. Until we have a more complete picture, we should use the current literature, along with a thorough knowledge of each patient, to determine if the benefits of cannabis therapy outweigh the risks.

Acknowledgments: We thank Camillo Ferrari, BS, and Christina McMahon, BA, for their helpful comments.

Marijuana, which is still illegal under federal law but legal in 30 states for medical purposes as of this writing, has shown promising results for treating peripheral neuropathy. Studies suggest that cannabis may be an option for patients whose pain responds poorly to standard treatments; however, its use may be restricted by cognitive and psychiatric adverse effects, particularly at high doses.¹

See related editorial

In this article, we discuss the basic pharmacology of cannabis and how it may affect neuropathic pain. We review clinical trials on its use for peripheral neuropathy and provide guidance for its use.

PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY IS COMMON AND COMPLEX

An estimated 20 million people in the United States suffer from neuropathic pain. The prevalence is higher in certain populations, with 26% of people over age 65 and 30% of patients with diabetes mellitus affected.^2–4

Peripheral neuropathy is a complex, chronic state that occurs when nerve fibers are damaged, dysfunctional, or injured, sending incorrect signals to pain centers in the central nervous system.⁵ It is characterized by weakness, pain, and paresthesias that typically begin in the hands or feet and progress proximally.⁴ Symptoms depend on the number and types of nerves affected.

In many cases, peripheral neuropathy is idiopathic, but common causes include diabetes, alcoholism, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and autoimmune disease. Others include toxicity from chemotherapy and heavy metals.

Peripheral neuropathy significantly worsens quality of life and function. Many patients experience emotional, cognitive, and functional problems, resulting in high rates of medical and psychiatric comorbidities and occupational impairment.^4,6,7 Yet despite its clinical and epidemiologic significance, it is often undertreated.⁸

STANDARD TREATMENTS INADEQUATE

Peripheral neuropathy occurs in patients with a wide range of comorbidities and is especially difficult to treat. Mainstays of therapy include anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.⁹ A more invasive option is spinal cord stimulation.

These treatments can have considerable adverse effects, and response rates remain suboptimal, with pain relief insufficient to improve quality of life for many patients.^9,10 Better treatments are needed to improve clinical outcomes and patient experience.¹¹

CANNABIS: A MIX OF COMPOUNDS

Cannabis sativa has been used as an analgesic for centuries. The plant contains more than 400 chemical compounds and is often used for its euphoric properties. Long-term use may lead to addiction and cognitive impairment.^12,13

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are the main components and the 2 best-studied cannabinoids with analgesic effects.

THC is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis. Its effects include relaxation, altered perception, heightened sensations, increased libido, and perceptual distortions of time and space. Temporary effects may include decreased short-term memory, dry mouth, impaired motor function, conjunctival injection, paranoia, and anxiety.

CBD is nonpsychoactive and has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. It has been shown to reduce pain and inflammation without the effects of THC.¹⁴

Other compounds in the cannabis plant include phytocannabinoids, flavonoids, and tapenoids, which may produce individual, interactive, or synergistic effects.¹⁵ Different strains of cannabis have varying amounts of the individual components, making comparisons among clinical studies difficult.

THE ENDOCANNABINOID SYSTEM

The endogenous mammalian cannabinoid system plays a regulatory role in the development, homeostasis, and neuroplasticity of the central nervous system. It is also involved in modulating pain transmission in the nociceptive pathway.

Two of the most abundant cannabinoid endogenous ligands are anandamide and 2-arachidonylglycerol.⁹ These endocanna­b­inoids are produced on demand in the central nervous system to reduce pain by acting as a circuit breaker.^16–18 They target the G protein-coupled cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, located throughout the central and peripheral nervous system and in organs and tissues.¹²

CB1 receptors are found primarily in the central nervous system, specifically in areas involved in movement, such as the basal ganglia and cerebellum, as well as in areas involved in memory, such as the hippocampus.¹² They are also abundant in brain regions implicated in conducting and modulating pain signals, including the periaqueductal gray and the dorsal horn of the spinal cord.^16–20

CB2 receptors are mostly found in peripheral tissues and organs, mainly those involved in the immune system, including splenic, tonsillar, and hematopoietic cells.¹² They help regulate inflammation, allodynia, and hyperalgesia.¹⁷

Modifying response to injury

Following a nerve injury, neurons along the nociceptive pathway may become more reactive and responsive in a process known as sensitization.²¹ The process involves a cascade of cellular events that result in sprouting of pain-sensitive nerve endings.^21,22

Cannabinoids are thought to reduce pain by modifying these cellular events. They also inhibit nociceptive conduction in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord and in the ascending spinothalamic tract.²⁰ CB1 receptors found in nociceptive terminals along the peripheral nervous system impede pain conduction, while activation of CB2 receptors in immune cells decreases the release of nociceptive agents.

A number of studies have evaluated cannabis for treating neuropathic pain. Overall, available data support the efficacy of smoked or inhaled cannabis in its flower form when used as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for relief of neuropathic pain of various etiologies. Many studies also report secondary benefits, including better sleep and functional improvement.^23,24

However, adverse effects are common, especially at high doses, and include difficulty concentrating, lightheadedness, fatigue, and tachycardia. More serious reported adverse effects include anxiety, paranoia, and psychosis.

Wilsey et al, 2008: Neuropathic pain reduced

Wilsey et al²⁵ conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study that assessed the effects of smoking cannabis in 38 patients with central or peripheral neuropathic pain. Participants were assigned to smoke either high- or low-dose cannabis (7% or 3.5% delta-9-THC) or placebo cigarettes. Cigarettes were smoked during treatment sessions using the following regimen: 2 puffs at 60 minutes from baseline, 3 puffs at 120 minutes, and 4 puffs at 180 minutes. Patients were assessed after each set of puffs and for 2 hours afterwards. The primary outcome was spontaneous relief of pain as measured by a visual analog scale.

Pain intensity was comparable and significantly reduced in both treatment groups compared with placebo. At the high dose, some participants experienced neurocognitive impairment in attention, learning, memory, and psychomotor speed; only learning and memory declined at the low dose.

Ellis et al, 2009: Pain reduction in HIV neuropathy

Ellis et al²³ conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial in patients with HIV neuropathy that was unresponsive to at least 2 analgesics with different modes of action. During each treatment week, participants were randomly assigned to smoke either active cannabis or placebo, while continuing their standard therapy. Titration started at 4% THC and was adjusted based on tolerability and efficacy. Twenty-eight of the 34 enrolled patients completed both cannabis and placebo treatments. The principal outcome was change in pain intensity from baseline at the end of each week, using the Descriptor Differential Scale of Pain Intensity.

Of the 28 patients, 46% achieved an average pain reduction of 3.3 points (30%). One patient experienced cannabis-induced psychosis, and another developed an intractable cough, which resolved with smoking cessation.

Ware et al, 2010: Reduced posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain

Ware et al²⁴ performed a randomized crossover trial in 21 patients with posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain. Participants inhaled 4 different formulations of cannabis (containing 0%, 2.5%, 6.0%, and 9.4% THC) during 4 14-day periods. They inhaled a 25-mg dose through a pipe 3 times a day for the first 5 days of each cycle, followed by a 9-day washout period. Daily average pain intensity was measured using a numeric rating scale. The investigators also assessed mood, sleep, quality of life, and adverse effects.

Patients in the 9.4% THC group reported significantly less pain and better sleep, with average pain scores decreasing from 6.1 to 5.4 on an 11-point scale. Although the benefit was modest, the authors noted that the pain had been refractory to standard treatments.

The number of reported adverse events increased with greater potency and were most commonly throat irritation, burning sensation, headache, dizziness, and fatigue. This study suggests that THC potency affects tolerability, with higher doses eliciting clinically important adverse effects, some of which may reduce the ability to perform activities of daily living, such as driving.

Wilsey et al, 2013: Use in resistant neuropathic pain

Wilsey et al²⁶ conducted another double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study assessing the effect of vaporized cannabis on central and peripheral neuropathic pain resistant to first-line pharmacotherapies. Dose-effect relationships were explored using medium-dose (3.5%), low-dose (1.3%), and placebo cannabis. The primary outcome measure was a 30% reduction in pain intensity based on a visual analog scale.

In the placebo group, 26% of patients achieved this vs 57% of the low-dose cannabis group and 61% of those receiving the medium dose. No significant difference was found between the 2 active doses in reducing neuropathic pain, and both were more effective than placebo. The number needed to treat to achieve a 30% reduction in pain was about 3 for both cannabis groups compared with placebo. Psychoactive effects were minimal, of short duration, and reversible.

Wallace et al, 2015: Use in diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Wallace et al²⁷ conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study evaluating cannabis for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in 16 patients. Each had experienced at least 6 months of neuropathic pain in their feet. The participants inhaled a single dose of 1%, 4%, or 7% THC cannabis or placebo. Spontaneous pain was reported with a visual analog scale and also tested with a foam brush and von Frey filament at intervals until 4 hours after treatment.

Pain scores were lower with treatment compared with placebo, with high-dose cannabis having the greatest analgesic effect. Pain reduction lasted for the full duration of the test. Cannabis recipients had declines in attention and working memory, with the high-dose group experiencing the greatest impact 15 minutes after treatment. High-dose recipients also had poorer scores on testing of quick task-switching, with the greatest effect at 2 hours.²⁷

Research and market cannabis are not equal

Results of US studies must be qualified. Most have used cannabis provided by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA),^23–26 which differs in potency from commercially available preparations. This limits the clinical usefulness of the analysis of benefits and risks.

Vergara et al²⁸ found that NIDA varieties contained much lower THC levels and as much as 23 times the cannabinol content as cannabis in state-legalized markets.

Studies based on NIDA varieties likely underestimate the risks of consumer-purchased cannabis, as THC is believed to be most responsible for the risk of psychosis and impaired driving and cognition.^24,28

Studies of CBD alone are limited to preclinical data.²⁹ Evidence suggests that CBD alone or combined with THC can suppress chronic neuropathic pain, and that CBD may have a protective effect after nerve injury.³⁰

Nabiximols, an oromucosal spray preparation with equal amounts of THC and CBD, has been approved in Canada as well as in European countries including the United Kingdom. Although its use has not been associated with many of the adverse effects of inhaled cannabis,^30–32 evidence of efficacy from clinical trials has been mixed.

Lynch et al,³¹ in a 2014 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover pilot study³¹ evaluated nabiximols in 16 patients with neuropathic pain related to chemotherapy. No statistically significant difference was found between treatment and placebo. However, the trial was underpowered.

Serpell et al,³² in a 2014 European randomized, placebo-controlled parallel-group study, evaluated 246 patients with peripheral neuropathy with allodynia, with 128 receiving active treatment (THC-CBD oromucosal spray) and 118 receiving placebo. Over the 15-week study, participants continued their current analgesic treatments.

Pain was reduced in the treatment group, but the difference from placebo was not statistically significant. However, the treatment group reported significantly better sleep quality and Patient Global Impression of Change measures (reflecting a patient’s belief of treatment efficacy).

META-ANALYSES CONFIRM EFFECT

Three meta-analyses of available studies of the effects of cannabis on neuropathic pain have been completed.

Andreae et al, 2015: 5 trials, 178 patients

Andreae et al¹ evaluated 5 randomized controlled trials in 178 patients in North America. All had had neuropathy for at least 3 months, with a pain level of at least about 3 on a scale of 10. Two studies had patients with HIV-related neuropathy; the other 3 involved patients with neuropathy related to trauma, diabetes, complex regional pain syndrome, or spinal cord injury. All trials used whole cannabis plant provided by NIDA, and the main outcomes were patient-reported pain scales. No study evaluated pain beyond 2 weeks after trial termination.

They found that 1 of every 5 to 6 patients treated with cannabis had at least a 30% pain reduction.

Nugent et al, 2017: 13 trials, 246 patients

Nugent et al³³ reviewed 13 trials in 246 patients that evaluated the effects of different cannabis-based preparations on either central or peripheral neuropathic pain from various conditions. Actively treated patients were more likely to report a 30% improvement in neuropathic pain. Again, studies tended to be small and brief.

Cochrane review, 2018: 16 trials, 1,750 patients

A Cochrane review³⁴ analyzed 16 trials (in 1,750 patients) lasting 2 to 26 weeks. Treatments included an oromucosal spray with a plant-derived combination of THC and CBD, nabilone, inhaled herbal cannabis, and plant-derived THC.

With cannabis-based treatments, significantly more people achieved 50% or greater pain relief than with placebo (21% vs 17%, number needed to treat 20); 30% pain reduction was achieved in 39% of treated patients vs 33% of patients taking placebo (number needed to treat 11).

On the other hand, significantly more participants withdrew from studies because of adverse events with cannabis-based treatments than placebo (10% vs 5%), with psychiatric disorders occurring in 17% of patients receiving active treatment vs 5% of those receiving placebo (number needed to harm 10). 

The primary studies suffered from methodologic limitations including small size, short duration, and inconsistency of formulations and study designs. Further evaluation of long-term efficacy, tolerability, and addiction potential is critical to determine the risk-benefit ratio.

RISKS OF CANNABIS USE

Like any drug therapy, cannabis has effects that may limit its use. Cannabis can affect a person’s psyche, physiology, and lifestyle.

Impaired attention, task speed

Neurocognitive changes associated with cannabis use—especially dizziness, fatigue, and slowed task-switching—could affect driving and other complex tasks. Evidence indicates that such activities should be avoided in the hours after treatment.^26,27,32,33

Concern over brain development

Most worrisome is the effect of long-term cannabis use on brain development in young adults. Regular use of cannabis at an early age is associated with lower IQ, decline in school performance, and lower rates of high school graduation.³⁵

Avoid in psychiatric patients

It is unlikely that cannabis can be safely used in patients with psychiatric illnesses. Anxiety, depression, and psychotic disorders can be exacerbated by the regular use of cannabis, and the risk of developing these conditions is increased while using cannabis.^36,37

High concentrations of THC (the highest concentration used in the above studies was 9.5%) can cause anxiety, paranoia, and psychosis.

Respiratory effects

Long-term cannabis smoking may cause wheezing, cough, dyspnea, and exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. There is some evidence that symptoms improve after stopping smoking.^33,38

SHOULD WE RECOMMEND CANNABIS?

Where cannabis can be legally used, doctors should be familiar with the literature and its limitations so that they can counsel patients on the best use and potential risks and benefits of cannabis treatment.

A recent conceptualization of pain suggests that a pain score reflects a composite of sensory factors (eg, tissue damage), cognitive factors (eg, beliefs about pain), and affective factors (eg, anxiety, depression).³⁹ Physicians should keep this in mind when evaluating patients to better assess the risks and benefits of cannabis. While pharmacotherapy may address sensory factors, cognitive behavioral therapy may help alter beliefs about the pain as well as anxiety and depressive symptoms that might influence subjective reports.

Ideally, patients being considered for cannabis treatment would have a type of neuropathic pain proven to respond to cannabis in randomized, controlled studies, as well as evidence of failed first-line treatments.

Relative contraindications include depression, anxiety, substance use, psychotic disorders, and respiratory conditions, and these should also be considered.

Although current research shows an analgesic benefit of cannabis on neuropathic pain comparable to that of gabapentin,⁴⁰ further investigation is needed to better evaluate long-term safety, efficacy, and interactions with standard therapies. Until we have a more complete picture, we should use the current literature, along with a thorough knowledge of each patient, to determine if the benefits of cannabis therapy outweigh the risks.

Acknowledgments: We thank Camillo Ferrari, BS, and Christina McMahon, BA, for their helpful comments.

Marijuana, which is still illegal under federal law but legal in 30 states for medical purposes as of this writing, has shown promising results for treating peripheral neuropathy. Studies suggest that cannabis may be an option for patients whose pain responds poorly to standard treatments; however, its use may be restricted by cognitive and psychiatric adverse effects, particularly at high doses.¹

See related editorial

In this article, we discuss the basic pharmacology of cannabis and how it may affect neuropathic pain. We review clinical trials on its use for peripheral neuropathy and provide guidance for its use.

PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY IS COMMON AND COMPLEX

An estimated 20 million people in the United States suffer from neuropathic pain. The prevalence is higher in certain populations, with 26% of people over age 65 and 30% of patients with diabetes mellitus affected.^2–4

Peripheral neuropathy is a complex, chronic state that occurs when nerve fibers are damaged, dysfunctional, or injured, sending incorrect signals to pain centers in the central nervous system.⁵ It is characterized by weakness, pain, and paresthesias that typically begin in the hands or feet and progress proximally.⁴ Symptoms depend on the number and types of nerves affected.

In many cases, peripheral neuropathy is idiopathic, but common causes include diabetes, alcoholism, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and autoimmune disease. Others include toxicity from chemotherapy and heavy metals.

Peripheral neuropathy significantly worsens quality of life and function. Many patients experience emotional, cognitive, and functional problems, resulting in high rates of medical and psychiatric comorbidities and occupational impairment.^4,6,7 Yet despite its clinical and epidemiologic significance, it is often undertreated.⁸

STANDARD TREATMENTS INADEQUATE

Peripheral neuropathy occurs in patients with a wide range of comorbidities and is especially difficult to treat. Mainstays of therapy include anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.⁹ A more invasive option is spinal cord stimulation.

These treatments can have considerable adverse effects, and response rates remain suboptimal, with pain relief insufficient to improve quality of life for many patients.^9,10 Better treatments are needed to improve clinical outcomes and patient experience.¹¹

CANNABIS: A MIX OF COMPOUNDS

Cannabis sativa has been used as an analgesic for centuries. The plant contains more than 400 chemical compounds and is often used for its euphoric properties. Long-term use may lead to addiction and cognitive impairment.^12,13

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) are the main components and the 2 best-studied cannabinoids with analgesic effects.

THC is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis. Its effects include relaxation, altered perception, heightened sensations, increased libido, and perceptual distortions of time and space. Temporary effects may include decreased short-term memory, dry mouth, impaired motor function, conjunctival injection, paranoia, and anxiety.

CBD is nonpsychoactive and has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. It has been shown to reduce pain and inflammation without the effects of THC.¹⁴

Other compounds in the cannabis plant include phytocannabinoids, flavonoids, and tapenoids, which may produce individual, interactive, or synergistic effects.¹⁵ Different strains of cannabis have varying amounts of the individual components, making comparisons among clinical studies difficult.

THE ENDOCANNABINOID SYSTEM

The endogenous mammalian cannabinoid system plays a regulatory role in the development, homeostasis, and neuroplasticity of the central nervous system. It is also involved in modulating pain transmission in the nociceptive pathway.

Two of the most abundant cannabinoid endogenous ligands are anandamide and 2-arachidonylglycerol.⁹ These endocanna­b­inoids are produced on demand in the central nervous system to reduce pain by acting as a circuit breaker.^16–18 They target the G protein-coupled cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, located throughout the central and peripheral nervous system and in organs and tissues.¹²

CB1 receptors are found primarily in the central nervous system, specifically in areas involved in movement, such as the basal ganglia and cerebellum, as well as in areas involved in memory, such as the hippocampus.¹² They are also abundant in brain regions implicated in conducting and modulating pain signals, including the periaqueductal gray and the dorsal horn of the spinal cord.^16–20

CB2 receptors are mostly found in peripheral tissues and organs, mainly those involved in the immune system, including splenic, tonsillar, and hematopoietic cells.¹² They help regulate inflammation, allodynia, and hyperalgesia.¹⁷

Modifying response to injury

Following a nerve injury, neurons along the nociceptive pathway may become more reactive and responsive in a process known as sensitization.²¹ The process involves a cascade of cellular events that result in sprouting of pain-sensitive nerve endings.^21,22

Cannabinoids are thought to reduce pain by modifying these cellular events. They also inhibit nociceptive conduction in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord and in the ascending spinothalamic tract.²⁰ CB1 receptors found in nociceptive terminals along the peripheral nervous system impede pain conduction, while activation of CB2 receptors in immune cells decreases the release of nociceptive agents.

A number of studies have evaluated cannabis for treating neuropathic pain. Overall, available data support the efficacy of smoked or inhaled cannabis in its flower form when used as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for relief of neuropathic pain of various etiologies. Many studies also report secondary benefits, including better sleep and functional improvement.^23,24

However, adverse effects are common, especially at high doses, and include difficulty concentrating, lightheadedness, fatigue, and tachycardia. More serious reported adverse effects include anxiety, paranoia, and psychosis.

Wilsey et al, 2008: Neuropathic pain reduced

Wilsey et al²⁵ conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study that assessed the effects of smoking cannabis in 38 patients with central or peripheral neuropathic pain. Participants were assigned to smoke either high- or low-dose cannabis (7% or 3.5% delta-9-THC) or placebo cigarettes. Cigarettes were smoked during treatment sessions using the following regimen: 2 puffs at 60 minutes from baseline, 3 puffs at 120 minutes, and 4 puffs at 180 minutes. Patients were assessed after each set of puffs and for 2 hours afterwards. The primary outcome was spontaneous relief of pain as measured by a visual analog scale.

Pain intensity was comparable and significantly reduced in both treatment groups compared with placebo. At the high dose, some participants experienced neurocognitive impairment in attention, learning, memory, and psychomotor speed; only learning and memory declined at the low dose.

Ellis et al, 2009: Pain reduction in HIV neuropathy

Ellis et al²³ conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial in patients with HIV neuropathy that was unresponsive to at least 2 analgesics with different modes of action. During each treatment week, participants were randomly assigned to smoke either active cannabis or placebo, while continuing their standard therapy. Titration started at 4% THC and was adjusted based on tolerability and efficacy. Twenty-eight of the 34 enrolled patients completed both cannabis and placebo treatments. The principal outcome was change in pain intensity from baseline at the end of each week, using the Descriptor Differential Scale of Pain Intensity.

Of the 28 patients, 46% achieved an average pain reduction of 3.3 points (30%). One patient experienced cannabis-induced psychosis, and another developed an intractable cough, which resolved with smoking cessation.

Ware et al, 2010: Reduced posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain

Ware et al²⁴ performed a randomized crossover trial in 21 patients with posttraumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain. Participants inhaled 4 different formulations of cannabis (containing 0%, 2.5%, 6.0%, and 9.4% THC) during 4 14-day periods. They inhaled a 25-mg dose through a pipe 3 times a day for the first 5 days of each cycle, followed by a 9-day washout period. Daily average pain intensity was measured using a numeric rating scale. The investigators also assessed mood, sleep, quality of life, and adverse effects.

Patients in the 9.4% THC group reported significantly less pain and better sleep, with average pain scores decreasing from 6.1 to 5.4 on an 11-point scale. Although the benefit was modest, the authors noted that the pain had been refractory to standard treatments.

The number of reported adverse events increased with greater potency and were most commonly throat irritation, burning sensation, headache, dizziness, and fatigue. This study suggests that THC potency affects tolerability, with higher doses eliciting clinically important adverse effects, some of which may reduce the ability to perform activities of daily living, such as driving.

Wilsey et al, 2013: Use in resistant neuropathic pain

Wilsey et al²⁶ conducted another double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study assessing the effect of vaporized cannabis on central and peripheral neuropathic pain resistant to first-line pharmacotherapies. Dose-effect relationships were explored using medium-dose (3.5%), low-dose (1.3%), and placebo cannabis. The primary outcome measure was a 30% reduction in pain intensity based on a visual analog scale.

In the placebo group, 26% of patients achieved this vs 57% of the low-dose cannabis group and 61% of those receiving the medium dose. No significant difference was found between the 2 active doses in reducing neuropathic pain, and both were more effective than placebo. The number needed to treat to achieve a 30% reduction in pain was about 3 for both cannabis groups compared with placebo. Psychoactive effects were minimal, of short duration, and reversible.

Wallace et al, 2015: Use in diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Wallace et al²⁷ conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study evaluating cannabis for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in 16 patients. Each had experienced at least 6 months of neuropathic pain in their feet. The participants inhaled a single dose of 1%, 4%, or 7% THC cannabis or placebo. Spontaneous pain was reported with a visual analog scale and also tested with a foam brush and von Frey filament at intervals until 4 hours after treatment.

Pain scores were lower with treatment compared with placebo, with high-dose cannabis having the greatest analgesic effect. Pain reduction lasted for the full duration of the test. Cannabis recipients had declines in attention and working memory, with the high-dose group experiencing the greatest impact 15 minutes after treatment. High-dose recipients also had poorer scores on testing of quick task-switching, with the greatest effect at 2 hours.²⁷

Research and market cannabis are not equal

Results of US studies must be qualified. Most have used cannabis provided by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA),^23–26 which differs in potency from commercially available preparations. This limits the clinical usefulness of the analysis of benefits and risks.

Vergara et al²⁸ found that NIDA varieties contained much lower THC levels and as much as 23 times the cannabinol content as cannabis in state-legalized markets.

Studies based on NIDA varieties likely underestimate the risks of consumer-purchased cannabis, as THC is believed to be most responsible for the risk of psychosis and impaired driving and cognition.^24,28

Studies of CBD alone are limited to preclinical data.²⁹ Evidence suggests that CBD alone or combined with THC can suppress chronic neuropathic pain, and that CBD may have a protective effect after nerve injury.³⁰

Nabiximols, an oromucosal spray preparation with equal amounts of THC and CBD, has been approved in Canada as well as in European countries including the United Kingdom. Although its use has not been associated with many of the adverse effects of inhaled cannabis,^30–32 evidence of efficacy from clinical trials has been mixed.

Lynch et al,³¹ in a 2014 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover pilot study³¹ evaluated nabiximols in 16 patients with neuropathic pain related to chemotherapy. No statistically significant difference was found between treatment and placebo. However, the trial was underpowered.

Serpell et al,³² in a 2014 European randomized, placebo-controlled parallel-group study, evaluated 246 patients with peripheral neuropathy with allodynia, with 128 receiving active treatment (THC-CBD oromucosal spray) and 118 receiving placebo. Over the 15-week study, participants continued their current analgesic treatments.

Pain was reduced in the treatment group, but the difference from placebo was not statistically significant. However, the treatment group reported significantly better sleep quality and Patient Global Impression of Change measures (reflecting a patient’s belief of treatment efficacy).

META-ANALYSES CONFIRM EFFECT

Three meta-analyses of available studies of the effects of cannabis on neuropathic pain have been completed.

Andreae et al, 2015: 5 trials, 178 patients

Andreae et al¹ evaluated 5 randomized controlled trials in 178 patients in North America. All had had neuropathy for at least 3 months, with a pain level of at least about 3 on a scale of 10. Two studies had patients with HIV-related neuropathy; the other 3 involved patients with neuropathy related to trauma, diabetes, complex regional pain syndrome, or spinal cord injury. All trials used whole cannabis plant provided by NIDA, and the main outcomes were patient-reported pain scales. No study evaluated pain beyond 2 weeks after trial termination.

They found that 1 of every 5 to 6 patients treated with cannabis had at least a 30% pain reduction.

Nugent et al, 2017: 13 trials, 246 patients

Nugent et al³³ reviewed 13 trials in 246 patients that evaluated the effects of different cannabis-based preparations on either central or peripheral neuropathic pain from various conditions. Actively treated patients were more likely to report a 30% improvement in neuropathic pain. Again, studies tended to be small and brief.

Cochrane review, 2018: 16 trials, 1,750 patients

A Cochrane review³⁴ analyzed 16 trials (in 1,750 patients) lasting 2 to 26 weeks. Treatments included an oromucosal spray with a plant-derived combination of THC and CBD, nabilone, inhaled herbal cannabis, and plant-derived THC.

With cannabis-based treatments, significantly more people achieved 50% or greater pain relief than with placebo (21% vs 17%, number needed to treat 20); 30% pain reduction was achieved in 39% of treated patients vs 33% of patients taking placebo (number needed to treat 11).

On the other hand, significantly more participants withdrew from studies because of adverse events with cannabis-based treatments than placebo (10% vs 5%), with psychiatric disorders occurring in 17% of patients receiving active treatment vs 5% of those receiving placebo (number needed to harm 10). 

The primary studies suffered from methodologic limitations including small size, short duration, and inconsistency of formulations and study designs. Further evaluation of long-term efficacy, tolerability, and addiction potential is critical to determine the risk-benefit ratio.

RISKS OF CANNABIS USE

Like any drug therapy, cannabis has effects that may limit its use. Cannabis can affect a person’s psyche, physiology, and lifestyle.

Impaired attention, task speed

Neurocognitive changes associated with cannabis use—especially dizziness, fatigue, and slowed task-switching—could affect driving and other complex tasks. Evidence indicates that such activities should be avoided in the hours after treatment.^26,27,32,33

Concern over brain development

Most worrisome is the effect of long-term cannabis use on brain development in young adults. Regular use of cannabis at an early age is associated with lower IQ, decline in school performance, and lower rates of high school graduation.³⁵

Avoid in psychiatric patients

It is unlikely that cannabis can be safely used in patients with psychiatric illnesses. Anxiety, depression, and psychotic disorders can be exacerbated by the regular use of cannabis, and the risk of developing these conditions is increased while using cannabis.^36,37

High concentrations of THC (the highest concentration used in the above studies was 9.5%) can cause anxiety, paranoia, and psychosis.

Respiratory effects

Long-term cannabis smoking may cause wheezing, cough, dyspnea, and exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. There is some evidence that symptoms improve after stopping smoking.^33,38

SHOULD WE RECOMMEND CANNABIS?

Where cannabis can be legally used, doctors should be familiar with the literature and its limitations so that they can counsel patients on the best use and potential risks and benefits of cannabis treatment.

A recent conceptualization of pain suggests that a pain score reflects a composite of sensory factors (eg, tissue damage), cognitive factors (eg, beliefs about pain), and affective factors (eg, anxiety, depression).³⁹ Physicians should keep this in mind when evaluating patients to better assess the risks and benefits of cannabis. While pharmacotherapy may address sensory factors, cognitive behavioral therapy may help alter beliefs about the pain as well as anxiety and depressive symptoms that might influence subjective reports.

Ideally, patients being considered for cannabis treatment would have a type of neuropathic pain proven to respond to cannabis in randomized, controlled studies, as well as evidence of failed first-line treatments.

Relative contraindications include depression, anxiety, substance use, psychotic disorders, and respiratory conditions, and these should also be considered.

Although current research shows an analgesic benefit of cannabis on neuropathic pain comparable to that of gabapentin,⁴⁰ further investigation is needed to better evaluate long-term safety, efficacy, and interactions with standard therapies. Until we have a more complete picture, we should use the current literature, along with a thorough knowledge of each patient, to determine if the benefits of cannabis therapy outweigh the risks.

Acknowledgments: We thank Camillo Ferrari, BS, and Christina McMahon, BA, for their helpful comments.

Unfortunately, recent research has not unveiled a breakthrough for preventing or treating cognitive impairment or Alzheimer disease. But several studies from the last 2 years are helping to drive the field of geriatrics forward, providing evidence of what does and does not help a variety of issues specific to the elderly. 

Based on a search of the 2017 and 2018 literature, this article presents new evidence on preventing and treating cognitive impairment, managing dementia-associated behavioral disturbances and delirium, preventing falls, and improving inpatient mobility and posthospital care transitions.

COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT, DEMENTIA: STILL NO SILVER BULLET

With the exception of oral anticoagulation treatment for atrial fibrillation, there is little evidence that pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions slow the onset or progression of Alzheimer disease.

Nonpharmacologic interventions

Home occupational therapy. A 2-year home-based occupational therapy intervention¹ showed no evidence of slowing functional decline in patients with Alzheimer disease. The randomized controlled trial involving 180 participants consisted of monthly sessions of an intensive, well-established collaborative-care management model that included fall prevention and other safety strategies, personalized training in activities of daily living, exercise, and education. Outcome measures for activities of daily living did not differ significantly between the treatment and control groups.¹

Physical activity. Whether physical activity interventions slow cognitive decline and prevent dementia in cognitively intact adults was examined in a systematic review of 32 trials.² Most of the trials followed patients for 6 months; a few stretched for 1 or 2 years.

Evidence was insufficient to prove cognitive benefit for short-term, single-component or multicomponent physical activity interventions. However, a multidomain physical activity intervention that also included dietary modifications and cognitive training did show a delay in cognitive decline, but only “low-strength” evidence.²

Nutritional supplements. The antioxidants vitamin E and selenium were studied for their possible cognitive benefit in the double-blind randomized Prevention of Alzheimer Disease by Vitamin E and Selenium trial³ in 3,786 asymptomatic men ages 60 and older. Neither supplement was found to prevent dementia over a 7-year follow-up period.

A review of 38 trials⁴ evaluated the effects on cognition of omega-3 fatty acids, soy, ginkgo biloba, B vitamins, vitamin D plus calcium, vitamin C, beta-carotene, and multi-ingredient supplements. It found insufficient evidence to recommend any over-the-counter supplement for cognitive protection in adults with normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment.

Pharmacologic treatments

Testosterone supplementation. The Testosterone Trials tested the effects of testosterone gel vs placebo for 1 year on 493 men over age 65 with low testosterone (< 275 ng/mL) and with subjective memory complaints and objective memory performance deficits. Treatment was not associated with improved memory or other cognitive functions compared with placebo.⁵

Antiamyloid drugs. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in nearly 2,000 patients evaluated verubecestat, an oral beta-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme-1 inhibitor that reduces the amyloid-beta level in cerebrospinal fluid.⁶

Verubecestat did not reduce cognitive or functional decline in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease, while adverse events including rashes, falls, injuries, sleep disturbances, suicidal ideation, weight loss, and hair color change were more common in the treatment groups. The trial was terminated early because of futility at 50 months.

And in a placebo-controlled trial of solanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the amyloid beta peptide, no benefit was demonstrated at 80 weeks in more than 2,000 patients with Alzheimer disease.⁷

Multiple common agents. A well-conducted systematic review⁸ of 51 trials of at least a 6-month duration did not support the use of antihypertensive agents, diabetes medications, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin, hormones, or lipid-lowering drugs for cognitive protection for people with normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment.

However, some studies found reassuring evidence that standard therapies for other conditions do not worsen cognitive decline and are protective for atrial fibrillation.⁸

Proton-pump inhibitors. Concern exists for a potential link between dementia risk and proton-pump inhibitors, which are widely used to treat acid-related gastrointestinal disorders.⁹

A prospective population-based cohort study¹⁰ of nearly 3,500 people ages 65 and older without baseline dementia screened participants for dementia every 2 years over a mean period of 7.5 years and provided further evaluation for those who screened positive. Use of proton-pump inhibitors was not found to be associated with dementia risk, even with high cumulative exposure.

Results from this study do not support avoiding proton-pump inhibitors out of concern for dementia risk, although long-term use is associated with other safety concerns.

Oral anticoagulation. The increased risk of dementia with atrial fibrillation is well documented.¹¹

A retrospective study¹² based on a Swedish health registry and using more than 444,000 patients covering more than 1.5 million years at risk found that oral anticoagulant treatment at baseline conferred a 29% lower risk of dementia in an intention-to-treat analysis and a 48% lower risk in on-treatment analysis compared with no oral anticoagulation therapy. No difference was found between new oral anticoagulants and warfarin.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is not associated with cognitive decline

For patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not surgical candidates, transcatheter aortic valve implantation is superior to standard medical therapy,¹³ but there are concerns of neurologic and cognitive changes after the procedure.¹⁴ A meta-analysis of 18 studies assessing cognitive performance in more than 1,000 patients (average age ≥ 80) after undergoing the procedure for severe aortic stenosis found no significant cognitive performance changes from baseline perioperatively or 3 or 6 months later.¹⁵

Behavioral and psychiatric symptoms often accompany dementia, but no drugs have yet been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to address them in this population. Nonpharmacologic interventions are recommended as first-line therapy.

Antipsychotics are not recommended

Antipsychotics are often prescribed,¹⁶ although they are associated with metabolic syndrome¹⁷ and increased risks of stroke and death.¹⁸ The FDA has issued black box warnings against using antipsychotics for behavioral management in patients with dementia. Further, the American Geriatrics Society and the American Psychiatric Association do not endorse using them as initial therapy for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia.^16,19

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services partnered with nursing homes to improve the quality of care for patients with dementia, with results measured as the rate of prescribing antipsychotic medications. Although the use of psychotropic medications declined after initiating the partnership, the use of mood stabilizers increased, possibly as a substitute for antipsychotics.²⁰

Dextromethorphan-quinidine use is up, despite modest evidence of benefit

A consumer news report in 2017 stated that the use of dextromethorphan-quinidine in long-term care facilities increased by nearly 400% between 2012 and 2016.²¹

Evidence for its benefits comes from a 10-week, phase 2, randomized controlled trial conducted at 42 US study sites with 194 patients with probable Alzheimer disease. Compared with the placebo group, the active treatment group had mildly reduced agitation but an increased risk of falls, dizziness, and diarrhea. However, rates of adverse effects were low, and the authors concluded that treatment was generally well tolerated.²²

Pimavanserin: No long-term benefit for psychosis

In a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 181 patients with possible or probable Alzheimer disease and psychotic symptoms, pimavanserin was associated with improved symptoms as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score at 6 weeks, but no difference was found compared with placebo at 12 weeks. The treatment group had more adverse events, including agitation, aggression, peripheral edema, anxiety, and symptoms of dementia, although the differences were not statistically significant.²³               

DELIRIUM: AVOID ANTIPSYCHOTICS

Delirium is common in hospitalized older adults, especially those who have baseline cognitive or functional impairment and are exposed to precipitating factors such as treatment with anticholinergic or narcotic medications, infection, surgery, or admission to an intensive care unit.²⁴

Delirium at discharge predicts poor outcomes

In a prospective study of 152 hospitalized patients with delirium, those who either did not recover from delirium or had only partially recovered at discharge were more likely to visit the emergency department, be rehospitalized, or die during the subsequent 3 months than those who had fully recovered from delirium at discharge.²⁵

Multicomponent, patient-centered approach can help

A randomized trial in 377 patients in Taiwan evaluated the use of a modified Hospital Elder Life Program, consisting of 3 protocols focused on orienting communication, oral and nutritional assistance, and early mobilization. Patients were at least 65 years old and undergoing elective abdominal surgery with expected length of hospital stay longer than 6 days. The program, administered daily during hospitalization, significantly lowered postoperative delirium by 56% and hospital stay by 2 days compared with usual care.²⁶

Prophylactic haloperidol does not improve outcomes

In a multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, van den Boogaard et al studied prophylactic intravenous haloperidol in nearly 1,800 critically ill patients at high risk of delirium.²⁷ Haloperidol did not improve survival at 28 days compared with placebo. For secondary outcomes, including delirium incidence, delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and hospital and intensive care department length of stay, treatment was not found to differ statistically from placebo.

Antipsychotics may worsen delirium

A double-blind, parallel-arm, dose-titrated randomized trial, conducted at 11 Australian hospices or hospitals with palliative care services, administered oral risperidone, haloperidol, or placebo to 247 patients with life-limiting illness and delirium. Both treatment groups had higher delirium symptom scores than the placebo group.²⁸

In addition, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies found no benefit of antipsychotic medications for preventing or treating delirium in hospitalized adults.²⁹

Antipsychotics are often continued indefinitely

A retrospective chart review at a US academic health system found³⁰ that among 487 patients with a new antipsychotic medication prescribed during hospitalization, 147 (30.2%) were discharged on an antipsychotic. Of these, 121 (82.3%) had a diagnosis of delirium. Only 15 (12.4%) had discharge summaries that included instructions for discontinuing the drug.

Another US health system retrospectively reviewed antipsychotic use and found³¹ that out of 260 patients who were newly exposed to an antipsychotic drug during hospitalization, 146 (56.2%) were discharged on an antipsychotic drug, and 65% of these patients were still on the drug at the time of the next hospital admission.

Exercise recommended, but not vitamin D, to prevent falls

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations for preventing falls in community-dwelling older adults.³² Based on the findings of several trials, the task force recommends exercise interventions for adults age 65 and older who are at increased risk for falls. Gait, balance, and functional training were studied in 17 trials, resistance training in 13, flexibility in 8, endurance training in 5, and tai chi in 3, with 5 studies including general physical activity. Exercise interventions most commonly took place for 3 sessions per week for 12 months (range 2–42 months).

The task force also recommends against vitamin D supplementation for fall prevention in community-dwelling adults age 65 or older who are not known to have osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency.

Early mobilization helps inpatients

Hospitalized older adults usually spend most of their time in bed. Forty-five previously ambulatory patients (age ≥ 65 without dementia or delirium) in a Veterans Affairs hospital were monitored with wireless accelerometers and were found to spend, on average, 83% of the measured hospital stay in bed. Standing or walking time ranged from 0.2% to 21%, with a median of only 3% (43 minutes a day).³³

Since falls with injury became a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services nonreimbursable hospital-acquired condition, tension has arisen between promoting mobility and preventing falls.³⁴ Two studies evaluating the adoption of mobility-restricting approaches such as bed-alarms, “fall-alert” signs, supervision of patients in the bathroom, and ensuring patients’ walking aids are within reach, did not find a significant reduction in falls or fall-related injuries.^35,36

A clinically significant loss of community mobility is common after hospitalization in older adults.³⁷ Older adults who developed mobility impairment during hospitalization had a higher risk of death in a large, retrospective study.³⁸ A large Canadian multisite intervention trial³⁹ that promoted early mobilization in older patients who were admitted to general medical wards resulted in increased mobilization and significantly shorter hospital stays.

POSTHOSPITAL CARE NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

After hospitalization, older adults who have difficulty with activities of daily living or complex medical needs often require continued care.

About 20% of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries in the United States are discharged to skilled nursing facilities.⁴⁰ This is often a stressful transition, and most people have little guidance on selecting a facility and simply choose one based on its proximity to home.⁴¹

A program of frequent visits by hospital-employed physicians and advanced practice professionals at skilled nursing facilities resulted in a significantly lower 30-day readmission rate compared with nonparticipating skilled nursing facilities in the same geographic area.⁴²

Home healthcare is recommended after hospital discharge at a rapidly increasing rate. Overall referral rates increased from 8.6% to 14.1% between 2001 and 2012, and from 14.3% to 24.0% for patients with heart failure.⁴³ A qualitative study of home healthcare nurses found a need for improved care coordination between home healthcare agencies and discharging hospitals, including defining accountability for orders and enhancing communication.⁴⁴

Unfortunately, recent research has not unveiled a breakthrough for preventing or treating cognitive impairment or Alzheimer disease. But several studies from the last 2 years are helping to drive the field of geriatrics forward, providing evidence of what does and does not help a variety of issues specific to the elderly. 

Based on a search of the 2017 and 2018 literature, this article presents new evidence on preventing and treating cognitive impairment, managing dementia-associated behavioral disturbances and delirium, preventing falls, and improving inpatient mobility and posthospital care transitions.

COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT, DEMENTIA: STILL NO SILVER BULLET

With the exception of oral anticoagulation treatment for atrial fibrillation, there is little evidence that pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions slow the onset or progression of Alzheimer disease.

Nonpharmacologic interventions

Home occupational therapy. A 2-year home-based occupational therapy intervention¹ showed no evidence of slowing functional decline in patients with Alzheimer disease. The randomized controlled trial involving 180 participants consisted of monthly sessions of an intensive, well-established collaborative-care management model that included fall prevention and other safety strategies, personalized training in activities of daily living, exercise, and education. Outcome measures for activities of daily living did not differ significantly between the treatment and control groups.¹

Physical activity. Whether physical activity interventions slow cognitive decline and prevent dementia in cognitively intact adults was examined in a systematic review of 32 trials.² Most of the trials followed patients for 6 months; a few stretched for 1 or 2 years.

Evidence was insufficient to prove cognitive benefit for short-term, single-component or multicomponent physical activity interventions. However, a multidomain physical activity intervention that also included dietary modifications and cognitive training did show a delay in cognitive decline, but only “low-strength” evidence.²

Nutritional supplements. The antioxidants vitamin E and selenium were studied for their possible cognitive benefit in the double-blind randomized Prevention of Alzheimer Disease by Vitamin E and Selenium trial³ in 3,786 asymptomatic men ages 60 and older. Neither supplement was found to prevent dementia over a 7-year follow-up period.

A review of 38 trials⁴ evaluated the effects on cognition of omega-3 fatty acids, soy, ginkgo biloba, B vitamins, vitamin D plus calcium, vitamin C, beta-carotene, and multi-ingredient supplements. It found insufficient evidence to recommend any over-the-counter supplement for cognitive protection in adults with normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment.

Pharmacologic treatments

Testosterone supplementation. The Testosterone Trials tested the effects of testosterone gel vs placebo for 1 year on 493 men over age 65 with low testosterone (< 275 ng/mL) and with subjective memory complaints and objective memory performance deficits. Treatment was not associated with improved memory or other cognitive functions compared with placebo.⁵

Antiamyloid drugs. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in nearly 2,000 patients evaluated verubecestat, an oral beta-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme-1 inhibitor that reduces the amyloid-beta level in cerebrospinal fluid.⁶

Verubecestat did not reduce cognitive or functional decline in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease, while adverse events including rashes, falls, injuries, sleep disturbances, suicidal ideation, weight loss, and hair color change were more common in the treatment groups. The trial was terminated early because of futility at 50 months.

And in a placebo-controlled trial of solanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the amyloid beta peptide, no benefit was demonstrated at 80 weeks in more than 2,000 patients with Alzheimer disease.⁷

Multiple common agents. A well-conducted systematic review⁸ of 51 trials of at least a 6-month duration did not support the use of antihypertensive agents, diabetes medications, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin, hormones, or lipid-lowering drugs for cognitive protection for people with normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment.

However, some studies found reassuring evidence that standard therapies for other conditions do not worsen cognitive decline and are protective for atrial fibrillation.⁸

Proton-pump inhibitors. Concern exists for a potential link between dementia risk and proton-pump inhibitors, which are widely used to treat acid-related gastrointestinal disorders.⁹

A prospective population-based cohort study¹⁰ of nearly 3,500 people ages 65 and older without baseline dementia screened participants for dementia every 2 years over a mean period of 7.5 years and provided further evaluation for those who screened positive. Use of proton-pump inhibitors was not found to be associated with dementia risk, even with high cumulative exposure.

Results from this study do not support avoiding proton-pump inhibitors out of concern for dementia risk, although long-term use is associated with other safety concerns.

Oral anticoagulation. The increased risk of dementia with atrial fibrillation is well documented.¹¹

A retrospective study¹² based on a Swedish health registry and using more than 444,000 patients covering more than 1.5 million years at risk found that oral anticoagulant treatment at baseline conferred a 29% lower risk of dementia in an intention-to-treat analysis and a 48% lower risk in on-treatment analysis compared with no oral anticoagulation therapy. No difference was found between new oral anticoagulants and warfarin.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is not associated with cognitive decline

For patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not surgical candidates, transcatheter aortic valve implantation is superior to standard medical therapy,¹³ but there are concerns of neurologic and cognitive changes after the procedure.¹⁴ A meta-analysis of 18 studies assessing cognitive performance in more than 1,000 patients (average age ≥ 80) after undergoing the procedure for severe aortic stenosis found no significant cognitive performance changes from baseline perioperatively or 3 or 6 months later.¹⁵

Behavioral and psychiatric symptoms often accompany dementia, but no drugs have yet been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to address them in this population. Nonpharmacologic interventions are recommended as first-line therapy.

Antipsychotics are not recommended

Antipsychotics are often prescribed,¹⁶ although they are associated with metabolic syndrome¹⁷ and increased risks of stroke and death.¹⁸ The FDA has issued black box warnings against using antipsychotics for behavioral management in patients with dementia. Further, the American Geriatrics Society and the American Psychiatric Association do not endorse using them as initial therapy for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia.^16,19

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services partnered with nursing homes to improve the quality of care for patients with dementia, with results measured as the rate of prescribing antipsychotic medications. Although the use of psychotropic medications declined after initiating the partnership, the use of mood stabilizers increased, possibly as a substitute for antipsychotics.²⁰

Dextromethorphan-quinidine use is up, despite modest evidence of benefit

A consumer news report in 2017 stated that the use of dextromethorphan-quinidine in long-term care facilities increased by nearly 400% between 2012 and 2016.²¹

Evidence for its benefits comes from a 10-week, phase 2, randomized controlled trial conducted at 42 US study sites with 194 patients with probable Alzheimer disease. Compared with the placebo group, the active treatment group had mildly reduced agitation but an increased risk of falls, dizziness, and diarrhea. However, rates of adverse effects were low, and the authors concluded that treatment was generally well tolerated.²²

Pimavanserin: No long-term benefit for psychosis

In a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 181 patients with possible or probable Alzheimer disease and psychotic symptoms, pimavanserin was associated with improved symptoms as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score at 6 weeks, but no difference was found compared with placebo at 12 weeks. The treatment group had more adverse events, including agitation, aggression, peripheral edema, anxiety, and symptoms of dementia, although the differences were not statistically significant.²³               

DELIRIUM: AVOID ANTIPSYCHOTICS

Delirium is common in hospitalized older adults, especially those who have baseline cognitive or functional impairment and are exposed to precipitating factors such as treatment with anticholinergic or narcotic medications, infection, surgery, or admission to an intensive care unit.²⁴

Delirium at discharge predicts poor outcomes

In a prospective study of 152 hospitalized patients with delirium, those who either did not recover from delirium or had only partially recovered at discharge were more likely to visit the emergency department, be rehospitalized, or die during the subsequent 3 months than those who had fully recovered from delirium at discharge.²⁵

Multicomponent, patient-centered approach can help

A randomized trial in 377 patients in Taiwan evaluated the use of a modified Hospital Elder Life Program, consisting of 3 protocols focused on orienting communication, oral and nutritional assistance, and early mobilization. Patients were at least 65 years old and undergoing elective abdominal surgery with expected length of hospital stay longer than 6 days. The program, administered daily during hospitalization, significantly lowered postoperative delirium by 56% and hospital stay by 2 days compared with usual care.²⁶

Prophylactic haloperidol does not improve outcomes

In a multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, van den Boogaard et al studied prophylactic intravenous haloperidol in nearly 1,800 critically ill patients at high risk of delirium.²⁷ Haloperidol did not improve survival at 28 days compared with placebo. For secondary outcomes, including delirium incidence, delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and hospital and intensive care department length of stay, treatment was not found to differ statistically from placebo.

Antipsychotics may worsen delirium

A double-blind, parallel-arm, dose-titrated randomized trial, conducted at 11 Australian hospices or hospitals with palliative care services, administered oral risperidone, haloperidol, or placebo to 247 patients with life-limiting illness and delirium. Both treatment groups had higher delirium symptom scores than the placebo group.²⁸

In addition, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies found no benefit of antipsychotic medications for preventing or treating delirium in hospitalized adults.²⁹

Antipsychotics are often continued indefinitely

A retrospective chart review at a US academic health system found³⁰ that among 487 patients with a new antipsychotic medication prescribed during hospitalization, 147 (30.2%) were discharged on an antipsychotic. Of these, 121 (82.3%) had a diagnosis of delirium. Only 15 (12.4%) had discharge summaries that included instructions for discontinuing the drug.

Another US health system retrospectively reviewed antipsychotic use and found³¹ that out of 260 patients who were newly exposed to an antipsychotic drug during hospitalization, 146 (56.2%) were discharged on an antipsychotic drug, and 65% of these patients were still on the drug at the time of the next hospital admission.

Exercise recommended, but not vitamin D, to prevent falls

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations for preventing falls in community-dwelling older adults.³² Based on the findings of several trials, the task force recommends exercise interventions for adults age 65 and older who are at increased risk for falls. Gait, balance, and functional training were studied in 17 trials, resistance training in 13, flexibility in 8, endurance training in 5, and tai chi in 3, with 5 studies including general physical activity. Exercise interventions most commonly took place for 3 sessions per week for 12 months (range 2–42 months).

The task force also recommends against vitamin D supplementation for fall prevention in community-dwelling adults age 65 or older who are not known to have osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency.

Early mobilization helps inpatients

Hospitalized older adults usually spend most of their time in bed. Forty-five previously ambulatory patients (age ≥ 65 without dementia or delirium) in a Veterans Affairs hospital were monitored with wireless accelerometers and were found to spend, on average, 83% of the measured hospital stay in bed. Standing or walking time ranged from 0.2% to 21%, with a median of only 3% (43 minutes a day).³³

Since falls with injury became a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services nonreimbursable hospital-acquired condition, tension has arisen between promoting mobility and preventing falls.³⁴ Two studies evaluating the adoption of mobility-restricting approaches such as bed-alarms, “fall-alert” signs, supervision of patients in the bathroom, and ensuring patients’ walking aids are within reach, did not find a significant reduction in falls or fall-related injuries.^35,36

A clinically significant loss of community mobility is common after hospitalization in older adults.³⁷ Older adults who developed mobility impairment during hospitalization had a higher risk of death in a large, retrospective study.³⁸ A large Canadian multisite intervention trial³⁹ that promoted early mobilization in older patients who were admitted to general medical wards resulted in increased mobilization and significantly shorter hospital stays.

POSTHOSPITAL CARE NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

After hospitalization, older adults who have difficulty with activities of daily living or complex medical needs often require continued care.

About 20% of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries in the United States are discharged to skilled nursing facilities.⁴⁰ This is often a stressful transition, and most people have little guidance on selecting a facility and simply choose one based on its proximity to home.⁴¹

A program of frequent visits by hospital-employed physicians and advanced practice professionals at skilled nursing facilities resulted in a significantly lower 30-day readmission rate compared with nonparticipating skilled nursing facilities in the same geographic area.⁴²

Home healthcare is recommended after hospital discharge at a rapidly increasing rate. Overall referral rates increased from 8.6% to 14.1% between 2001 and 2012, and from 14.3% to 24.0% for patients with heart failure.⁴³ A qualitative study of home healthcare nurses found a need for improved care coordination between home healthcare agencies and discharging hospitals, including defining accountability for orders and enhancing communication.⁴⁴

Unfortunately, recent research has not unveiled a breakthrough for preventing or treating cognitive impairment or Alzheimer disease. But several studies from the last 2 years are helping to drive the field of geriatrics forward, providing evidence of what does and does not help a variety of issues specific to the elderly. 

Based on a search of the 2017 and 2018 literature, this article presents new evidence on preventing and treating cognitive impairment, managing dementia-associated behavioral disturbances and delirium, preventing falls, and improving inpatient mobility and posthospital care transitions.

COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT, DEMENTIA: STILL NO SILVER BULLET

With the exception of oral anticoagulation treatment for atrial fibrillation, there is little evidence that pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions slow the onset or progression of Alzheimer disease.

Nonpharmacologic interventions

Home occupational therapy. A 2-year home-based occupational therapy intervention¹ showed no evidence of slowing functional decline in patients with Alzheimer disease. The randomized controlled trial involving 180 participants consisted of monthly sessions of an intensive, well-established collaborative-care management model that included fall prevention and other safety strategies, personalized training in activities of daily living, exercise, and education. Outcome measures for activities of daily living did not differ significantly between the treatment and control groups.¹

Physical activity. Whether physical activity interventions slow cognitive decline and prevent dementia in cognitively intact adults was examined in a systematic review of 32 trials.² Most of the trials followed patients for 6 months; a few stretched for 1 or 2 years.

Evidence was insufficient to prove cognitive benefit for short-term, single-component or multicomponent physical activity interventions. However, a multidomain physical activity intervention that also included dietary modifications and cognitive training did show a delay in cognitive decline, but only “low-strength” evidence.²

Nutritional supplements. The antioxidants vitamin E and selenium were studied for their possible cognitive benefit in the double-blind randomized Prevention of Alzheimer Disease by Vitamin E and Selenium trial³ in 3,786 asymptomatic men ages 60 and older. Neither supplement was found to prevent dementia over a 7-year follow-up period.

A review of 38 trials⁴ evaluated the effects on cognition of omega-3 fatty acids, soy, ginkgo biloba, B vitamins, vitamin D plus calcium, vitamin C, beta-carotene, and multi-ingredient supplements. It found insufficient evidence to recommend any over-the-counter supplement for cognitive protection in adults with normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment.

Pharmacologic treatments

Testosterone supplementation. The Testosterone Trials tested the effects of testosterone gel vs placebo for 1 year on 493 men over age 65 with low testosterone (< 275 ng/mL) and with subjective memory complaints and objective memory performance deficits. Treatment was not associated with improved memory or other cognitive functions compared with placebo.⁵

Antiamyloid drugs. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in nearly 2,000 patients evaluated verubecestat, an oral beta-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme-1 inhibitor that reduces the amyloid-beta level in cerebrospinal fluid.⁶

Verubecestat did not reduce cognitive or functional decline in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease, while adverse events including rashes, falls, injuries, sleep disturbances, suicidal ideation, weight loss, and hair color change were more common in the treatment groups. The trial was terminated early because of futility at 50 months.

And in a placebo-controlled trial of solanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the amyloid beta peptide, no benefit was demonstrated at 80 weeks in more than 2,000 patients with Alzheimer disease.⁷

Multiple common agents. A well-conducted systematic review⁸ of 51 trials of at least a 6-month duration did not support the use of antihypertensive agents, diabetes medications, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin, hormones, or lipid-lowering drugs for cognitive protection for people with normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment.

However, some studies found reassuring evidence that standard therapies for other conditions do not worsen cognitive decline and are protective for atrial fibrillation.⁸

Proton-pump inhibitors. Concern exists for a potential link between dementia risk and proton-pump inhibitors, which are widely used to treat acid-related gastrointestinal disorders.⁹

A prospective population-based cohort study¹⁰ of nearly 3,500 people ages 65 and older without baseline dementia screened participants for dementia every 2 years over a mean period of 7.5 years and provided further evaluation for those who screened positive. Use of proton-pump inhibitors was not found to be associated with dementia risk, even with high cumulative exposure.

Results from this study do not support avoiding proton-pump inhibitors out of concern for dementia risk, although long-term use is associated with other safety concerns.

Oral anticoagulation. The increased risk of dementia with atrial fibrillation is well documented.¹¹

A retrospective study¹² based on a Swedish health registry and using more than 444,000 patients covering more than 1.5 million years at risk found that oral anticoagulant treatment at baseline conferred a 29% lower risk of dementia in an intention-to-treat analysis and a 48% lower risk in on-treatment analysis compared with no oral anticoagulation therapy. No difference was found between new oral anticoagulants and warfarin.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is not associated with cognitive decline

For patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not surgical candidates, transcatheter aortic valve implantation is superior to standard medical therapy,¹³ but there are concerns of neurologic and cognitive changes after the procedure.¹⁴ A meta-analysis of 18 studies assessing cognitive performance in more than 1,000 patients (average age ≥ 80) after undergoing the procedure for severe aortic stenosis found no significant cognitive performance changes from baseline perioperatively or 3 or 6 months later.¹⁵

Behavioral and psychiatric symptoms often accompany dementia, but no drugs have yet been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to address them in this population. Nonpharmacologic interventions are recommended as first-line therapy.

Antipsychotics are not recommended

Antipsychotics are often prescribed,¹⁶ although they are associated with metabolic syndrome¹⁷ and increased risks of stroke and death.¹⁸ The FDA has issued black box warnings against using antipsychotics for behavioral management in patients with dementia. Further, the American Geriatrics Society and the American Psychiatric Association do not endorse using them as initial therapy for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia.^16,19

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services partnered with nursing homes to improve the quality of care for patients with dementia, with results measured as the rate of prescribing antipsychotic medications. Although the use of psychotropic medications declined after initiating the partnership, the use of mood stabilizers increased, possibly as a substitute for antipsychotics.²⁰

Dextromethorphan-quinidine use is up, despite modest evidence of benefit

A consumer news report in 2017 stated that the use of dextromethorphan-quinidine in long-term care facilities increased by nearly 400% between 2012 and 2016.²¹

Evidence for its benefits comes from a 10-week, phase 2, randomized controlled trial conducted at 42 US study sites with 194 patients with probable Alzheimer disease. Compared with the placebo group, the active treatment group had mildly reduced agitation but an increased risk of falls, dizziness, and diarrhea. However, rates of adverse effects were low, and the authors concluded that treatment was generally well tolerated.²²

Pimavanserin: No long-term benefit for psychosis

In a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 181 patients with possible or probable Alzheimer disease and psychotic symptoms, pimavanserin was associated with improved symptoms as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Nursing Home Version psychosis score at 6 weeks, but no difference was found compared with placebo at 12 weeks. The treatment group had more adverse events, including agitation, aggression, peripheral edema, anxiety, and symptoms of dementia, although the differences were not statistically significant.²³               

DELIRIUM: AVOID ANTIPSYCHOTICS

Delirium is common in hospitalized older adults, especially those who have baseline cognitive or functional impairment and are exposed to precipitating factors such as treatment with anticholinergic or narcotic medications, infection, surgery, or admission to an intensive care unit.²⁴

Delirium at discharge predicts poor outcomes

In a prospective study of 152 hospitalized patients with delirium, those who either did not recover from delirium or had only partially recovered at discharge were more likely to visit the emergency department, be rehospitalized, or die during the subsequent 3 months than those who had fully recovered from delirium at discharge.²⁵

Multicomponent, patient-centered approach can help

A randomized trial in 377 patients in Taiwan evaluated the use of a modified Hospital Elder Life Program, consisting of 3 protocols focused on orienting communication, oral and nutritional assistance, and early mobilization. Patients were at least 65 years old and undergoing elective abdominal surgery with expected length of hospital stay longer than 6 days. The program, administered daily during hospitalization, significantly lowered postoperative delirium by 56% and hospital stay by 2 days compared with usual care.²⁶

Prophylactic haloperidol does not improve outcomes

In a multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, van den Boogaard et al studied prophylactic intravenous haloperidol in nearly 1,800 critically ill patients at high risk of delirium.²⁷ Haloperidol did not improve survival at 28 days compared with placebo. For secondary outcomes, including delirium incidence, delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and hospital and intensive care department length of stay, treatment was not found to differ statistically from placebo.

Antipsychotics may worsen delirium

A double-blind, parallel-arm, dose-titrated randomized trial, conducted at 11 Australian hospices or hospitals with palliative care services, administered oral risperidone, haloperidol, or placebo to 247 patients with life-limiting illness and delirium. Both treatment groups had higher delirium symptom scores than the placebo group.²⁸

In addition, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies found no benefit of antipsychotic medications for preventing or treating delirium in hospitalized adults.²⁹

Antipsychotics are often continued indefinitely

A retrospective chart review at a US academic health system found³⁰ that among 487 patients with a new antipsychotic medication prescribed during hospitalization, 147 (30.2%) were discharged on an antipsychotic. Of these, 121 (82.3%) had a diagnosis of delirium. Only 15 (12.4%) had discharge summaries that included instructions for discontinuing the drug.

Another US health system retrospectively reviewed antipsychotic use and found³¹ that out of 260 patients who were newly exposed to an antipsychotic drug during hospitalization, 146 (56.2%) were discharged on an antipsychotic drug, and 65% of these patients were still on the drug at the time of the next hospital admission.

Exercise recommended, but not vitamin D, to prevent falls

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations for preventing falls in community-dwelling older adults.³² Based on the findings of several trials, the task force recommends exercise interventions for adults age 65 and older who are at increased risk for falls. Gait, balance, and functional training were studied in 17 trials, resistance training in 13, flexibility in 8, endurance training in 5, and tai chi in 3, with 5 studies including general physical activity. Exercise interventions most commonly took place for 3 sessions per week for 12 months (range 2–42 months).

The task force also recommends against vitamin D supplementation for fall prevention in community-dwelling adults age 65 or older who are not known to have osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency.

Early mobilization helps inpatients

Hospitalized older adults usually spend most of their time in bed. Forty-five previously ambulatory patients (age ≥ 65 without dementia or delirium) in a Veterans Affairs hospital were monitored with wireless accelerometers and were found to spend, on average, 83% of the measured hospital stay in bed. Standing or walking time ranged from 0.2% to 21%, with a median of only 3% (43 minutes a day).³³

Since falls with injury became a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services nonreimbursable hospital-acquired condition, tension has arisen between promoting mobility and preventing falls.³⁴ Two studies evaluating the adoption of mobility-restricting approaches such as bed-alarms, “fall-alert” signs, supervision of patients in the bathroom, and ensuring patients’ walking aids are within reach, did not find a significant reduction in falls or fall-related injuries.^35,36

A clinically significant loss of community mobility is common after hospitalization in older adults.³⁷ Older adults who developed mobility impairment during hospitalization had a higher risk of death in a large, retrospective study.³⁸ A large Canadian multisite intervention trial³⁹ that promoted early mobilization in older patients who were admitted to general medical wards resulted in increased mobilization and significantly shorter hospital stays.

POSTHOSPITAL CARE NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

After hospitalization, older adults who have difficulty with activities of daily living or complex medical needs often require continued care.

About 20% of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries in the United States are discharged to skilled nursing facilities.⁴⁰ This is often a stressful transition, and most people have little guidance on selecting a facility and simply choose one based on its proximity to home.⁴¹

A program of frequent visits by hospital-employed physicians and advanced practice professionals at skilled nursing facilities resulted in a significantly lower 30-day readmission rate compared with nonparticipating skilled nursing facilities in the same geographic area.⁴²

Home healthcare is recommended after hospital discharge at a rapidly increasing rate. Overall referral rates increased from 8.6% to 14.1% between 2001 and 2012, and from 14.3% to 24.0% for patients with heart failure.⁴³ A qualitative study of home healthcare nurses found a need for improved care coordination between home healthcare agencies and discharging hospitals, including defining accountability for orders and enhancing communication.⁴⁴