Neurology

Intravenous (IV) administration of the antiplatelet agent tirofiban for 72 hours was associated with a reduction in early neurologic deterioration compared with oral aspirin therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke, in the randomized TREND trial.

The results were presented at the International Stroke Conference 2024, held on February 7-9 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Lead author Zhao Wenbo, MD, Xuanwu Hospital, Beijing, China, noted that neurologic deterioration, characterized by a sudden onset and quick peak of neurologic deficits, is a common phenomenon in acute ischemic stroke and is strongly associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Ischemic stroke progression is the main cause of neurologic deterioration, especially during the first few days after onset, Dr. Wenbo said. Several clinical studies have found that intensive antiplatelet therapy may prevent early neurologic deterioration and improve functional outcomes, but administering oral antiplatelet agents can be difficult because of dysphagia, he reported.

The TREND trial was conducted to investigate whether IV tirofiban could prevent early neurologic deterioration without increasing the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage in acute ischemic stroke.

The study included 426 patients with acute ischemic stroke within 24 hours of symptom onset who had a neurologic deficit attributed to focal cerebral ischemia and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score between 4 and 20 points and who were not treated with thrombolysis or endovascular thrombectomy. Patients with cardioembolic stroke were also excluded.

Patients were a median of 10-12 hours from symptom onset and had a baseline NIHSS score of 5.

They were randomized to IV tirofiban or oral aspirin for 72 hours. All patients were then continued on oral antiplatelet therapy.

The primary efficacy outcome was neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase in NIHSS score of 4 points or more.

This occurred in nine patients (4.2%) in the tirofiban group vs 28 (13.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002).

A consistent benefit of IV tirofiban was seen across all subgroups.

The secondary endpoint of neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase of NIHSS score of 2 points or more, was also significantly reduced. This occurred in 11.7% of the tirofiban group vs 23.6% of the aspirin group (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.75; P = .001).

An excellent outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score (mRS, 0-1) at 90 days was seen in 75% of tirofiban vs 68% of aspirin patients, a nonsignificant difference.

A good outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 89% of tirofiban vs 86% of aspirin patients, again a nonsignificant difference.

There were no symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages within 72 hours after randomization (the primary safety endpoint) in either group, and the incidence of systemic bleeding also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Dr. Wenbo concluded that further randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the efficacy of tirofiban on functional outcomes.

‘Promising Results’

Commenting on the study for this news organization, conference chair, Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, and vice-chair, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, both said they thought the results were promising.

“This study didn’t show any long-term outcome benefit, but this was a smaller study, and the results need to be replicated in a larger study with sufficient power to look at longer-term outcomes,” Sansing noted. “But we don’t have anything better than aspirin at present for these patients, so it’s exciting that there may be something in the pipeline for this group.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the TREND trial selected patients on the cause of their stroke, in line with the practice of precision medicine.

“By excluding patients who received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and those who had cardioembolic strokes, we are left with a population who we don’t have many treatment options for,” he said. “These are patients with smaller or moderate strokes who may arrive too late for thrombolysis. It would be great to be able to do something more than just aspirin for these patients.”

Dr. Jovin noted that the study was underpowered to show long-term benefits, but there were some promising trends.

“It stands to reason that if neurologic function does not get worse in the early hours and days after stroke, then the long-term outcomes are likely to be better,” he noted. “But this needs to be confirmed in larger trials.”

Interestingly, another study, the MOST trial, also presented at the ISC-24 meeting, showed no benefit with the IV antithrombotic agents argatroban or eptifibatide on 90-day functional outcomes when added to thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke.

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the MOST and TREND trials included different populations of patients — the MOST patients received thrombolysis, while the TREND patients did not. And in the MOST trial, about half the patients had a large vessel occlusion and underwent thrombectomy, whereas these patients were excluded in TREND.

Dr. Sansing added that patients in the TREND trial may have had small vessel disease or other atherosclerotic disease, or strokes due to the narrowing of vessels or due to an unknown cause. They were also given 3 days of IV tirofiban, whereas the duration of antithrombotic treatment in MOST was shorter.

The TREND study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the National Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality, and the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intravenous (IV) administration of the antiplatelet agent tirofiban for 72 hours was associated with a reduction in early neurologic deterioration compared with oral aspirin therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke, in the randomized TREND trial.

The results were presented at the International Stroke Conference 2024, held on February 7-9 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Lead author Zhao Wenbo, MD, Xuanwu Hospital, Beijing, China, noted that neurologic deterioration, characterized by a sudden onset and quick peak of neurologic deficits, is a common phenomenon in acute ischemic stroke and is strongly associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Ischemic stroke progression is the main cause of neurologic deterioration, especially during the first few days after onset, Dr. Wenbo said. Several clinical studies have found that intensive antiplatelet therapy may prevent early neurologic deterioration and improve functional outcomes, but administering oral antiplatelet agents can be difficult because of dysphagia, he reported.

The TREND trial was conducted to investigate whether IV tirofiban could prevent early neurologic deterioration without increasing the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage in acute ischemic stroke.

The study included 426 patients with acute ischemic stroke within 24 hours of symptom onset who had a neurologic deficit attributed to focal cerebral ischemia and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score between 4 and 20 points and who were not treated with thrombolysis or endovascular thrombectomy. Patients with cardioembolic stroke were also excluded.

Patients were a median of 10-12 hours from symptom onset and had a baseline NIHSS score of 5.

They were randomized to IV tirofiban or oral aspirin for 72 hours. All patients were then continued on oral antiplatelet therapy.

The primary efficacy outcome was neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase in NIHSS score of 4 points or more.

This occurred in nine patients (4.2%) in the tirofiban group vs 28 (13.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002).

A consistent benefit of IV tirofiban was seen across all subgroups.

The secondary endpoint of neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase of NIHSS score of 2 points or more, was also significantly reduced. This occurred in 11.7% of the tirofiban group vs 23.6% of the aspirin group (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.75; P = .001).

An excellent outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score (mRS, 0-1) at 90 days was seen in 75% of tirofiban vs 68% of aspirin patients, a nonsignificant difference.

A good outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 89% of tirofiban vs 86% of aspirin patients, again a nonsignificant difference.

There were no symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages within 72 hours after randomization (the primary safety endpoint) in either group, and the incidence of systemic bleeding also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Dr. Wenbo concluded that further randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the efficacy of tirofiban on functional outcomes.

‘Promising Results’

Commenting on the study for this news organization, conference chair, Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, and vice-chair, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, both said they thought the results were promising.

“This study didn’t show any long-term outcome benefit, but this was a smaller study, and the results need to be replicated in a larger study with sufficient power to look at longer-term outcomes,” Sansing noted. “But we don’t have anything better than aspirin at present for these patients, so it’s exciting that there may be something in the pipeline for this group.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the TREND trial selected patients on the cause of their stroke, in line with the practice of precision medicine.

“By excluding patients who received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and those who had cardioembolic strokes, we are left with a population who we don’t have many treatment options for,” he said. “These are patients with smaller or moderate strokes who may arrive too late for thrombolysis. It would be great to be able to do something more than just aspirin for these patients.”

Dr. Jovin noted that the study was underpowered to show long-term benefits, but there were some promising trends.

“It stands to reason that if neurologic function does not get worse in the early hours and days after stroke, then the long-term outcomes are likely to be better,” he noted. “But this needs to be confirmed in larger trials.”

Interestingly, another study, the MOST trial, also presented at the ISC-24 meeting, showed no benefit with the IV antithrombotic agents argatroban or eptifibatide on 90-day functional outcomes when added to thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke.

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the MOST and TREND trials included different populations of patients — the MOST patients received thrombolysis, while the TREND patients did not. And in the MOST trial, about half the patients had a large vessel occlusion and underwent thrombectomy, whereas these patients were excluded in TREND.

Dr. Sansing added that patients in the TREND trial may have had small vessel disease or other atherosclerotic disease, or strokes due to the narrowing of vessels or due to an unknown cause. They were also given 3 days of IV tirofiban, whereas the duration of antithrombotic treatment in MOST was shorter.

The TREND study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the National Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality, and the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intravenous (IV) administration of the antiplatelet agent tirofiban for 72 hours was associated with a reduction in early neurologic deterioration compared with oral aspirin therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke, in the randomized TREND trial.

The results were presented at the International Stroke Conference 2024, held on February 7-9 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Lead author Zhao Wenbo, MD, Xuanwu Hospital, Beijing, China, noted that neurologic deterioration, characterized by a sudden onset and quick peak of neurologic deficits, is a common phenomenon in acute ischemic stroke and is strongly associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Ischemic stroke progression is the main cause of neurologic deterioration, especially during the first few days after onset, Dr. Wenbo said. Several clinical studies have found that intensive antiplatelet therapy may prevent early neurologic deterioration and improve functional outcomes, but administering oral antiplatelet agents can be difficult because of dysphagia, he reported.

The TREND trial was conducted to investigate whether IV tirofiban could prevent early neurologic deterioration without increasing the risk for symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage in acute ischemic stroke.

The study included 426 patients with acute ischemic stroke within 24 hours of symptom onset who had a neurologic deficit attributed to focal cerebral ischemia and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score between 4 and 20 points and who were not treated with thrombolysis or endovascular thrombectomy. Patients with cardioembolic stroke were also excluded.

Patients were a median of 10-12 hours from symptom onset and had a baseline NIHSS score of 5.

They were randomized to IV tirofiban or oral aspirin for 72 hours. All patients were then continued on oral antiplatelet therapy.

The primary efficacy outcome was neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase in NIHSS score of 4 points or more.

This occurred in nine patients (4.2%) in the tirofiban group vs 28 (13.2%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002).

A consistent benefit of IV tirofiban was seen across all subgroups.

The secondary endpoint of neurologic deterioration within 72 hours after randomization, defined as an increase of NIHSS score of 2 points or more, was also significantly reduced. This occurred in 11.7% of the tirofiban group vs 23.6% of the aspirin group (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.75; P = .001).

An excellent outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score (mRS, 0-1) at 90 days was seen in 75% of tirofiban vs 68% of aspirin patients, a nonsignificant difference.

A good outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 89% of tirofiban vs 86% of aspirin patients, again a nonsignificant difference.

There were no symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages within 72 hours after randomization (the primary safety endpoint) in either group, and the incidence of systemic bleeding also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Dr. Wenbo concluded that further randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the efficacy of tirofiban on functional outcomes.

‘Promising Results’

Commenting on the study for this news organization, conference chair, Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, and vice-chair, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, both said they thought the results were promising.

“This study didn’t show any long-term outcome benefit, but this was a smaller study, and the results need to be replicated in a larger study with sufficient power to look at longer-term outcomes,” Sansing noted. “But we don’t have anything better than aspirin at present for these patients, so it’s exciting that there may be something in the pipeline for this group.”

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the TREND trial selected patients on the cause of their stroke, in line with the practice of precision medicine.

“By excluding patients who received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and those who had cardioembolic strokes, we are left with a population who we don’t have many treatment options for,” he said. “These are patients with smaller or moderate strokes who may arrive too late for thrombolysis. It would be great to be able to do something more than just aspirin for these patients.”

Dr. Jovin noted that the study was underpowered to show long-term benefits, but there were some promising trends.

“It stands to reason that if neurologic function does not get worse in the early hours and days after stroke, then the long-term outcomes are likely to be better,” he noted. “But this needs to be confirmed in larger trials.”

Interestingly, another study, the MOST trial, also presented at the ISC-24 meeting, showed no benefit with the IV antithrombotic agents argatroban or eptifibatide on 90-day functional outcomes when added to thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke.

Dr. Jovin pointed out that the MOST and TREND trials included different populations of patients — the MOST patients received thrombolysis, while the TREND patients did not. And in the MOST trial, about half the patients had a large vessel occlusion and underwent thrombectomy, whereas these patients were excluded in TREND.

Dr. Sansing added that patients in the TREND trial may have had small vessel disease or other atherosclerotic disease, or strokes due to the narrowing of vessels or due to an unknown cause. They were also given 3 days of IV tirofiban, whereas the duration of antithrombotic treatment in MOST was shorter.

The TREND study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the National Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality, and the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.

I think we had a breakthrough on a very controversial subject over the past month. Over and over again, debates have been breaking out, cases have been going to court, and fights have been coming to ethics committees about brain death. How do we know what brain death is, how do we diagnose it, and what rights do families have with respect to the diagnosis?

The American Academy of Neurology decided to form a task force, and they just issued guidelines on the definition, tests to use it, and the rights of families. Whether you›re a neurologist, someone involved in actually diagnosing brain death, or you›re dealing with very ill people whose families are trying to direct the kinds of things that you or the nurses can do, these guidelines, I think, are excellent. They did a wonderful job, in my view. They›ve achieved clarity.

First, they tried to handle both adults and children. Children are, if you will, more difficult — and that’s been known — to test for brain death. Their brains are smaller. You get more interference and false signals coming from muscle or nerve activity that might be going on elsewhere in their bodies.

The guidelines say we’re going to try to see whether a person can breathe without support. If it’s an adult, one test over a 24-hour period would be sufficient. If you had them off the ventilator and they can’t breathe and show no signs of being able to do that, that’s a very fundamental test for brain death. For children, you’re going to have to do it twice. The guidelines are saying to be cautious.

Second, they say it’s very important to know the cause of the suspected brain death condition. If someone has a massive head injury, that’s different from a situation in which someone overdoses from drugs or drowns. Those conditions can be a little deceptive. In the case of drowning, sometimes the brain has protective mechanisms to protect circulation to the brain naturally for a little bit of time. I’m talking about minutes, not hours.

You want to be careful to make sure that you know the cause of the massive brain injury or insult that makes someone believe that the patient is brain-dead, whether it’s a stroke, an embolism, a bleed, a gunshot wound, or trauma to the head. Those factors really drive the certainty with which brain death should be pronounced. I think that’s very, very important.

They also said that brain death means the permanent loss of brain function. You may get a few cells still firing or you may be in a situation, because the life support is still there, where the body looks pink and perhaps might appear to still be alive to someone. When you know that the damage to the brain is so severe that there’s nothing that can be done to bring back the support of heart function, breathing, and most likely any ability to sense or feel anything, that is death.

I believe it’s very important, when talking to families, to say there are two ways that we pronounce people dead, and they’re equal: One is to say their heart has stopped, their breathing has stopped, and there’s nothing we can do to resuscitate them, which is cardiac death. The other is to say their brain has permanently ceased to function in any kind of integrated way. That means no heartbeat, no breathing, and no mental sensations. That is death.

In approaching families, it is critical that doctors and nurses don’t say, “Your relative is brain-dead.” That gives the family a sense that maybe they’re only “partially dead” or maybe there’s one key organ that has stopped working but maybe you can bring it back. Death is death. The law recognizes both cardiac death and brain death as death.

When you approach a family, if you believe that death has occurred, you say, “I’m very sorry. With regret, I have to tell you, your loved one is dead.” If they ask how you know, you can say, “We’ve determined it through brain death or through cardiac death.” You don’t give them a sense that people could be kind of dead, sort of dead, or nearly dead. Those states are comas or permanent vegetative states; they’re not the same as death.

What if the family says, “I don’t want you to do any testing. I don’t want to find out whether my relative is dead”? The American Academy of Neurology looked at this carefully and said that any test for death can be done without the permission or consent of the family. They said that because doctors need to know what steps to take to treat someone.

If a person is dead, then treatment is going to stop. It may not stop immediately. There may be issues about organ donation. There may be issues about gathering the family to come to the bedside to say goodbye, because many people think that’s more humane than saying goodbye at the morgue or in another setting.

This is all well and good, but patients cannot protect against bad news when it comes to death. We don’t want to be doing things to the dead that cost money or are futile because of death and using resources that might go to others.

We’ve got much more clarity than we have ever had with respect to the issue of brain death and how it works in any hospital. We have certain tests, including being off the ventilator and some other tests, that the guidelines supply. We know we have to be more careful with children. We want to know the etiology of the cause of the brain trauma, the devastating brain injury, to be sure that this is something that really is permanent cessation of integrated brain function.

We know that if you believe the person has died, you don’t need the consent of the family in order to do a brain-death test. You have to do it because there is no point in continuing treatment in expensive ICU settings and denying resources to others who might want to use those resources. The family can’t hold the medical team hostage.

We do know that when we approach someone with the determination, whatever it is, we should lead by saying that the person has died and then explain how that was determined, whether it be by cardiac death pronouncement — where you tried to resuscitate and the heart’s not beating — or brain-death analysis.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for this news organization.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.

I think we had a breakthrough on a very controversial subject over the past month. Over and over again, debates have been breaking out, cases have been going to court, and fights have been coming to ethics committees about brain death. How do we know what brain death is, how do we diagnose it, and what rights do families have with respect to the diagnosis?

The American Academy of Neurology decided to form a task force, and they just issued guidelines on the definition, tests to use it, and the rights of families. Whether you›re a neurologist, someone involved in actually diagnosing brain death, or you›re dealing with very ill people whose families are trying to direct the kinds of things that you or the nurses can do, these guidelines, I think, are excellent. They did a wonderful job, in my view. They›ve achieved clarity.

First, they tried to handle both adults and children. Children are, if you will, more difficult — and that’s been known — to test for brain death. Their brains are smaller. You get more interference and false signals coming from muscle or nerve activity that might be going on elsewhere in their bodies.

The guidelines say we’re going to try to see whether a person can breathe without support. If it’s an adult, one test over a 24-hour period would be sufficient. If you had them off the ventilator and they can’t breathe and show no signs of being able to do that, that’s a very fundamental test for brain death. For children, you’re going to have to do it twice. The guidelines are saying to be cautious.

Second, they say it’s very important to know the cause of the suspected brain death condition. If someone has a massive head injury, that’s different from a situation in which someone overdoses from drugs or drowns. Those conditions can be a little deceptive. In the case of drowning, sometimes the brain has protective mechanisms to protect circulation to the brain naturally for a little bit of time. I’m talking about minutes, not hours.

You want to be careful to make sure that you know the cause of the massive brain injury or insult that makes someone believe that the patient is brain-dead, whether it’s a stroke, an embolism, a bleed, a gunshot wound, or trauma to the head. Those factors really drive the certainty with which brain death should be pronounced. I think that’s very, very important.

They also said that brain death means the permanent loss of brain function. You may get a few cells still firing or you may be in a situation, because the life support is still there, where the body looks pink and perhaps might appear to still be alive to someone. When you know that the damage to the brain is so severe that there’s nothing that can be done to bring back the support of heart function, breathing, and most likely any ability to sense or feel anything, that is death.

I believe it’s very important, when talking to families, to say there are two ways that we pronounce people dead, and they’re equal: One is to say their heart has stopped, their breathing has stopped, and there’s nothing we can do to resuscitate them, which is cardiac death. The other is to say their brain has permanently ceased to function in any kind of integrated way. That means no heartbeat, no breathing, and no mental sensations. That is death.

In approaching families, it is critical that doctors and nurses don’t say, “Your relative is brain-dead.” That gives the family a sense that maybe they’re only “partially dead” or maybe there’s one key organ that has stopped working but maybe you can bring it back. Death is death. The law recognizes both cardiac death and brain death as death.

When you approach a family, if you believe that death has occurred, you say, “I’m very sorry. With regret, I have to tell you, your loved one is dead.” If they ask how you know, you can say, “We’ve determined it through brain death or through cardiac death.” You don’t give them a sense that people could be kind of dead, sort of dead, or nearly dead. Those states are comas or permanent vegetative states; they’re not the same as death.

What if the family says, “I don’t want you to do any testing. I don’t want to find out whether my relative is dead”? The American Academy of Neurology looked at this carefully and said that any test for death can be done without the permission or consent of the family. They said that because doctors need to know what steps to take to treat someone.

If a person is dead, then treatment is going to stop. It may not stop immediately. There may be issues about organ donation. There may be issues about gathering the family to come to the bedside to say goodbye, because many people think that’s more humane than saying goodbye at the morgue or in another setting.

This is all well and good, but patients cannot protect against bad news when it comes to death. We don’t want to be doing things to the dead that cost money or are futile because of death and using resources that might go to others.

We’ve got much more clarity than we have ever had with respect to the issue of brain death and how it works in any hospital. We have certain tests, including being off the ventilator and some other tests, that the guidelines supply. We know we have to be more careful with children. We want to know the etiology of the cause of the brain trauma, the devastating brain injury, to be sure that this is something that really is permanent cessation of integrated brain function.

We know that if you believe the person has died, you don’t need the consent of the family in order to do a brain-death test. You have to do it because there is no point in continuing treatment in expensive ICU settings and denying resources to others who might want to use those resources. The family can’t hold the medical team hostage.

We do know that when we approach someone with the determination, whatever it is, we should lead by saying that the person has died and then explain how that was determined, whether it be by cardiac death pronouncement — where you tried to resuscitate and the heart’s not beating — or brain-death analysis.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for this news organization.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.

I think we had a breakthrough on a very controversial subject over the past month. Over and over again, debates have been breaking out, cases have been going to court, and fights have been coming to ethics committees about brain death. How do we know what brain death is, how do we diagnose it, and what rights do families have with respect to the diagnosis?

The American Academy of Neurology decided to form a task force, and they just issued guidelines on the definition, tests to use it, and the rights of families. Whether you›re a neurologist, someone involved in actually diagnosing brain death, or you›re dealing with very ill people whose families are trying to direct the kinds of things that you or the nurses can do, these guidelines, I think, are excellent. They did a wonderful job, in my view. They›ve achieved clarity.

First, they tried to handle both adults and children. Children are, if you will, more difficult — and that’s been known — to test for brain death. Their brains are smaller. You get more interference and false signals coming from muscle or nerve activity that might be going on elsewhere in their bodies.

The guidelines say we’re going to try to see whether a person can breathe without support. If it’s an adult, one test over a 24-hour period would be sufficient. If you had them off the ventilator and they can’t breathe and show no signs of being able to do that, that’s a very fundamental test for brain death. For children, you’re going to have to do it twice. The guidelines are saying to be cautious.

Second, they say it’s very important to know the cause of the suspected brain death condition. If someone has a massive head injury, that’s different from a situation in which someone overdoses from drugs or drowns. Those conditions can be a little deceptive. In the case of drowning, sometimes the brain has protective mechanisms to protect circulation to the brain naturally for a little bit of time. I’m talking about minutes, not hours.

You want to be careful to make sure that you know the cause of the massive brain injury or insult that makes someone believe that the patient is brain-dead, whether it’s a stroke, an embolism, a bleed, a gunshot wound, or trauma to the head. Those factors really drive the certainty with which brain death should be pronounced. I think that’s very, very important.

They also said that brain death means the permanent loss of brain function. You may get a few cells still firing or you may be in a situation, because the life support is still there, where the body looks pink and perhaps might appear to still be alive to someone. When you know that the damage to the brain is so severe that there’s nothing that can be done to bring back the support of heart function, breathing, and most likely any ability to sense or feel anything, that is death.

I believe it’s very important, when talking to families, to say there are two ways that we pronounce people dead, and they’re equal: One is to say their heart has stopped, their breathing has stopped, and there’s nothing we can do to resuscitate them, which is cardiac death. The other is to say their brain has permanently ceased to function in any kind of integrated way. That means no heartbeat, no breathing, and no mental sensations. That is death.

In approaching families, it is critical that doctors and nurses don’t say, “Your relative is brain-dead.” That gives the family a sense that maybe they’re only “partially dead” or maybe there’s one key organ that has stopped working but maybe you can bring it back. Death is death. The law recognizes both cardiac death and brain death as death.

When you approach a family, if you believe that death has occurred, you say, “I’m very sorry. With regret, I have to tell you, your loved one is dead.” If they ask how you know, you can say, “We’ve determined it through brain death or through cardiac death.” You don’t give them a sense that people could be kind of dead, sort of dead, or nearly dead. Those states are comas or permanent vegetative states; they’re not the same as death.

What if the family says, “I don’t want you to do any testing. I don’t want to find out whether my relative is dead”? The American Academy of Neurology looked at this carefully and said that any test for death can be done without the permission or consent of the family. They said that because doctors need to know what steps to take to treat someone.

If a person is dead, then treatment is going to stop. It may not stop immediately. There may be issues about organ donation. There may be issues about gathering the family to come to the bedside to say goodbye, because many people think that’s more humane than saying goodbye at the morgue or in another setting.

This is all well and good, but patients cannot protect against bad news when it comes to death. We don’t want to be doing things to the dead that cost money or are futile because of death and using resources that might go to others.

We’ve got much more clarity than we have ever had with respect to the issue of brain death and how it works in any hospital. We have certain tests, including being off the ventilator and some other tests, that the guidelines supply. We know we have to be more careful with children. We want to know the etiology of the cause of the brain trauma, the devastating brain injury, to be sure that this is something that really is permanent cessation of integrated brain function.

We know that if you believe the person has died, you don’t need the consent of the family in order to do a brain-death test. You have to do it because there is no point in continuing treatment in expensive ICU settings and denying resources to others who might want to use those resources. The family can’t hold the medical team hostage.

We do know that when we approach someone with the determination, whatever it is, we should lead by saying that the person has died and then explain how that was determined, whether it be by cardiac death pronouncement — where you tried to resuscitate and the heart’s not beating — or brain-death analysis.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for this news organization.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Leading a healthy lifestyle, including regular exercise, eating fruits and vegetables, and minimal alcohol consumption, is associated with better cognitive function in older adults, new research showed.

The study, which combined longitudinal and cohort data with postmortem brain pathology reports, found that the association held even in those with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, suggesting that lifestyle factors may provide cognitive reserve and improve cognitive abilities in older age.

“While we must use caution in interpreting our findings, in part due to its cross-sectional design, these results support the role of lifestyle in providing cognitive reserve to maintain cognitive function in older adults despite the accumulation of common dementia-related brain pathologies,” Klodian Dhana, MD, of the Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Better Cognition

The study included 586 participants (71% female) who were followed from 1997 until 2022 as part of the Rush Memory and Aging Project longitudinal cohort study.

Investigators collected information on lifestyle and demographic factors at regular intervals, as well as information on diet, alcohol intake, and time spent participating in moderate or vigorous physical activity such as gardening, walking, calisthenics, biking, or swimming. Participants also received annual cognitive tests.

In later years, participants answered questions about whether they played card games or checkers, read, visited a museum, or did other cognitively stimulating activities.

Postmortem exams allowed the researchers to assess brain pathology (mean age at death, 91 years).

Participants were categorized as living a healthy lifestyle if they scored well in five categories: They exercised moderately or vigorously for 150 minutes per week, did not smoke, consumed one to two drinks per week, regularly played card games or did puzzles, and followed the Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

For every one-point increase in the healthy lifestyle score, there were 0.120 fewer units of beta-amyloid load in the brain and a 0.22 standardized unit higher score in cognitive performance (P < .001).

After adjusting for the beta-amyloid load, phosphorated tau tangle, or other dementia-related brain pathologies, the healthy lifestyle score remained independently associated with cognition (P < .001).

More than 88% of a person’s global cognition score was a “direct association of lifestyle,” investigators noted, leaving slightly less than 12% affected by the presence of beta-amyloid.

“The mechanistic link between lifestyle and cognition could be attributed in part to the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory capacities of each lifestyle factor (eg, nutrition and physical activity) and cognitive reserve (eg, cognitive activities) that contribute to less inflammation and oxidative stress,” the authors wrote.

Further studies are necessary, they added, especially research investigating the association of lifestyle factors with markers for inflammation to understand the mechanisms of how lifestyle is associated with better cognitive scores in old age.

Study limitations include the reliance on self-reported data because cognitive impairment could interfere with inaccurate reporting. In addition, the authors noted that cognitive abilities may affect adherence to lifestyle factors.
 

‘Important Evidence’

In an accompanying editorial, Yue Leng, MD, and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of San Francisco in San Francisco, California, noted that the new study adds “important evidence” to the debate over modifiable risk factors and reduction of AD risk.

“These interesting results add strength to the concept that health and lifestyle factors are important strategies for prevention and suggest that several mechanisms may be at work,” they wrote, adding that the study is “one of the first to harness brain pathology to investigate these mechanisms and is a crucial step forward in addressing these important questions.”

Still, critical questions remain regarding the mechanistic pathways linking modifiable risk factors and cognitive aging, Drs. Leng and Yaffe wrote.

“There is an urgent need for more well-designed randomized controlled trials to pave the way for dementia risk reduction in the era of precision medicine,” they wrote. “These strategies should be offered in conjunction with AD medications, similar to the approach in cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment in which medications along with lifestyle strategies are the standard of care.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dhana reported grants paid to his institution from the Alzheimer’s Association. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Leading a healthy lifestyle, including regular exercise, eating fruits and vegetables, and minimal alcohol consumption, is associated with better cognitive function in older adults, new research showed.

The study, which combined longitudinal and cohort data with postmortem brain pathology reports, found that the association held even in those with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, suggesting that lifestyle factors may provide cognitive reserve and improve cognitive abilities in older age.

“While we must use caution in interpreting our findings, in part due to its cross-sectional design, these results support the role of lifestyle in providing cognitive reserve to maintain cognitive function in older adults despite the accumulation of common dementia-related brain pathologies,” Klodian Dhana, MD, of the Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Better Cognition

The study included 586 participants (71% female) who were followed from 1997 until 2022 as part of the Rush Memory and Aging Project longitudinal cohort study.

Investigators collected information on lifestyle and demographic factors at regular intervals, as well as information on diet, alcohol intake, and time spent participating in moderate or vigorous physical activity such as gardening, walking, calisthenics, biking, or swimming. Participants also received annual cognitive tests.

In later years, participants answered questions about whether they played card games or checkers, read, visited a museum, or did other cognitively stimulating activities.

Postmortem exams allowed the researchers to assess brain pathology (mean age at death, 91 years).

Participants were categorized as living a healthy lifestyle if they scored well in five categories: They exercised moderately or vigorously for 150 minutes per week, did not smoke, consumed one to two drinks per week, regularly played card games or did puzzles, and followed the Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

For every one-point increase in the healthy lifestyle score, there were 0.120 fewer units of beta-amyloid load in the brain and a 0.22 standardized unit higher score in cognitive performance (P < .001).

After adjusting for the beta-amyloid load, phosphorated tau tangle, or other dementia-related brain pathologies, the healthy lifestyle score remained independently associated with cognition (P < .001).

More than 88% of a person’s global cognition score was a “direct association of lifestyle,” investigators noted, leaving slightly less than 12% affected by the presence of beta-amyloid.

“The mechanistic link between lifestyle and cognition could be attributed in part to the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory capacities of each lifestyle factor (eg, nutrition and physical activity) and cognitive reserve (eg, cognitive activities) that contribute to less inflammation and oxidative stress,” the authors wrote.

Further studies are necessary, they added, especially research investigating the association of lifestyle factors with markers for inflammation to understand the mechanisms of how lifestyle is associated with better cognitive scores in old age.

Study limitations include the reliance on self-reported data because cognitive impairment could interfere with inaccurate reporting. In addition, the authors noted that cognitive abilities may affect adherence to lifestyle factors.
 

‘Important Evidence’

In an accompanying editorial, Yue Leng, MD, and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of San Francisco in San Francisco, California, noted that the new study adds “important evidence” to the debate over modifiable risk factors and reduction of AD risk.

“These interesting results add strength to the concept that health and lifestyle factors are important strategies for prevention and suggest that several mechanisms may be at work,” they wrote, adding that the study is “one of the first to harness brain pathology to investigate these mechanisms and is a crucial step forward in addressing these important questions.”

Still, critical questions remain regarding the mechanistic pathways linking modifiable risk factors and cognitive aging, Drs. Leng and Yaffe wrote.

“There is an urgent need for more well-designed randomized controlled trials to pave the way for dementia risk reduction in the era of precision medicine,” they wrote. “These strategies should be offered in conjunction with AD medications, similar to the approach in cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment in which medications along with lifestyle strategies are the standard of care.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dhana reported grants paid to his institution from the Alzheimer’s Association. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Leading a healthy lifestyle, including regular exercise, eating fruits and vegetables, and minimal alcohol consumption, is associated with better cognitive function in older adults, new research showed.

The study, which combined longitudinal and cohort data with postmortem brain pathology reports, found that the association held even in those with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, suggesting that lifestyle factors may provide cognitive reserve and improve cognitive abilities in older age.

“While we must use caution in interpreting our findings, in part due to its cross-sectional design, these results support the role of lifestyle in providing cognitive reserve to maintain cognitive function in older adults despite the accumulation of common dementia-related brain pathologies,” Klodian Dhana, MD, of the Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Better Cognition

The study included 586 participants (71% female) who were followed from 1997 until 2022 as part of the Rush Memory and Aging Project longitudinal cohort study.

Investigators collected information on lifestyle and demographic factors at regular intervals, as well as information on diet, alcohol intake, and time spent participating in moderate or vigorous physical activity such as gardening, walking, calisthenics, biking, or swimming. Participants also received annual cognitive tests.

In later years, participants answered questions about whether they played card games or checkers, read, visited a museum, or did other cognitively stimulating activities.

Postmortem exams allowed the researchers to assess brain pathology (mean age at death, 91 years).

Participants were categorized as living a healthy lifestyle if they scored well in five categories: They exercised moderately or vigorously for 150 minutes per week, did not smoke, consumed one to two drinks per week, regularly played card games or did puzzles, and followed the Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet.

For every one-point increase in the healthy lifestyle score, there were 0.120 fewer units of beta-amyloid load in the brain and a 0.22 standardized unit higher score in cognitive performance (P < .001).

After adjusting for the beta-amyloid load, phosphorated tau tangle, or other dementia-related brain pathologies, the healthy lifestyle score remained independently associated with cognition (P < .001).

More than 88% of a person’s global cognition score was a “direct association of lifestyle,” investigators noted, leaving slightly less than 12% affected by the presence of beta-amyloid.

“The mechanistic link between lifestyle and cognition could be attributed in part to the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory capacities of each lifestyle factor (eg, nutrition and physical activity) and cognitive reserve (eg, cognitive activities) that contribute to less inflammation and oxidative stress,” the authors wrote.

Further studies are necessary, they added, especially research investigating the association of lifestyle factors with markers for inflammation to understand the mechanisms of how lifestyle is associated with better cognitive scores in old age.

Study limitations include the reliance on self-reported data because cognitive impairment could interfere with inaccurate reporting. In addition, the authors noted that cognitive abilities may affect adherence to lifestyle factors.
 

‘Important Evidence’

In an accompanying editorial, Yue Leng, MD, and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of San Francisco in San Francisco, California, noted that the new study adds “important evidence” to the debate over modifiable risk factors and reduction of AD risk.

“These interesting results add strength to the concept that health and lifestyle factors are important strategies for prevention and suggest that several mechanisms may be at work,” they wrote, adding that the study is “one of the first to harness brain pathology to investigate these mechanisms and is a crucial step forward in addressing these important questions.”

Still, critical questions remain regarding the mechanistic pathways linking modifiable risk factors and cognitive aging, Drs. Leng and Yaffe wrote.

“There is an urgent need for more well-designed randomized controlled trials to pave the way for dementia risk reduction in the era of precision medicine,” they wrote. “These strategies should be offered in conjunction with AD medications, similar to the approach in cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment in which medications along with lifestyle strategies are the standard of care.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dhana reported grants paid to his institution from the Alzheimer’s Association. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men prescribed drugs to treat newly diagnosed erectile dysfunction (ED) are 18% less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease (AD) during a 5-year follow-up period, new research shows. 

The study is the second in recent years to suggest an association between the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) such as sildenafil (Viagra) or tadalafil (Cialis) and AD risk. The findings contradict those in a third study, reported by this news organization, that showed no link between the two. 

Although the research is interesting, outside experts noted that there is no evidence that the drugs can treat AD and urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

Investigators agree but believe that the results offer a direction for future studies and underscore the importance of investigating whether existing approved therapies can be repurposed to treat AD. 

“The positive findings from our large study in over 250,000 men is promising and can be used to enhance research capacity and knowledge, with a potential future impact on clinical use and public health policy,” senior author Ruth Brauer, PhD, of the University College London, told this news organization.

“However, before recommending PDE5I are used to reduce the risk of AD, more work is required to validate the findings of our work, particularly in a more generalizable population that includes women and men without erectile dysfunction,” she continued.

The findings were published online February 7 in Neurology.

Strong Association

The study drew on primary healthcare data from the United Kingdom and included 269,725 men (average age, 59 years) with newly diagnosed ED, 55% of whom had received prescriptions for PDE5Is. 

Participants were free from memory or cognitive issues when the study began and were followed for a median of 5.1 years. Investigators accounted for a range of potential AD risk factors, including smoking status, alcohol use, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, depression, anxiety, and concomitant medication use.

During the study period, 749 in the PDE5I group were diagnosed with AD, corresponding to a rate of 8.1 cases per 10,000 person-years. Among those who did not take the drugs, 370 developed AD, corresponding to a rate of 9.7 cases per 10,000 person-years.

Overall, initiation of a PDE5I was associated with an 18% lower risk for AD (adjusted hazard ration [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) compared with those with no prescriptions. 

The association was stronger in people aged 70 years or older and those with a history of hypertension or diabetes. The greatest risk reduction was found in people with the most prescriptions during the study period. Those with 21-50 prescriptions had a 44% lower risk for AD (aHR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.73) and those with more than 50 were 35% less likely to be diagnosed with AD (aHR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87).

There was no association with AD risk in individuals who received fewer than 20 prescriptions. 

Investigators also analyzed associations after introducing a 1- and 3-year lag period after cohort entry to address the latent period between AD onset and diagnosis. The primary findings held with a 1-year lag period but lost significance with the inclusion of a 3-year lag period.

In subgroup analyses, investigators found evidence of reduced AD risk in those who received prescriptions for sildenafil (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93), but there was no evidence for reduced risk compared with nonusers in those who received tadalafil and vardenafil.

Lower AD risk was found in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and in men aged 70 years or older, but there was no association in younger men or those with no history of hypertension or diabetes. 

Although investigators controlled for a wide range of potential risk factors, Dr. Brauer noted that unmeasured confounders such as physical and sexual activity, which were not tracked and may predict PDE5I exposure, may have affected the results. 

Interpret With Caution

Commenting on the findings, Ozama Ismail, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs, noted that in addition to the limitations cited by the study authors, AD diagnoses were not made with the “gold standard” testing that typically includes imaging biomarkers and postmortem assessments. 

“While this study is interesting and adds to a potential association, there is no evidence that these drugs are able to treat Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Brauer, who was not part of the current study. 

“People should not use over-the-counter phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for prevention of Alzheimer’s or other dementias based on this very preliminary finding. Always consult with your physician before starting or changing your medications,” he cautioned.

However, Dr. Ismael added that the study does highlight a potential new avenue for drug repurposing. 

“Repurposing of existing, already-approved treatments can be a valuable part of drug development because, through already-completed testing, we know much about their safety and side effects,” which can decrease cost and time needed for studies, he said. 

“When considering repurposing an existing drug to an Alzheimer’s treatment, however, it is often important to conduct new studies over longer periods of time and in older people that reflect the diversity of individuals living with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ismael said.

Randomized Trials Needed

Dr. Brauer agreed, offering that such a trial should also include people with mild cognitive impairment and measure the effects of PDE5Is given in predefined doses plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or placebo plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. 

“The primary outcome would be the change in baseline cognitive function,” she said. “This approach would provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential therapeutic benefits of PDE5I and AD.”

Studies are also needed to better understand the mechanisms by which these drugs might influence AD risk, Sevil Yasar, MD, PhD, and Lolita Nidadavolu, MD, PhD, from the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, noted in an accompanying editorial.

The strong association between PDE5I use and AD risk in people with a history of hypertension or diabetes suggests “a potential neuroprotective effect through a vascular pathway,” they wrote.

In vitro studies on the role of inflammation and clearance of beta-amyloid could strengthen findings from studies like this one, and in vivo studies could help explain the mechanisms behind PDE5I use and lower AD risk, Dr. Yasar and Dr. Nidadavolu noted. 

“In the end, however, further observational studies exploring mechanisms will not prove a causal association,” they wrote. “A well-designed randomized controlled trial is needed before PDE5I drugs can be prescribed for AD prevention.”

The study was unfunded. The study and editorial authors and Dr. Ismail report no relevant financial conflicts. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men prescribed drugs to treat newly diagnosed erectile dysfunction (ED) are 18% less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease (AD) during a 5-year follow-up period, new research shows. 

The study is the second in recent years to suggest an association between the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) such as sildenafil (Viagra) or tadalafil (Cialis) and AD risk. The findings contradict those in a third study, reported by this news organization, that showed no link between the two. 

Although the research is interesting, outside experts noted that there is no evidence that the drugs can treat AD and urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

Investigators agree but believe that the results offer a direction for future studies and underscore the importance of investigating whether existing approved therapies can be repurposed to treat AD. 

“The positive findings from our large study in over 250,000 men is promising and can be used to enhance research capacity and knowledge, with a potential future impact on clinical use and public health policy,” senior author Ruth Brauer, PhD, of the University College London, told this news organization.

“However, before recommending PDE5I are used to reduce the risk of AD, more work is required to validate the findings of our work, particularly in a more generalizable population that includes women and men without erectile dysfunction,” she continued.

The findings were published online February 7 in Neurology.

Strong Association

The study drew on primary healthcare data from the United Kingdom and included 269,725 men (average age, 59 years) with newly diagnosed ED, 55% of whom had received prescriptions for PDE5Is. 

Participants were free from memory or cognitive issues when the study began and were followed for a median of 5.1 years. Investigators accounted for a range of potential AD risk factors, including smoking status, alcohol use, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, depression, anxiety, and concomitant medication use.

During the study period, 749 in the PDE5I group were diagnosed with AD, corresponding to a rate of 8.1 cases per 10,000 person-years. Among those who did not take the drugs, 370 developed AD, corresponding to a rate of 9.7 cases per 10,000 person-years.

Overall, initiation of a PDE5I was associated with an 18% lower risk for AD (adjusted hazard ration [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) compared with those with no prescriptions. 

The association was stronger in people aged 70 years or older and those with a history of hypertension or diabetes. The greatest risk reduction was found in people with the most prescriptions during the study period. Those with 21-50 prescriptions had a 44% lower risk for AD (aHR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.73) and those with more than 50 were 35% less likely to be diagnosed with AD (aHR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87).

There was no association with AD risk in individuals who received fewer than 20 prescriptions. 

Investigators also analyzed associations after introducing a 1- and 3-year lag period after cohort entry to address the latent period between AD onset and diagnosis. The primary findings held with a 1-year lag period but lost significance with the inclusion of a 3-year lag period.

In subgroup analyses, investigators found evidence of reduced AD risk in those who received prescriptions for sildenafil (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93), but there was no evidence for reduced risk compared with nonusers in those who received tadalafil and vardenafil.

Lower AD risk was found in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and in men aged 70 years or older, but there was no association in younger men or those with no history of hypertension or diabetes. 

Although investigators controlled for a wide range of potential risk factors, Dr. Brauer noted that unmeasured confounders such as physical and sexual activity, which were not tracked and may predict PDE5I exposure, may have affected the results. 

Interpret With Caution

Commenting on the findings, Ozama Ismail, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs, noted that in addition to the limitations cited by the study authors, AD diagnoses were not made with the “gold standard” testing that typically includes imaging biomarkers and postmortem assessments. 

“While this study is interesting and adds to a potential association, there is no evidence that these drugs are able to treat Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Brauer, who was not part of the current study. 

“People should not use over-the-counter phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for prevention of Alzheimer’s or other dementias based on this very preliminary finding. Always consult with your physician before starting or changing your medications,” he cautioned.

However, Dr. Ismael added that the study does highlight a potential new avenue for drug repurposing. 

“Repurposing of existing, already-approved treatments can be a valuable part of drug development because, through already-completed testing, we know much about their safety and side effects,” which can decrease cost and time needed for studies, he said. 

“When considering repurposing an existing drug to an Alzheimer’s treatment, however, it is often important to conduct new studies over longer periods of time and in older people that reflect the diversity of individuals living with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ismael said.

Randomized Trials Needed

Dr. Brauer agreed, offering that such a trial should also include people with mild cognitive impairment and measure the effects of PDE5Is given in predefined doses plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or placebo plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. 

“The primary outcome would be the change in baseline cognitive function,” she said. “This approach would provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential therapeutic benefits of PDE5I and AD.”

Studies are also needed to better understand the mechanisms by which these drugs might influence AD risk, Sevil Yasar, MD, PhD, and Lolita Nidadavolu, MD, PhD, from the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, noted in an accompanying editorial.

The strong association between PDE5I use and AD risk in people with a history of hypertension or diabetes suggests “a potential neuroprotective effect through a vascular pathway,” they wrote.

In vitro studies on the role of inflammation and clearance of beta-amyloid could strengthen findings from studies like this one, and in vivo studies could help explain the mechanisms behind PDE5I use and lower AD risk, Dr. Yasar and Dr. Nidadavolu noted. 

“In the end, however, further observational studies exploring mechanisms will not prove a causal association,” they wrote. “A well-designed randomized controlled trial is needed before PDE5I drugs can be prescribed for AD prevention.”

The study was unfunded. The study and editorial authors and Dr. Ismail report no relevant financial conflicts. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men prescribed drugs to treat newly diagnosed erectile dysfunction (ED) are 18% less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease (AD) during a 5-year follow-up period, new research shows. 

The study is the second in recent years to suggest an association between the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) such as sildenafil (Viagra) or tadalafil (Cialis) and AD risk. The findings contradict those in a third study, reported by this news organization, that showed no link between the two. 

Although the research is interesting, outside experts noted that there is no evidence that the drugs can treat AD and urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

Investigators agree but believe that the results offer a direction for future studies and underscore the importance of investigating whether existing approved therapies can be repurposed to treat AD. 

“The positive findings from our large study in over 250,000 men is promising and can be used to enhance research capacity and knowledge, with a potential future impact on clinical use and public health policy,” senior author Ruth Brauer, PhD, of the University College London, told this news organization.

“However, before recommending PDE5I are used to reduce the risk of AD, more work is required to validate the findings of our work, particularly in a more generalizable population that includes women and men without erectile dysfunction,” she continued.

The findings were published online February 7 in Neurology.

Strong Association

The study drew on primary healthcare data from the United Kingdom and included 269,725 men (average age, 59 years) with newly diagnosed ED, 55% of whom had received prescriptions for PDE5Is. 

Participants were free from memory or cognitive issues when the study began and were followed for a median of 5.1 years. Investigators accounted for a range of potential AD risk factors, including smoking status, alcohol use, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, depression, anxiety, and concomitant medication use.

During the study period, 749 in the PDE5I group were diagnosed with AD, corresponding to a rate of 8.1 cases per 10,000 person-years. Among those who did not take the drugs, 370 developed AD, corresponding to a rate of 9.7 cases per 10,000 person-years.

Overall, initiation of a PDE5I was associated with an 18% lower risk for AD (adjusted hazard ration [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) compared with those with no prescriptions. 

The association was stronger in people aged 70 years or older and those with a history of hypertension or diabetes. The greatest risk reduction was found in people with the most prescriptions during the study period. Those with 21-50 prescriptions had a 44% lower risk for AD (aHR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.73) and those with more than 50 were 35% less likely to be diagnosed with AD (aHR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87).

There was no association with AD risk in individuals who received fewer than 20 prescriptions. 

Investigators also analyzed associations after introducing a 1- and 3-year lag period after cohort entry to address the latent period between AD onset and diagnosis. The primary findings held with a 1-year lag period but lost significance with the inclusion of a 3-year lag period.

In subgroup analyses, investigators found evidence of reduced AD risk in those who received prescriptions for sildenafil (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93), but there was no evidence for reduced risk compared with nonusers in those who received tadalafil and vardenafil.

Lower AD risk was found in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and in men aged 70 years or older, but there was no association in younger men or those with no history of hypertension or diabetes. 

Although investigators controlled for a wide range of potential risk factors, Dr. Brauer noted that unmeasured confounders such as physical and sexual activity, which were not tracked and may predict PDE5I exposure, may have affected the results. 

Interpret With Caution

Commenting on the findings, Ozama Ismail, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs, noted that in addition to the limitations cited by the study authors, AD diagnoses were not made with the “gold standard” testing that typically includes imaging biomarkers and postmortem assessments. 

“While this study is interesting and adds to a potential association, there is no evidence that these drugs are able to treat Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Brauer, who was not part of the current study. 

“People should not use over-the-counter phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for prevention of Alzheimer’s or other dementias based on this very preliminary finding. Always consult with your physician before starting or changing your medications,” he cautioned.

However, Dr. Ismael added that the study does highlight a potential new avenue for drug repurposing. 

“Repurposing of existing, already-approved treatments can be a valuable part of drug development because, through already-completed testing, we know much about their safety and side effects,” which can decrease cost and time needed for studies, he said. 

“When considering repurposing an existing drug to an Alzheimer’s treatment, however, it is often important to conduct new studies over longer periods of time and in older people that reflect the diversity of individuals living with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ismael said.

Randomized Trials Needed

Dr. Brauer agreed, offering that such a trial should also include people with mild cognitive impairment and measure the effects of PDE5Is given in predefined doses plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or placebo plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. 

“The primary outcome would be the change in baseline cognitive function,” she said. “This approach would provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential therapeutic benefits of PDE5I and AD.”

Studies are also needed to better understand the mechanisms by which these drugs might influence AD risk, Sevil Yasar, MD, PhD, and Lolita Nidadavolu, MD, PhD, from the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, noted in an accompanying editorial.

The strong association between PDE5I use and AD risk in people with a history of hypertension or diabetes suggests “a potential neuroprotective effect through a vascular pathway,” they wrote.

In vitro studies on the role of inflammation and clearance of beta-amyloid could strengthen findings from studies like this one, and in vivo studies could help explain the mechanisms behind PDE5I use and lower AD risk, Dr. Yasar and Dr. Nidadavolu noted. 

“In the end, however, further observational studies exploring mechanisms will not prove a causal association,” they wrote. “A well-designed randomized controlled trial is needed before PDE5I drugs can be prescribed for AD prevention.”

The study was unfunded. The study and editorial authors and Dr. Ismail report no relevant financial conflicts. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared NM-101 (Terran Biosciences), a cloud-based software platform to analyze neuromelanin-sensitive MRI scans, which could aid in the diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. 

Research has suggested that neuromelanin is a potential biomarker for neurologic disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.

A recent meta-analysis of 12 neuromelanin MRI studies with 403 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 298 control participants found that neuromelanin MRI had “favorable” diagnostic performance in discriminating patients with Parkinson’s disease from healthy controls.

Until now, there were no FDA-approved devices capable of providing clinicians with analysis of neuromelanin MRI due to a lack of automation and standardization. NM-101 contains algorithms that enable fully automated analysis and the cross-scanner harmonization of neuromelanin MRI scans, the company explains in a news release.

NM-101 is designed to “seamlessly” integrate into existing workflows at hospitals and imaging centers, the company says. 

The platform allows clinicians to send neuromelanin MRI images to Terran directly through the hospital picture archiving and communication system and receive results in less than 1 hour. 

When interpreted by a neuroradiologist, NM-101 could provide information that may be helpful in determining neuromelanin association as an adjunct to diagnosis.

“We believe this technology could become very important in the clinical workflow of patients with neurological and psychiatric disorders,” Terran Biosciences Founder and CEO Sam Clark, MD, PhD, said in the release. 

Neuromelanin MRI has the potential to become “part of the standard of care for the workup of all patients suspected of Parkinson’s and related diseases,” David Sulzer, PhD, professor of neurobiology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and co-author of multiple studies using neuromelanin MRI, commented in the news release.

“It’s great to see neuromelanin MRI become more accessible in clinical settings. We hope this opens the door for the adoption of neuromelanin MRI into the clinical workflow for patients with neuropsychiatric disorders,” added Guillermo Horga, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Terran Biosciences has an exclusive license to the CNS biomarker software platform and related patents co-owned by Columbia University and Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene. Dr. Horga will receive a portion of the royalties paid to Columbia University for sales of the product.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared NM-101 (Terran Biosciences), a cloud-based software platform to analyze neuromelanin-sensitive MRI scans, which could aid in the diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. 

Research has suggested that neuromelanin is a potential biomarker for neurologic disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.

A recent meta-analysis of 12 neuromelanin MRI studies with 403 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 298 control participants found that neuromelanin MRI had “favorable” diagnostic performance in discriminating patients with Parkinson’s disease from healthy controls.

Until now, there were no FDA-approved devices capable of providing clinicians with analysis of neuromelanin MRI due to a lack of automation and standardization. NM-101 contains algorithms that enable fully automated analysis and the cross-scanner harmonization of neuromelanin MRI scans, the company explains in a news release.

NM-101 is designed to “seamlessly” integrate into existing workflows at hospitals and imaging centers, the company says. 

The platform allows clinicians to send neuromelanin MRI images to Terran directly through the hospital picture archiving and communication system and receive results in less than 1 hour. 

When interpreted by a neuroradiologist, NM-101 could provide information that may be helpful in determining neuromelanin association as an adjunct to diagnosis.

“We believe this technology could become very important in the clinical workflow of patients with neurological and psychiatric disorders,” Terran Biosciences Founder and CEO Sam Clark, MD, PhD, said in the release. 

Neuromelanin MRI has the potential to become “part of the standard of care for the workup of all patients suspected of Parkinson’s and related diseases,” David Sulzer, PhD, professor of neurobiology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and co-author of multiple studies using neuromelanin MRI, commented in the news release.

“It’s great to see neuromelanin MRI become more accessible in clinical settings. We hope this opens the door for the adoption of neuromelanin MRI into the clinical workflow for patients with neuropsychiatric disorders,” added Guillermo Horga, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Terran Biosciences has an exclusive license to the CNS biomarker software platform and related patents co-owned by Columbia University and Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene. Dr. Horga will receive a portion of the royalties paid to Columbia University for sales of the product.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared NM-101 (Terran Biosciences), a cloud-based software platform to analyze neuromelanin-sensitive MRI scans, which could aid in the diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. 

Research has suggested that neuromelanin is a potential biomarker for neurologic disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.

A recent meta-analysis of 12 neuromelanin MRI studies with 403 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 298 control participants found that neuromelanin MRI had “favorable” diagnostic performance in discriminating patients with Parkinson’s disease from healthy controls.

Until now, there were no FDA-approved devices capable of providing clinicians with analysis of neuromelanin MRI due to a lack of automation and standardization. NM-101 contains algorithms that enable fully automated analysis and the cross-scanner harmonization of neuromelanin MRI scans, the company explains in a news release.

NM-101 is designed to “seamlessly” integrate into existing workflows at hospitals and imaging centers, the company says. 

The platform allows clinicians to send neuromelanin MRI images to Terran directly through the hospital picture archiving and communication system and receive results in less than 1 hour. 

When interpreted by a neuroradiologist, NM-101 could provide information that may be helpful in determining neuromelanin association as an adjunct to diagnosis.

“We believe this technology could become very important in the clinical workflow of patients with neurological and psychiatric disorders,” Terran Biosciences Founder and CEO Sam Clark, MD, PhD, said in the release. 

Neuromelanin MRI has the potential to become “part of the standard of care for the workup of all patients suspected of Parkinson’s and related diseases,” David Sulzer, PhD, professor of neurobiology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and co-author of multiple studies using neuromelanin MRI, commented in the news release.

“It’s great to see neuromelanin MRI become more accessible in clinical settings. We hope this opens the door for the adoption of neuromelanin MRI into the clinical workflow for patients with neuropsychiatric disorders,” added Guillermo Horga, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Terran Biosciences has an exclusive license to the CNS biomarker software platform and related patents co-owned by Columbia University and Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene. Dr. Horga will receive a portion of the royalties paid to Columbia University for sales of the product.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Comorbidities may play a large role in driving poor pregnancy outcomes in pregnant people with certain immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).

In a new study of 12 individual IMIDs, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) did not have signficantly increased risk for preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight (LBW), compared with people who did not have an IMID, after adjusting for additional chronic conditions and other confounding factors.

The study was published online on February 1 in eClinicalMedicine.

While many studies have explored the relationships between pregnancy outcomes and IMIDs, “the impact of comorbidities on the relation between IMIDs and pregnancy course is insufficiently examined,” the authors wrote. These previous studies also tended to have a small sample size.
 

Pregnancy Outcome Risks Varied Between IMIDs

To remedy this, researchers used electronic health record data from Providence St Joseph Health — a multistate integrated healthcare system — to identify more than 365,000 pregnant people with live births between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022. The cohort included more than 5700 people with at least one of 12 IMIDs: Psoriasis, IBD, RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA), multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), Sjögren syndrome (SjS), vasculitis, sarcoidosis, and systemic sclerosis. The study included only live births with a gestational age of 20 weeks or greater.

Researchers compared maternal-fetal health outcomes between the two groups, controlling for comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and depression. They also accounted for confounding variables including race, age, smoking status, and socioeconomic status.

In total, 83% of people in the IMID group had no immunomodulatory medication prescriptions during their pregnancy. Of the 17% taking medication, 48%-70% continued taking their medication until delivery. Most patients were White, comprising 62.9% of the non-IMID group and 73.1% of the IMID group.

After adjusting for comorbidities, patients with any of the 12 IMIDs had a 10%-20% higher risk for PTB, LBW, small for gestation age (SGA), and cesarean section than did comparators.

But these risks varied between IMIDs. Patients with RA and IBD did not have an increased risk for PTB or LBW. However, when researchers did not control for comorbidities, pregnancy risks were higher and showed statistical significance in these two groups.

“This suggests that for RA and IBD, comorbidities may be a more important factor for adverse outcomes than the underlying autoimmune disease,” senior author Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an associate professor and director of medical data science at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington, said in a video accompanying a press release.

Overall, the analysis found that women with IMIDs were approximately two to three times more likely to have chronic comorbidities than the control group.

Like previous studies, there was a strong association between SLE and APS and poor pregnancy outcomes, even after controlling for confounding factors. Patients with SpA had a 50% increased risk for PTB, while those with SLE and APS had more than a twofold higher risk. Patients with SLE were 90% more likely than comparators to deliver babies with an SGA condition, while RA patients had a 30% higher risk. SLE was the only condition with an increased risk for LBW (relative risk, 3.5). IBD, RA, PsA, SpA, SLE, APS, and SjS were all associated with a higher likelihood of delivery via cesarean section.

“The findings of this study reveal that the associations between IMIDs and adverse pregnancy outcomes are influenced by the specific type of IMIDs and the presence of comorbidities,” the authors wrote.
 

A Large Study, But How Representative Is It?

Asked to comment on the study, Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, noted that the analysis was much larger than many reproductive rheumatology studies, and “their statistics were phenomenal.”

She agreed that “not all autoimmune diseases are created equal when it comes to pregnancy-associated risks.” However, she added that this study’s patient population may not be totally representative of pregnant people with IMIDs or autoimmune diseases.

“We’re making generalizations about autoimmune diseases based on this demographic of White women who are not taking immunosuppression,” she said.

“We know that race and ethnicity play a huge role in pregnancy outcomes, and Black women have higher maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, which is likely related to systemic racism and biases in the medical system,” she added. “While the study did control for sociodemographic factors, the population studied is not diverse.”

Only 17% of people with IMID in the cohort were on immunosuppressive medication, which could suggest low disease activity in the study population, Dr. Sims said. If the population generally had well-controlled disease, that could have positioned them for better pregnancy outcomes.

The authors noted that their analysis did not have information on IMID disease activity or severity — one of the limitations of the study.

However, the authors argued that the observed low prescription rate during the study may have increased poor pregnancy outcomes.

“Although this reflects real-world care in the population studied, results from this study may show higher risk than might be achieved with recommended care guidelines,” they wrote.

Ultimately, the authors argued that these findings show how co-occurring health conditions can affect pregnancy outcomes in autoimmune diseases, particularly for RA and IBD.

“There is a need to take comorbidities into consideration for guidelines for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis and when designing future research to investigate maternal health in patients with IMIDs,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sims declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hadlock has received research funding (paid to the institute) from Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Gilead.

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

Comorbidities may play a large role in driving poor pregnancy outcomes in pregnant people with certain immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).

In a new study of 12 individual IMIDs, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) did not have signficantly increased risk for preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight (LBW), compared with people who did not have an IMID, after adjusting for additional chronic conditions and other confounding factors.

The study was published online on February 1 in eClinicalMedicine.

While many studies have explored the relationships between pregnancy outcomes and IMIDs, “the impact of comorbidities on the relation between IMIDs and pregnancy course is insufficiently examined,” the authors wrote. These previous studies also tended to have a small sample size.
 

Pregnancy Outcome Risks Varied Between IMIDs

To remedy this, researchers used electronic health record data from Providence St Joseph Health — a multistate integrated healthcare system — to identify more than 365,000 pregnant people with live births between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022. The cohort included more than 5700 people with at least one of 12 IMIDs: Psoriasis, IBD, RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA), multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), Sjögren syndrome (SjS), vasculitis, sarcoidosis, and systemic sclerosis. The study included only live births with a gestational age of 20 weeks or greater.

Researchers compared maternal-fetal health outcomes between the two groups, controlling for comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and depression. They also accounted for confounding variables including race, age, smoking status, and socioeconomic status.

In total, 83% of people in the IMID group had no immunomodulatory medication prescriptions during their pregnancy. Of the 17% taking medication, 48%-70% continued taking their medication until delivery. Most patients were White, comprising 62.9% of the non-IMID group and 73.1% of the IMID group.

After adjusting for comorbidities, patients with any of the 12 IMIDs had a 10%-20% higher risk for PTB, LBW, small for gestation age (SGA), and cesarean section than did comparators.

But these risks varied between IMIDs. Patients with RA and IBD did not have an increased risk for PTB or LBW. However, when researchers did not control for comorbidities, pregnancy risks were higher and showed statistical significance in these two groups.

“This suggests that for RA and IBD, comorbidities may be a more important factor for adverse outcomes than the underlying autoimmune disease,” senior author Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an associate professor and director of medical data science at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington, said in a video accompanying a press release.

Overall, the analysis found that women with IMIDs were approximately two to three times more likely to have chronic comorbidities than the control group.

Like previous studies, there was a strong association between SLE and APS and poor pregnancy outcomes, even after controlling for confounding factors. Patients with SpA had a 50% increased risk for PTB, while those with SLE and APS had more than a twofold higher risk. Patients with SLE were 90% more likely than comparators to deliver babies with an SGA condition, while RA patients had a 30% higher risk. SLE was the only condition with an increased risk for LBW (relative risk, 3.5). IBD, RA, PsA, SpA, SLE, APS, and SjS were all associated with a higher likelihood of delivery via cesarean section.

“The findings of this study reveal that the associations between IMIDs and adverse pregnancy outcomes are influenced by the specific type of IMIDs and the presence of comorbidities,” the authors wrote.
 

A Large Study, But How Representative Is It?

Asked to comment on the study, Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, noted that the analysis was much larger than many reproductive rheumatology studies, and “their statistics were phenomenal.”

She agreed that “not all autoimmune diseases are created equal when it comes to pregnancy-associated risks.” However, she added that this study’s patient population may not be totally representative of pregnant people with IMIDs or autoimmune diseases.

“We’re making generalizations about autoimmune diseases based on this demographic of White women who are not taking immunosuppression,” she said.

“We know that race and ethnicity play a huge role in pregnancy outcomes, and Black women have higher maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, which is likely related to systemic racism and biases in the medical system,” she added. “While the study did control for sociodemographic factors, the population studied is not diverse.”

Only 17% of people with IMID in the cohort were on immunosuppressive medication, which could suggest low disease activity in the study population, Dr. Sims said. If the population generally had well-controlled disease, that could have positioned them for better pregnancy outcomes.

The authors noted that their analysis did not have information on IMID disease activity or severity — one of the limitations of the study.

However, the authors argued that the observed low prescription rate during the study may have increased poor pregnancy outcomes.

“Although this reflects real-world care in the population studied, results from this study may show higher risk than might be achieved with recommended care guidelines,” they wrote.

Ultimately, the authors argued that these findings show how co-occurring health conditions can affect pregnancy outcomes in autoimmune diseases, particularly for RA and IBD.

“There is a need to take comorbidities into consideration for guidelines for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis and when designing future research to investigate maternal health in patients with IMIDs,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sims declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hadlock has received research funding (paid to the institute) from Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Gilead.

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

Comorbidities may play a large role in driving poor pregnancy outcomes in pregnant people with certain immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).

In a new study of 12 individual IMIDs, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) did not have signficantly increased risk for preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight (LBW), compared with people who did not have an IMID, after adjusting for additional chronic conditions and other confounding factors.

The study was published online on February 1 in eClinicalMedicine.

While many studies have explored the relationships between pregnancy outcomes and IMIDs, “the impact of comorbidities on the relation between IMIDs and pregnancy course is insufficiently examined,” the authors wrote. These previous studies also tended to have a small sample size.
 

Pregnancy Outcome Risks Varied Between IMIDs

To remedy this, researchers used electronic health record data from Providence St Joseph Health — a multistate integrated healthcare system — to identify more than 365,000 pregnant people with live births between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022. The cohort included more than 5700 people with at least one of 12 IMIDs: Psoriasis, IBD, RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA), multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), Sjögren syndrome (SjS), vasculitis, sarcoidosis, and systemic sclerosis. The study included only live births with a gestational age of 20 weeks or greater.

Researchers compared maternal-fetal health outcomes between the two groups, controlling for comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and depression. They also accounted for confounding variables including race, age, smoking status, and socioeconomic status.

In total, 83% of people in the IMID group had no immunomodulatory medication prescriptions during their pregnancy. Of the 17% taking medication, 48%-70% continued taking their medication until delivery. Most patients were White, comprising 62.9% of the non-IMID group and 73.1% of the IMID group.

After adjusting for comorbidities, patients with any of the 12 IMIDs had a 10%-20% higher risk for PTB, LBW, small for gestation age (SGA), and cesarean section than did comparators.

But these risks varied between IMIDs. Patients with RA and IBD did not have an increased risk for PTB or LBW. However, when researchers did not control for comorbidities, pregnancy risks were higher and showed statistical significance in these two groups.

“This suggests that for RA and IBD, comorbidities may be a more important factor for adverse outcomes than the underlying autoimmune disease,” senior author Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an associate professor and director of medical data science at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington, said in a video accompanying a press release.

Overall, the analysis found that women with IMIDs were approximately two to three times more likely to have chronic comorbidities than the control group.

Like previous studies, there was a strong association between SLE and APS and poor pregnancy outcomes, even after controlling for confounding factors. Patients with SpA had a 50% increased risk for PTB, while those with SLE and APS had more than a twofold higher risk. Patients with SLE were 90% more likely than comparators to deliver babies with an SGA condition, while RA patients had a 30% higher risk. SLE was the only condition with an increased risk for LBW (relative risk, 3.5). IBD, RA, PsA, SpA, SLE, APS, and SjS were all associated with a higher likelihood of delivery via cesarean section.

“The findings of this study reveal that the associations between IMIDs and adverse pregnancy outcomes are influenced by the specific type of IMIDs and the presence of comorbidities,” the authors wrote.
 

A Large Study, But How Representative Is It?

Asked to comment on the study, Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, noted that the analysis was much larger than many reproductive rheumatology studies, and “their statistics were phenomenal.”

She agreed that “not all autoimmune diseases are created equal when it comes to pregnancy-associated risks.” However, she added that this study’s patient population may not be totally representative of pregnant people with IMIDs or autoimmune diseases.

“We’re making generalizations about autoimmune diseases based on this demographic of White women who are not taking immunosuppression,” she said.

“We know that race and ethnicity play a huge role in pregnancy outcomes, and Black women have higher maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, which is likely related to systemic racism and biases in the medical system,” she added. “While the study did control for sociodemographic factors, the population studied is not diverse.”

Only 17% of people with IMID in the cohort were on immunosuppressive medication, which could suggest low disease activity in the study population, Dr. Sims said. If the population generally had well-controlled disease, that could have positioned them for better pregnancy outcomes.

The authors noted that their analysis did not have information on IMID disease activity or severity — one of the limitations of the study.

However, the authors argued that the observed low prescription rate during the study may have increased poor pregnancy outcomes.

“Although this reflects real-world care in the population studied, results from this study may show higher risk than might be achieved with recommended care guidelines,” they wrote.

Ultimately, the authors argued that these findings show how co-occurring health conditions can affect pregnancy outcomes in autoimmune diseases, particularly for RA and IBD.

“There is a need to take comorbidities into consideration for guidelines for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis and when designing future research to investigate maternal health in patients with IMIDs,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sims declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hadlock has received research funding (paid to the institute) from Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Gilead.

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

The first updated guidelines for specialized epilepsy centers in a decade reflect a shift toward addressing patients’ overall well-being, including recommendations for genetic testing and counseling, mental health screening, and greater attention to special-needs populations. 

The guidelines — the first from the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC) in a decade — describe the comprehensive services and resources specialized epilepsy centers should provide to improve quality of care for people living with epilepsy.

“In addition to advances in medicine, there has been a shift toward addressing overall well-being beyond seizure management,” Fred A. Lado, MD, PhD, NAEC president and guideline panel cochair, said in a news release. “This includes care for comorbid conditions like anxiety and depression, enhanced communication between the patient and care team, and addressing health disparities in the epilepsy community.

The guidance was developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts, which is the first time that the NAEC has gone beyond the field of neurology to seek input from other medical specialists and allied health personnel, the panel noted. 

“Expanded guidelines are also sorely needed to help centers and hospitals obtain the resources to provide this level of comprehensive care,” said Dr. Lado, regional director of epilepsy and professor of neurology at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. 

An executive summary of the guidelines was published online in Neurology. 
 

A Multidisciplinary Approach

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurologic conditions worldwide, affecting an estimated 3.4 million people in the United States alone. Recurring seizures can be debilitating and, in some cases, life-threatening. 

To update epilepsy care guidelines, an expert panel of 41 stakeholders with diverse expertise evaluated the latest evidence and reached consensus on 52 recommendations spanning a range of services that make up high-quality epilepsy care. 

“This is exhibited in a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary care conferences, screening for comorbidities of epilepsy, and providing access to other specialty services in addition to the core epilepsy center components of outpatient care, diagnostic procedures, and epilepsy surgery,” they wrote. 

For the first time, the guidelines advise specialized epilepsy centers to offer genetic testing and counseling, provide more education and communication for patients, give greater attention to special-needs populations, employ a care coordinator to organize and facilitate multidisciplinary care, provide mental health screening, and address health disparities and inequities.

“All recommendations quickly reached consensus despite there being such a diverse panel of stakeholders, which emphasizes that the recommendations reflect the important elements of healthcare services that should be in place for an epilepsy center to provide the highest quality of care,” said Susan Arnold, MD, guideline panel co-chair and a pediatric epileptologist at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

“But epilepsy centers will need the resources to provide this comprehensive level of care. We hope the guidelines will help increase health insurer and institutional support and recognition of these recommendations,” Dr. Arnold added. 

The guidelines were funded by NAEC. Dr. Lado has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arnold holds stock in Pfizer. A complete list of disclosures for the guideline panel is available with the original article. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first updated guidelines for specialized epilepsy centers in a decade reflect a shift toward addressing patients’ overall well-being, including recommendations for genetic testing and counseling, mental health screening, and greater attention to special-needs populations. 

The guidelines — the first from the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC) in a decade — describe the comprehensive services and resources specialized epilepsy centers should provide to improve quality of care for people living with epilepsy.

“In addition to advances in medicine, there has been a shift toward addressing overall well-being beyond seizure management,” Fred A. Lado, MD, PhD, NAEC president and guideline panel cochair, said in a news release. “This includes care for comorbid conditions like anxiety and depression, enhanced communication between the patient and care team, and addressing health disparities in the epilepsy community.

The guidance was developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts, which is the first time that the NAEC has gone beyond the field of neurology to seek input from other medical specialists and allied health personnel, the panel noted. 

“Expanded guidelines are also sorely needed to help centers and hospitals obtain the resources to provide this level of comprehensive care,” said Dr. Lado, regional director of epilepsy and professor of neurology at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. 

An executive summary of the guidelines was published online in Neurology. 
 

A Multidisciplinary Approach

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurologic conditions worldwide, affecting an estimated 3.4 million people in the United States alone. Recurring seizures can be debilitating and, in some cases, life-threatening. 

To update epilepsy care guidelines, an expert panel of 41 stakeholders with diverse expertise evaluated the latest evidence and reached consensus on 52 recommendations spanning a range of services that make up high-quality epilepsy care. 

“This is exhibited in a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary care conferences, screening for comorbidities of epilepsy, and providing access to other specialty services in addition to the core epilepsy center components of outpatient care, diagnostic procedures, and epilepsy surgery,” they wrote. 

For the first time, the guidelines advise specialized epilepsy centers to offer genetic testing and counseling, provide more education and communication for patients, give greater attention to special-needs populations, employ a care coordinator to organize and facilitate multidisciplinary care, provide mental health screening, and address health disparities and inequities.

“All recommendations quickly reached consensus despite there being such a diverse panel of stakeholders, which emphasizes that the recommendations reflect the important elements of healthcare services that should be in place for an epilepsy center to provide the highest quality of care,” said Susan Arnold, MD, guideline panel co-chair and a pediatric epileptologist at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

“But epilepsy centers will need the resources to provide this comprehensive level of care. We hope the guidelines will help increase health insurer and institutional support and recognition of these recommendations,” Dr. Arnold added. 

The guidelines were funded by NAEC. Dr. Lado has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arnold holds stock in Pfizer. A complete list of disclosures for the guideline panel is available with the original article. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first updated guidelines for specialized epilepsy centers in a decade reflect a shift toward addressing patients’ overall well-being, including recommendations for genetic testing and counseling, mental health screening, and greater attention to special-needs populations. 

The guidelines — the first from the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC) in a decade — describe the comprehensive services and resources specialized epilepsy centers should provide to improve quality of care for people living with epilepsy.

“In addition to advances in medicine, there has been a shift toward addressing overall well-being beyond seizure management,” Fred A. Lado, MD, PhD, NAEC president and guideline panel cochair, said in a news release. “This includes care for comorbid conditions like anxiety and depression, enhanced communication between the patient and care team, and addressing health disparities in the epilepsy community.

The guidance was developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts, which is the first time that the NAEC has gone beyond the field of neurology to seek input from other medical specialists and allied health personnel, the panel noted. 

“Expanded guidelines are also sorely needed to help centers and hospitals obtain the resources to provide this level of comprehensive care,” said Dr. Lado, regional director of epilepsy and professor of neurology at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. 

An executive summary of the guidelines was published online in Neurology. 
 

A Multidisciplinary Approach

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurologic conditions worldwide, affecting an estimated 3.4 million people in the United States alone. Recurring seizures can be debilitating and, in some cases, life-threatening. 

To update epilepsy care guidelines, an expert panel of 41 stakeholders with diverse expertise evaluated the latest evidence and reached consensus on 52 recommendations spanning a range of services that make up high-quality epilepsy care. 

“This is exhibited in a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary care conferences, screening for comorbidities of epilepsy, and providing access to other specialty services in addition to the core epilepsy center components of outpatient care, diagnostic procedures, and epilepsy surgery,” they wrote. 

For the first time, the guidelines advise specialized epilepsy centers to offer genetic testing and counseling, provide more education and communication for patients, give greater attention to special-needs populations, employ a care coordinator to organize and facilitate multidisciplinary care, provide mental health screening, and address health disparities and inequities.

“All recommendations quickly reached consensus despite there being such a diverse panel of stakeholders, which emphasizes that the recommendations reflect the important elements of healthcare services that should be in place for an epilepsy center to provide the highest quality of care,” said Susan Arnold, MD, guideline panel co-chair and a pediatric epileptologist at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

“But epilepsy centers will need the resources to provide this comprehensive level of care. We hope the guidelines will help increase health insurer and institutional support and recognition of these recommendations,” Dr. Arnold added. 

The guidelines were funded by NAEC. Dr. Lado has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arnold holds stock in Pfizer. A complete list of disclosures for the guideline panel is available with the original article. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may score lower on cognitive tests than people without the condition, a research showed. They also may have worse integrity of brain tissue as evident on an MRI.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Women’s Study; individuals were 18-30 years old at the beginning of the study and were followed over 30 years.
• A little over 900 women were included in the study, of which 66 had PCOS, which was defined as having elevated androgen levels or self-reported hirsutism and irregular menstrual cycles more than 32 days apart.
• Study participants completed tests measuring verbal learning and memory, processing speed and executive function, attention and cognitive control, and semantics and attention.
• Researchers analyzed brain white matter integrity for 291 of the individuals, including 25 with PCOS, who underwent MRI.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with PCOS had worse memory, attention, and verbal ability scores than those without the disorder.
• MRI scans showed that those with PCOS had lower white matter integrity, an indicator of cognitive deficits, including poorer decision-making abilities.
• Those in the PCOS group were more likely to be White and have diabetes than those in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This report of midlife cognition in PCOS raises a new concern about another potential comorbidity for individuals with this common disorder; given that up to 10% of women may be affected by PCOS, these results have important implications for public health at large,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Heather G. Huddleston, MD, director of the PCOS Clinic at the UCSF Health, San Francisco, California, is the lead author of the study published in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

PCOS was determined on the basis of serum androgen levels and self-reporting of hirsutism and oligomenorrhea, so some cases may have been misclassified without the official diagnosis of a clinician.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any relevant financial conflicts. The study was funded by a grant from the University of California, San Francisco, California.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may score lower on cognitive tests than people without the condition, a research showed. They also may have worse integrity of brain tissue as evident on an MRI.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Women’s Study; individuals were 18-30 years old at the beginning of the study and were followed over 30 years.
• A little over 900 women were included in the study, of which 66 had PCOS, which was defined as having elevated androgen levels or self-reported hirsutism and irregular menstrual cycles more than 32 days apart.
• Study participants completed tests measuring verbal learning and memory, processing speed and executive function, attention and cognitive control, and semantics and attention.
• Researchers analyzed brain white matter integrity for 291 of the individuals, including 25 with PCOS, who underwent MRI.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with PCOS had worse memory, attention, and verbal ability scores than those without the disorder.
• MRI scans showed that those with PCOS had lower white matter integrity, an indicator of cognitive deficits, including poorer decision-making abilities.
• Those in the PCOS group were more likely to be White and have diabetes than those in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This report of midlife cognition in PCOS raises a new concern about another potential comorbidity for individuals with this common disorder; given that up to 10% of women may be affected by PCOS, these results have important implications for public health at large,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Heather G. Huddleston, MD, director of the PCOS Clinic at the UCSF Health, San Francisco, California, is the lead author of the study published in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

PCOS was determined on the basis of serum androgen levels and self-reporting of hirsutism and oligomenorrhea, so some cases may have been misclassified without the official diagnosis of a clinician.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any relevant financial conflicts. The study was funded by a grant from the University of California, San Francisco, California.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may score lower on cognitive tests than people without the condition, a research showed. They also may have worse integrity of brain tissue as evident on an MRI.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Women’s Study; individuals were 18-30 years old at the beginning of the study and were followed over 30 years.
• A little over 900 women were included in the study, of which 66 had PCOS, which was defined as having elevated androgen levels or self-reported hirsutism and irregular menstrual cycles more than 32 days apart.
• Study participants completed tests measuring verbal learning and memory, processing speed and executive function, attention and cognitive control, and semantics and attention.
• Researchers analyzed brain white matter integrity for 291 of the individuals, including 25 with PCOS, who underwent MRI.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with PCOS had worse memory, attention, and verbal ability scores than those without the disorder.
• MRI scans showed that those with PCOS had lower white matter integrity, an indicator of cognitive deficits, including poorer decision-making abilities.
• Those in the PCOS group were more likely to be White and have diabetes than those in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This report of midlife cognition in PCOS raises a new concern about another potential comorbidity for individuals with this common disorder; given that up to 10% of women may be affected by PCOS, these results have important implications for public health at large,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Heather G. Huddleston, MD, director of the PCOS Clinic at the UCSF Health, San Francisco, California, is the lead author of the study published in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

PCOS was determined on the basis of serum androgen levels and self-reporting of hirsutism and oligomenorrhea, so some cases may have been misclassified without the official diagnosis of a clinician.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any relevant financial conflicts. The study was funded by a grant from the University of California, San Francisco, California.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Social frailty, the lack of resources to meet basic social needs, is associated with an increased risk for motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR), a predementia syndrome characterized by cognitive complaints and slow gait, results of a large, population-based study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study used 2011 (Round 1) to 2018 (Round 8) data on a discovery sample of 4657 individuals without MCR or dementia at baseline from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a longitudinal survey of older adult Medicare beneficiaries.
• Researchers also collected data on 3075 newly recruited individuals in Round 5 and followed to Round 8 as an independent validation sample to create a pooled sample of 7732 older adults, mean age 76.06, without MCR at baseline.
• Social frailty, assessed at baseline, included five social items: Going out less, not feeling confident, rarely visiting friends/family, not talking with others, and without live-in partner/spouse (researchers divided participants into normal [zero to one items] and social frailty [two to five items] groups).
• Individuals were considered to have MCR if they had both subjective cognitive complaints and slow gait speed (greater than 1 standard deviation below age-specific level) without dementia or mobility disability.
• Covariates included demographic and lifestyle data, presence of depression and/or anxiety symptoms, and number of chronic diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up period of 4 years, 10.35% individuals were diagnosed with MCR.
• After the researchers controlled for confounding factors, those with social frailty had an increased risk for MCR compared with the normal group (pooled sample: hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.84; P < .001).
• Each additional unfavorable social item was associated with an increased risk for MCR (pooled sample: HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.22-1.43; P < .001).
• Results of stratified analyses across subgroups suggested individuals with social frailty had a significantly higher risk for incident MCR than that of those without social frailty, regardless of socioeconomic status, lifestyle factors, chronic diseases, and mental health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest assessing social frailty using simple questions “is an efficient tool for detecting older individuals with a high risk of MCR,” the authors wrote. They noted that the addition of such a tool in clinical practice may facilitate “timely implementation of prevention strategies.”

SOURCE:

The research was led by Hui Zhang, Human Phenome Institute, Zhangjiang Fudan International Innovation Centre, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. It was published online on January 29, 2024, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational, so the association between social frailty and MCR is merely correlational. Due to the lack of genetic information in NHATS data, researchers didn’t evaluate the effect of genetic factors such as apolipoprotein E on the association between social frailty and MCR. Social frailty was assessed at a single time point. In addition, the researchers were unable examine the time sequence between social frailty and MCR and so could not determine the cause of this association.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China-Youth Science Fund, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission and Key Discipline Construction Project of Pudong Health, and Family Planning Commission of Shanghai. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Social frailty, the lack of resources to meet basic social needs, is associated with an increased risk for motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR), a predementia syndrome characterized by cognitive complaints and slow gait, results of a large, population-based study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study used 2011 (Round 1) to 2018 (Round 8) data on a discovery sample of 4657 individuals without MCR or dementia at baseline from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a longitudinal survey of older adult Medicare beneficiaries.
• Researchers also collected data on 3075 newly recruited individuals in Round 5 and followed to Round 8 as an independent validation sample to create a pooled sample of 7732 older adults, mean age 76.06, without MCR at baseline.
• Social frailty, assessed at baseline, included five social items: Going out less, not feeling confident, rarely visiting friends/family, not talking with others, and without live-in partner/spouse (researchers divided participants into normal [zero to one items] and social frailty [two to five items] groups).
• Individuals were considered to have MCR if they had both subjective cognitive complaints and slow gait speed (greater than 1 standard deviation below age-specific level) without dementia or mobility disability.
• Covariates included demographic and lifestyle data, presence of depression and/or anxiety symptoms, and number of chronic diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up period of 4 years, 10.35% individuals were diagnosed with MCR.
• After the researchers controlled for confounding factors, those with social frailty had an increased risk for MCR compared with the normal group (pooled sample: hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.84; P < .001).
• Each additional unfavorable social item was associated with an increased risk for MCR (pooled sample: HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.22-1.43; P < .001).
• Results of stratified analyses across subgroups suggested individuals with social frailty had a significantly higher risk for incident MCR than that of those without social frailty, regardless of socioeconomic status, lifestyle factors, chronic diseases, and mental health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest assessing social frailty using simple questions “is an efficient tool for detecting older individuals with a high risk of MCR,” the authors wrote. They noted that the addition of such a tool in clinical practice may facilitate “timely implementation of prevention strategies.”

SOURCE:

The research was led by Hui Zhang, Human Phenome Institute, Zhangjiang Fudan International Innovation Centre, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. It was published online on January 29, 2024, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational, so the association between social frailty and MCR is merely correlational. Due to the lack of genetic information in NHATS data, researchers didn’t evaluate the effect of genetic factors such as apolipoprotein E on the association between social frailty and MCR. Social frailty was assessed at a single time point. In addition, the researchers were unable examine the time sequence between social frailty and MCR and so could not determine the cause of this association.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China-Youth Science Fund, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission and Key Discipline Construction Project of Pudong Health, and Family Planning Commission of Shanghai. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Social frailty, the lack of resources to meet basic social needs, is associated with an increased risk for motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR), a predementia syndrome characterized by cognitive complaints and slow gait, results of a large, population-based study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study used 2011 (Round 1) to 2018 (Round 8) data on a discovery sample of 4657 individuals without MCR or dementia at baseline from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), a longitudinal survey of older adult Medicare beneficiaries.
• Researchers also collected data on 3075 newly recruited individuals in Round 5 and followed to Round 8 as an independent validation sample to create a pooled sample of 7732 older adults, mean age 76.06, without MCR at baseline.
• Social frailty, assessed at baseline, included five social items: Going out less, not feeling confident, rarely visiting friends/family, not talking with others, and without live-in partner/spouse (researchers divided participants into normal [zero to one items] and social frailty [two to five items] groups).
• Individuals were considered to have MCR if they had both subjective cognitive complaints and slow gait speed (greater than 1 standard deviation below age-specific level) without dementia or mobility disability.
• Covariates included demographic and lifestyle data, presence of depression and/or anxiety symptoms, and number of chronic diseases.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up period of 4 years, 10.35% individuals were diagnosed with MCR.
• After the researchers controlled for confounding factors, those with social frailty had an increased risk for MCR compared with the normal group (pooled sample: hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.84; P < .001).
• Each additional unfavorable social item was associated with an increased risk for MCR (pooled sample: HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.22-1.43; P < .001).
• Results of stratified analyses across subgroups suggested individuals with social frailty had a significantly higher risk for incident MCR than that of those without social frailty, regardless of socioeconomic status, lifestyle factors, chronic diseases, and mental health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest assessing social frailty using simple questions “is an efficient tool for detecting older individuals with a high risk of MCR,” the authors wrote. They noted that the addition of such a tool in clinical practice may facilitate “timely implementation of prevention strategies.”

SOURCE:

The research was led by Hui Zhang, Human Phenome Institute, Zhangjiang Fudan International Innovation Centre, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. It was published online on January 29, 2024, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was observational, so the association between social frailty and MCR is merely correlational. Due to the lack of genetic information in NHATS data, researchers didn’t evaluate the effect of genetic factors such as apolipoprotein E on the association between social frailty and MCR. Social frailty was assessed at a single time point. In addition, the researchers were unable examine the time sequence between social frailty and MCR and so could not determine the cause of this association.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China-Youth Science Fund, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission and Key Discipline Construction Project of Pudong Health, and Family Planning Commission of Shanghai. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Migraine is associated with a significantly increased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including both Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), a new nationwide, population-based cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database, which houses data for the nationwide obligatory health system for South Korean citizens.
• Individuals aged ≥ 20 years who had at least one national health screening in 2009 were enrolled in the study and followed until December 2019.
• Investigators searched the data for International Classification of Diseases (10th Revision) codes corresponding to migraine and IBD. IBD diagnoses were also based on clinical manifestation, endoscopic findings, and pathologic findings.

TAKEAWAY:

• More than 10 million people were enrolled in the study (55% male; mean age, 47 years), and of these, 2.8% were diagnosed with migraine during the study period.
• During a median follow-up of 10 years, the incidence of IBD was significantly higher in patients with migraine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.31; P < .001), CD (aHR, 1.58; P < .001) and UC (aHR, 1.26; P < .001) than in those without migraine.
• in men vs women (aHR, 1.43 vs 1.12; P = .042).
• Investigators could only speculate about the mechanisms underlying the association between migraine and IBD but suggest pathological processes underlying both migraine and IBD, including proinflammatory cytokines and tumor necrosis factor alpha, may be involved.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of IBD in patients diagnosed with migraine especially in men for the development of UC and in migraineurs with a long disease duration for a further risk of CD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hyunjung Lee, MD, of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, led the study, which was published online on January 12, 2024, in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Disease severity of migraine and IBD was not available. In addition, certain medications taken to relieve migraine, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen, could cause intestinal inflammation, but there was no medication information available.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no information about study funding nor disclosures from study authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Migraine is associated with a significantly increased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including both Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), a new nationwide, population-based cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database, which houses data for the nationwide obligatory health system for South Korean citizens.
• Individuals aged ≥ 20 years who had at least one national health screening in 2009 were enrolled in the study and followed until December 2019.
• Investigators searched the data for International Classification of Diseases (10th Revision) codes corresponding to migraine and IBD. IBD diagnoses were also based on clinical manifestation, endoscopic findings, and pathologic findings.

TAKEAWAY:

• More than 10 million people were enrolled in the study (55% male; mean age, 47 years), and of these, 2.8% were diagnosed with migraine during the study period.
• During a median follow-up of 10 years, the incidence of IBD was significantly higher in patients with migraine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.31; P < .001), CD (aHR, 1.58; P < .001) and UC (aHR, 1.26; P < .001) than in those without migraine.
• in men vs women (aHR, 1.43 vs 1.12; P = .042).
• Investigators could only speculate about the mechanisms underlying the association between migraine and IBD but suggest pathological processes underlying both migraine and IBD, including proinflammatory cytokines and tumor necrosis factor alpha, may be involved.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of IBD in patients diagnosed with migraine especially in men for the development of UC and in migraineurs with a long disease duration for a further risk of CD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hyunjung Lee, MD, of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, led the study, which was published online on January 12, 2024, in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Disease severity of migraine and IBD was not available. In addition, certain medications taken to relieve migraine, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen, could cause intestinal inflammation, but there was no medication information available.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no information about study funding nor disclosures from study authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Migraine is associated with a significantly increased risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including both Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), a new nationwide, population-based cohort study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed data from South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database, which houses data for the nationwide obligatory health system for South Korean citizens.
• Individuals aged ≥ 20 years who had at least one national health screening in 2009 were enrolled in the study and followed until December 2019.
• Investigators searched the data for International Classification of Diseases (10th Revision) codes corresponding to migraine and IBD. IBD diagnoses were also based on clinical manifestation, endoscopic findings, and pathologic findings.

TAKEAWAY:

• More than 10 million people were enrolled in the study (55% male; mean age, 47 years), and of these, 2.8% were diagnosed with migraine during the study period.
• During a median follow-up of 10 years, the incidence of IBD was significantly higher in patients with migraine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.31; P < .001), CD (aHR, 1.58; P < .001) and UC (aHR, 1.26; P < .001) than in those without migraine.
• in men vs women (aHR, 1.43 vs 1.12; P = .042).
• Investigators could only speculate about the mechanisms underlying the association between migraine and IBD but suggest pathological processes underlying both migraine and IBD, including proinflammatory cytokines and tumor necrosis factor alpha, may be involved.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of IBD in patients diagnosed with migraine especially in men for the development of UC and in migraineurs with a long disease duration for a further risk of CD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hyunjung Lee, MD, of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, led the study, which was published online on January 12, 2024, in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Disease severity of migraine and IBD was not available. In addition, certain medications taken to relieve migraine, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen, could cause intestinal inflammation, but there was no medication information available.

DISCLOSURES:

There was no information about study funding nor disclosures from study authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.