Neurology

TOPLINE:

An international expert consensus offers guidance to diagnose, assess, and treat adult patients experiencing drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).

METHODOLOGY:

Data on the evaluation, assessment, and treatment of the rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reaction are lacking.

To support clinicians in diagnosing and managing DRESS, a steering committee conducted a literature review to examine current research, identify evidence, and develop consensus statements. They invited experts from 21 countries across four continents to participate in a Delphi consensus process.

An international panel of 54 experts (including 45 dermatologists) initially assessed 100 statements related to baseline workup, severity of the condition, and treatment. Two more statements were added in the second round.

After revisions and the second round, the group reached consensus for 93 statements overall.

TAKEAWAY:

The statements generating the most disagreement involved diagnosis. The group ultimately supported the value of measuring the viral load of Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and human herpesvirus 6 in all patients with suspected DRESS. The group also agreed on screening for hepatitis A, B, and C in cases of liver involvement and screening for hepatitis B and C before starting systemic therapy.

The group agreed with previous severity criteria that differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe DRESS based on the extent of liver, kidney, and blood involvement and the damage of other organs.

Consensus on treatment was reached for all 12 relevant statements in the first Delphi round. Recommendations included the use of corticosteroids and immediate discontinuation of the drugs causing the reaction.

IN PRACTICE:

“This Delphi exercise aimed to provide a common ground of consensus,” the authors noted. However, “each of the addressed categories needs more in-depth follow-up studies to improve the clinical management of patients.”

SOURCE:

The DRESS Delphi consensus group conducted its exercise under the leadership of Marie-Charlotte Brüggen, MD, of the University Hospital of Zürich. The consensus was published online in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Published evidence was limited because of the low prevalence of DRESS. The consensus statements should therefore be considered with caution and in the context of a clinician’s expertise and available resources. Research gaps also persist in how DRESS may vary with region and ethnicity. The severity thresholds need validation in a revised multicenter statement.

DISCLOSURES:

The consensus review received no outside funding. Dr. Brüggen disclosed relationships with the Swiss National Science Foundation, Christine Kühne – Center for Allergy Research and Education, FreeNovation, LEO Foundation, Olga Mayenfisch Foundation, University of Zürich, LEO Pharma, Pierre Fabre Eczema Foundation, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, GSK, and AstraZeneca. Coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and medical publishing companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An international expert consensus offers guidance to diagnose, assess, and treat adult patients experiencing drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).

METHODOLOGY:

Data on the evaluation, assessment, and treatment of the rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reaction are lacking.

To support clinicians in diagnosing and managing DRESS, a steering committee conducted a literature review to examine current research, identify evidence, and develop consensus statements. They invited experts from 21 countries across four continents to participate in a Delphi consensus process.

An international panel of 54 experts (including 45 dermatologists) initially assessed 100 statements related to baseline workup, severity of the condition, and treatment. Two more statements were added in the second round.

After revisions and the second round, the group reached consensus for 93 statements overall.

TAKEAWAY:

The statements generating the most disagreement involved diagnosis. The group ultimately supported the value of measuring the viral load of Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and human herpesvirus 6 in all patients with suspected DRESS. The group also agreed on screening for hepatitis A, B, and C in cases of liver involvement and screening for hepatitis B and C before starting systemic therapy.

The group agreed with previous severity criteria that differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe DRESS based on the extent of liver, kidney, and blood involvement and the damage of other organs.

Consensus on treatment was reached for all 12 relevant statements in the first Delphi round. Recommendations included the use of corticosteroids and immediate discontinuation of the drugs causing the reaction.

IN PRACTICE:

“This Delphi exercise aimed to provide a common ground of consensus,” the authors noted. However, “each of the addressed categories needs more in-depth follow-up studies to improve the clinical management of patients.”

SOURCE:

The DRESS Delphi consensus group conducted its exercise under the leadership of Marie-Charlotte Brüggen, MD, of the University Hospital of Zürich. The consensus was published online in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Published evidence was limited because of the low prevalence of DRESS. The consensus statements should therefore be considered with caution and in the context of a clinician’s expertise and available resources. Research gaps also persist in how DRESS may vary with region and ethnicity. The severity thresholds need validation in a revised multicenter statement.

DISCLOSURES:

The consensus review received no outside funding. Dr. Brüggen disclosed relationships with the Swiss National Science Foundation, Christine Kühne – Center for Allergy Research and Education, FreeNovation, LEO Foundation, Olga Mayenfisch Foundation, University of Zürich, LEO Pharma, Pierre Fabre Eczema Foundation, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, GSK, and AstraZeneca. Coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and medical publishing companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An international expert consensus offers guidance to diagnose, assess, and treat adult patients experiencing drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).

METHODOLOGY:

Data on the evaluation, assessment, and treatment of the rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reaction are lacking.

To support clinicians in diagnosing and managing DRESS, a steering committee conducted a literature review to examine current research, identify evidence, and develop consensus statements. They invited experts from 21 countries across four continents to participate in a Delphi consensus process.

An international panel of 54 experts (including 45 dermatologists) initially assessed 100 statements related to baseline workup, severity of the condition, and treatment. Two more statements were added in the second round.

After revisions and the second round, the group reached consensus for 93 statements overall.

TAKEAWAY:

The statements generating the most disagreement involved diagnosis. The group ultimately supported the value of measuring the viral load of Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and human herpesvirus 6 in all patients with suspected DRESS. The group also agreed on screening for hepatitis A, B, and C in cases of liver involvement and screening for hepatitis B and C before starting systemic therapy.

The group agreed with previous severity criteria that differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe DRESS based on the extent of liver, kidney, and blood involvement and the damage of other organs.

Consensus on treatment was reached for all 12 relevant statements in the first Delphi round. Recommendations included the use of corticosteroids and immediate discontinuation of the drugs causing the reaction.

IN PRACTICE:

“This Delphi exercise aimed to provide a common ground of consensus,” the authors noted. However, “each of the addressed categories needs more in-depth follow-up studies to improve the clinical management of patients.”

SOURCE:

The DRESS Delphi consensus group conducted its exercise under the leadership of Marie-Charlotte Brüggen, MD, of the University Hospital of Zürich. The consensus was published online in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Published evidence was limited because of the low prevalence of DRESS. The consensus statements should therefore be considered with caution and in the context of a clinician’s expertise and available resources. Research gaps also persist in how DRESS may vary with region and ethnicity. The severity thresholds need validation in a revised multicenter statement.

DISCLOSURES:

The consensus review received no outside funding. Dr. Brüggen disclosed relationships with the Swiss National Science Foundation, Christine Kühne – Center for Allergy Research and Education, FreeNovation, LEO Foundation, Olga Mayenfisch Foundation, University of Zürich, LEO Pharma, Pierre Fabre Eczema Foundation, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, GSK, and AstraZeneca. Coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and medical publishing companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with poorer cardiovascular and neurocognitive health among midlife women, particularly those who are APOEε4 carriers, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 274 women (mean age, 59 years) participating in the MsBrain study of menopause and brain health.
• As part of the study, the women completed the PTSD Checklist–Civilian Version and underwent physical and neuropsychological testing, as well as carotid artery ultrasonography and brain MRI.
• Outcomes of interest were associations of PTSD symptoms with carotid intima media thickness (IMT), brain white matter hyperintensity volume (WMHV), and cognition, assessed in linear regression models.
• Interactions by APOEε4 were assessed; covariates included age, race/ethnicity, education, and CVD risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher PTSD symptoms were associated with greater carotid IMT (P = .03); associations of PTSD symptoms with neurocognitive outcomes varied significantly by APOEε4 status.
• Among APOEε4 carriers, PTSD symptoms were associated with greater whole-brain WMHV (P = .009), periventricular WMHV (P = .02), deep WMHV (P = .01), and frontal WMHV (P = .04) in multivariable models.
• APOEε4 carriers with PTSD symptoms also had poorer cognition, specifically attention and working memory (P = .02), semantic fluency (P = .01), perceptual speed (P = .002) and processing speed (P = .002), in multivariable models.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study sheds important insight on the implications of PTSD symptoms to women’s cardiovascular and neurocognitive health. Our findings indicate that the APOEε4 genotype may identify a group of women with PTSD symptoms at particular risk for poor neurocognitive health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rebecca Thurston, PhD, of the department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

No diagnostic clinical interviews were conducted, and PTSD treatment was not assessed. All participants identified as cisgender, and most were non-Hispanic Black or White. The study was observational and cross-sectional, precluding assertions about directionality or causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the University of Pittsburgh Small Molecule Biomarker Core. Dr. Thurston reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Hello Therapeutics, Vira Health, and Happify Health outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with poorer cardiovascular and neurocognitive health among midlife women, particularly those who are APOEε4 carriers, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 274 women (mean age, 59 years) participating in the MsBrain study of menopause and brain health.
• As part of the study, the women completed the PTSD Checklist–Civilian Version and underwent physical and neuropsychological testing, as well as carotid artery ultrasonography and brain MRI.
• Outcomes of interest were associations of PTSD symptoms with carotid intima media thickness (IMT), brain white matter hyperintensity volume (WMHV), and cognition, assessed in linear regression models.
• Interactions by APOEε4 were assessed; covariates included age, race/ethnicity, education, and CVD risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher PTSD symptoms were associated with greater carotid IMT (P = .03); associations of PTSD symptoms with neurocognitive outcomes varied significantly by APOEε4 status.
• Among APOEε4 carriers, PTSD symptoms were associated with greater whole-brain WMHV (P = .009), periventricular WMHV (P = .02), deep WMHV (P = .01), and frontal WMHV (P = .04) in multivariable models.
• APOEε4 carriers with PTSD symptoms also had poorer cognition, specifically attention and working memory (P = .02), semantic fluency (P = .01), perceptual speed (P = .002) and processing speed (P = .002), in multivariable models.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study sheds important insight on the implications of PTSD symptoms to women’s cardiovascular and neurocognitive health. Our findings indicate that the APOEε4 genotype may identify a group of women with PTSD symptoms at particular risk for poor neurocognitive health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rebecca Thurston, PhD, of the department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

No diagnostic clinical interviews were conducted, and PTSD treatment was not assessed. All participants identified as cisgender, and most were non-Hispanic Black or White. The study was observational and cross-sectional, precluding assertions about directionality or causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the University of Pittsburgh Small Molecule Biomarker Core. Dr. Thurston reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Hello Therapeutics, Vira Health, and Happify Health outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with poorer cardiovascular and neurocognitive health among midlife women, particularly those who are APOEε4 carriers, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 274 women (mean age, 59 years) participating in the MsBrain study of menopause and brain health.
• As part of the study, the women completed the PTSD Checklist–Civilian Version and underwent physical and neuropsychological testing, as well as carotid artery ultrasonography and brain MRI.
• Outcomes of interest were associations of PTSD symptoms with carotid intima media thickness (IMT), brain white matter hyperintensity volume (WMHV), and cognition, assessed in linear regression models.
• Interactions by APOEε4 were assessed; covariates included age, race/ethnicity, education, and CVD risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher PTSD symptoms were associated with greater carotid IMT (P = .03); associations of PTSD symptoms with neurocognitive outcomes varied significantly by APOEε4 status.
• Among APOEε4 carriers, PTSD symptoms were associated with greater whole-brain WMHV (P = .009), periventricular WMHV (P = .02), deep WMHV (P = .01), and frontal WMHV (P = .04) in multivariable models.
• APOEε4 carriers with PTSD symptoms also had poorer cognition, specifically attention and working memory (P = .02), semantic fluency (P = .01), perceptual speed (P = .002) and processing speed (P = .002), in multivariable models.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study sheds important insight on the implications of PTSD symptoms to women’s cardiovascular and neurocognitive health. Our findings indicate that the APOEε4 genotype may identify a group of women with PTSD symptoms at particular risk for poor neurocognitive health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rebecca Thurston, PhD, of the department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

No diagnostic clinical interviews were conducted, and PTSD treatment was not assessed. All participants identified as cisgender, and most were non-Hispanic Black or White. The study was observational and cross-sectional, precluding assertions about directionality or causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the University of Pittsburgh Small Molecule Biomarker Core. Dr. Thurston reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Hello Therapeutics, Vira Health, and Happify Health outside the submitted work.

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

Adults with Parkinson’s disease are twice as likely to engage in suicidal behavior as the general population, results of a large meta-analysis show.

Given that up to half of patients with PD suffer from depression and anxiety, physicians should maintain a “high index of suspicion” for early recognition and management of suicidality, write the investigators, led by Eng-King Tan, MD, of Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

“Management of both medical, such as sleep disorders, and psychosocial risk factors, such as feelings of loneliness, hopelessness, and depressed mood, could be useful in lowering suicide risk in patients with PD,” they add.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.
 

Suicide risk neglected in PD?

The analysis included 505,950 patients with PD across 28 cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies.

Across 14 studies, the prevalence of suicidal ideation in patients with PD was 22.2% (95% confidence interval, 14.6-32.3). In a sensitivity analysis excluding three outliers, the prevalence of suicidal ideation was higher at 24% (95% CI, 19.1-29.7).

Across 21 studies, the prevalence of suicidal behavior was “substantial” at 1.25% (95% CI, 0.64-2.41), the authors report. The prevalence of suicidal behavior was significantly higher in prospective studies (1.75%; 95% CI, 1.03-2.95) than retrospective studies (0.50%; 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.01).

Across 10 studies, the likelihood of suicidal behavior was about twofold higher among patients with PD than general population controls (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.22-3.78; P = .01). Across nine studies, the hazard ratio for suicidal behavior was 1.73 (95% CI, 1.40-2.14; P < .001).

There was no evidence of sex-related differences in suicidal behavior, although the analysis was limited by the paucity of data, the researchers note. 

They note the quality of included studies was generally high, although eight of them did not explicitly identify and adjust for confounders.
 

Higher rate of mood, anxiety disorders

Paul Nestadt, MD, with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said this analysis reiterates what several reviews have found over the past few years, including his own.

“In general, rates of mood and anxiety disorders are much higher in PD than in other dementias, such as Alzheimer’s disease. This is reason enough to allocate resources to the mental health care of those diagnosed with PD and to pay special attention to at risk periods, such as early in the diagnosis, when suicide rates seem to be higher in dementias in general,” said Dr. Nestadt, who wasn’t involved in the study.

He noted that research has shown that suicides among people with PD are more likely to involve a firearm – likely because people with PD are more likely to be over age 65 and to be male – “both huge risk factors for firearm suicide.”

“Therefore, it is essential that caregivers be aware of the risks posed by firearms in the homes of people suffering from Parkinson’s or other dementias. It is the clinician’s responsibility to inform families of this risk, but it is all too often neglected,” Dr. Nestadt said.

Support for the study was provided in part by the National Medical Research Council. Dr. Tan reported honoraria from Eisai and Elsevier outside the submitted work. Dr. Nestadt reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with Parkinson’s disease are twice as likely to engage in suicidal behavior as the general population, results of a large meta-analysis show.

Given that up to half of patients with PD suffer from depression and anxiety, physicians should maintain a “high index of suspicion” for early recognition and management of suicidality, write the investigators, led by Eng-King Tan, MD, of Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

“Management of both medical, such as sleep disorders, and psychosocial risk factors, such as feelings of loneliness, hopelessness, and depressed mood, could be useful in lowering suicide risk in patients with PD,” they add.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.
 

Suicide risk neglected in PD?

The analysis included 505,950 patients with PD across 28 cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies.

Across 14 studies, the prevalence of suicidal ideation in patients with PD was 22.2% (95% confidence interval, 14.6-32.3). In a sensitivity analysis excluding three outliers, the prevalence of suicidal ideation was higher at 24% (95% CI, 19.1-29.7).

Across 21 studies, the prevalence of suicidal behavior was “substantial” at 1.25% (95% CI, 0.64-2.41), the authors report. The prevalence of suicidal behavior was significantly higher in prospective studies (1.75%; 95% CI, 1.03-2.95) than retrospective studies (0.50%; 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.01).

Across 10 studies, the likelihood of suicidal behavior was about twofold higher among patients with PD than general population controls (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.22-3.78; P = .01). Across nine studies, the hazard ratio for suicidal behavior was 1.73 (95% CI, 1.40-2.14; P < .001).

There was no evidence of sex-related differences in suicidal behavior, although the analysis was limited by the paucity of data, the researchers note. 

They note the quality of included studies was generally high, although eight of them did not explicitly identify and adjust for confounders.
 

Higher rate of mood, anxiety disorders

Paul Nestadt, MD, with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said this analysis reiterates what several reviews have found over the past few years, including his own.

“In general, rates of mood and anxiety disorders are much higher in PD than in other dementias, such as Alzheimer’s disease. This is reason enough to allocate resources to the mental health care of those diagnosed with PD and to pay special attention to at risk periods, such as early in the diagnosis, when suicide rates seem to be higher in dementias in general,” said Dr. Nestadt, who wasn’t involved in the study.

He noted that research has shown that suicides among people with PD are more likely to involve a firearm – likely because people with PD are more likely to be over age 65 and to be male – “both huge risk factors for firearm suicide.”

“Therefore, it is essential that caregivers be aware of the risks posed by firearms in the homes of people suffering from Parkinson’s or other dementias. It is the clinician’s responsibility to inform families of this risk, but it is all too often neglected,” Dr. Nestadt said.

Support for the study was provided in part by the National Medical Research Council. Dr. Tan reported honoraria from Eisai and Elsevier outside the submitted work. Dr. Nestadt reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with Parkinson’s disease are twice as likely to engage in suicidal behavior as the general population, results of a large meta-analysis show.

Given that up to half of patients with PD suffer from depression and anxiety, physicians should maintain a “high index of suspicion” for early recognition and management of suicidality, write the investigators, led by Eng-King Tan, MD, of Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

“Management of both medical, such as sleep disorders, and psychosocial risk factors, such as feelings of loneliness, hopelessness, and depressed mood, could be useful in lowering suicide risk in patients with PD,” they add.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.
 

Suicide risk neglected in PD?

The analysis included 505,950 patients with PD across 28 cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies.

Across 14 studies, the prevalence of suicidal ideation in patients with PD was 22.2% (95% confidence interval, 14.6-32.3). In a sensitivity analysis excluding three outliers, the prevalence of suicidal ideation was higher at 24% (95% CI, 19.1-29.7).

Across 21 studies, the prevalence of suicidal behavior was “substantial” at 1.25% (95% CI, 0.64-2.41), the authors report. The prevalence of suicidal behavior was significantly higher in prospective studies (1.75%; 95% CI, 1.03-2.95) than retrospective studies (0.50%; 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.01).

Across 10 studies, the likelihood of suicidal behavior was about twofold higher among patients with PD than general population controls (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.22-3.78; P = .01). Across nine studies, the hazard ratio for suicidal behavior was 1.73 (95% CI, 1.40-2.14; P < .001).

There was no evidence of sex-related differences in suicidal behavior, although the analysis was limited by the paucity of data, the researchers note. 

They note the quality of included studies was generally high, although eight of them did not explicitly identify and adjust for confounders.
 

Higher rate of mood, anxiety disorders

Paul Nestadt, MD, with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said this analysis reiterates what several reviews have found over the past few years, including his own.

“In general, rates of mood and anxiety disorders are much higher in PD than in other dementias, such as Alzheimer’s disease. This is reason enough to allocate resources to the mental health care of those diagnosed with PD and to pay special attention to at risk periods, such as early in the diagnosis, when suicide rates seem to be higher in dementias in general,” said Dr. Nestadt, who wasn’t involved in the study.

He noted that research has shown that suicides among people with PD are more likely to involve a firearm – likely because people with PD are more likely to be over age 65 and to be male – “both huge risk factors for firearm suicide.”

“Therefore, it is essential that caregivers be aware of the risks posed by firearms in the homes of people suffering from Parkinson’s or other dementias. It is the clinician’s responsibility to inform families of this risk, but it is all too often neglected,” Dr. Nestadt said.

Support for the study was provided in part by the National Medical Research Council. Dr. Tan reported honoraria from Eisai and Elsevier outside the submitted work. Dr. Nestadt reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

A 3-month yoga program that integrates deep breathing, meditation, and positive affirmations is associated with a significant reduction in seizure frequency, anxiety, and self-perceived feelings of stigma in people with epilepsy, a new study shows.

AlenaPaulus/E+/Getty Images

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators included participants aged 18-60 years with epilepsy who scored ≥ 4 on the Kilifi Stigma Scale of Epilepsy. A score greater than the 66th percentile indicates the presence of strongly felt stigma.
• Patients (n = 160) had an average of one seizure per week, and most took at least two antiseizure medications.
• The intervention group (n = 80) participated in a yoga module with muscle-loosening exercises, slow and synchronized breathing, meditation, and positive affirmations. The control group (n = 80) participated in sham yoga sessions with no instructions on the breathing exercises or attention to the body movements and sensations during practice.
• Both groups participated in seven 1-hour supervised group yoga sessions over 3 months, were asked to practice the interventions at home five times per week, and received a psychoeducation module on epilepsy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants practicing the intervention module had significant reductions in self-perceived stigma, compared with those in the control group (P = .01).
• The proportion of participants in the intervention group who had a more than 50% seizure reduction (odds ratio, 4.11; P = .01) and complete seizure remission (OR, 7.4; P = .005) at the end of the 6-month follow-up was significantly higher than in the control group.
• Compared with those in the control group, there were also significant improvements in anxiety (P = .032) and quality of life (P < .001) in the intervention group.
• The intervention group also experienced significant improvement in mindfulness (P < .001) and cognitive impairment, compared with the control group (P < .004).

IN PRACTICE:

“This stigma can affect a person’s life in many ways, including treatment, emergency department visits, and poor mental health,” study investigator Majari Tripathi, MD, of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, said in a press release. “Our study showed that doing yoga can alleviate the burden of epilepsy and improve the overall quality of life by reducing this perceived stigma.”

SOURCE:

Dr. Tripathi and Kirandeep Kaur, MD, also of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, conducted the study with their colleagues. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was no passive control or treatment as usual group, which would indicate the effect size of the intervention. In addition, there was no monitoring of seizure frequency before the study began, which may have biased the change of seizure frequency as an outcome.

DISCLOSURES:

The study investigators reported no study funding or reported disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A 3-month yoga program that integrates deep breathing, meditation, and positive affirmations is associated with a significant reduction in seizure frequency, anxiety, and self-perceived feelings of stigma in people with epilepsy, a new study shows.

AlenaPaulus/E+/Getty Images

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators included participants aged 18-60 years with epilepsy who scored ≥ 4 on the Kilifi Stigma Scale of Epilepsy. A score greater than the 66th percentile indicates the presence of strongly felt stigma.
• Patients (n = 160) had an average of one seizure per week, and most took at least two antiseizure medications.
• The intervention group (n = 80) participated in a yoga module with muscle-loosening exercises, slow and synchronized breathing, meditation, and positive affirmations. The control group (n = 80) participated in sham yoga sessions with no instructions on the breathing exercises or attention to the body movements and sensations during practice.
• Both groups participated in seven 1-hour supervised group yoga sessions over 3 months, were asked to practice the interventions at home five times per week, and received a psychoeducation module on epilepsy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants practicing the intervention module had significant reductions in self-perceived stigma, compared with those in the control group (P = .01).
• The proportion of participants in the intervention group who had a more than 50% seizure reduction (odds ratio, 4.11; P = .01) and complete seizure remission (OR, 7.4; P = .005) at the end of the 6-month follow-up was significantly higher than in the control group.
• Compared with those in the control group, there were also significant improvements in anxiety (P = .032) and quality of life (P < .001) in the intervention group.
• The intervention group also experienced significant improvement in mindfulness (P < .001) and cognitive impairment, compared with the control group (P < .004).

IN PRACTICE:

“This stigma can affect a person’s life in many ways, including treatment, emergency department visits, and poor mental health,” study investigator Majari Tripathi, MD, of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, said in a press release. “Our study showed that doing yoga can alleviate the burden of epilepsy and improve the overall quality of life by reducing this perceived stigma.”

SOURCE:

Dr. Tripathi and Kirandeep Kaur, MD, also of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, conducted the study with their colleagues. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was no passive control or treatment as usual group, which would indicate the effect size of the intervention. In addition, there was no monitoring of seizure frequency before the study began, which may have biased the change of seizure frequency as an outcome.

DISCLOSURES:

The study investigators reported no study funding or reported disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A 3-month yoga program that integrates deep breathing, meditation, and positive affirmations is associated with a significant reduction in seizure frequency, anxiety, and self-perceived feelings of stigma in people with epilepsy, a new study shows.

AlenaPaulus/E+/Getty Images

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators included participants aged 18-60 years with epilepsy who scored ≥ 4 on the Kilifi Stigma Scale of Epilepsy. A score greater than the 66th percentile indicates the presence of strongly felt stigma.
• Patients (n = 160) had an average of one seizure per week, and most took at least two antiseizure medications.
• The intervention group (n = 80) participated in a yoga module with muscle-loosening exercises, slow and synchronized breathing, meditation, and positive affirmations. The control group (n = 80) participated in sham yoga sessions with no instructions on the breathing exercises or attention to the body movements and sensations during practice.
• Both groups participated in seven 1-hour supervised group yoga sessions over 3 months, were asked to practice the interventions at home five times per week, and received a psychoeducation module on epilepsy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants practicing the intervention module had significant reductions in self-perceived stigma, compared with those in the control group (P = .01).
• The proportion of participants in the intervention group who had a more than 50% seizure reduction (odds ratio, 4.11; P = .01) and complete seizure remission (OR, 7.4; P = .005) at the end of the 6-month follow-up was significantly higher than in the control group.
• Compared with those in the control group, there were also significant improvements in anxiety (P = .032) and quality of life (P < .001) in the intervention group.
• The intervention group also experienced significant improvement in mindfulness (P < .001) and cognitive impairment, compared with the control group (P < .004).

IN PRACTICE:

“This stigma can affect a person’s life in many ways, including treatment, emergency department visits, and poor mental health,” study investigator Majari Tripathi, MD, of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, said in a press release. “Our study showed that doing yoga can alleviate the burden of epilepsy and improve the overall quality of life by reducing this perceived stigma.”

SOURCE:

Dr. Tripathi and Kirandeep Kaur, MD, also of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, conducted the study with their colleagues. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was no passive control or treatment as usual group, which would indicate the effect size of the intervention. In addition, there was no monitoring of seizure frequency before the study began, which may have biased the change of seizure frequency as an outcome.

DISCLOSURES:

The study investigators reported no study funding or reported disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the pursuit of optimal health, regular physical activity (PA) is recommended to protect against dementia, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, and other noncommunicable diseases. A significant body of research suggests the benefits of PA are positively correlated with higher frequency and intensity – with more often deemed better. This research has spawned a focus on increasing step counts and investing in standing desks and other interventions aimed at keeping people active.

But for many people, PA is a work requirement over which they have little control, and emerging evidence suggests that these workers not only do not reap the benefits associated with leisure-time PA, but they also actually experience an increased risk for the very conditions that PA is intended to prevent.

A study published recently in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe used registry data from more than 7,000 adults in Norway, following them from age 33 to 65 years, to assess PA trajectories and risks for later-life mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia at age 70 or older.

“Incorporating a life-course perspective gives a broader picture of how participants’ occupational histories relate to cognitive impairment later in life,” principal investigator Vegard Skirbekk, PhD, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, said in an interview. Other studies typically have assessed occupational PA at a single time point, often close to the end of an individual’s career, and largely relied on self-report, he said.

Study participants worked in more than 300 different occupations. General physical activities performed on the included jobs required “considerable” use of arms and legs and moving the whole body, such as climbing, lifting, balancing, walking, stooping, and handling of materials.

Dr. Skirbekk and colleagues grouped participants into four PA trajectories over the 44-year study period: stable low, increasing then decreasing, stable intermediate, and stable high.

A total of 902 individuals were diagnosed with dementia and 2,407 with MCI at age 70 years or older. After adjustment, risks for MCI and dementia were 15.5% for those with higher occupational PA scores in the latter part of their working life and 9% for those with lower physical demands. The researchers concluded that “consistently working in an occupation with intermediate or high occupational PA was linked to an increased risk of cognitive impairment.”

The findings support those of the Copenhagen Male Study. Published in 2020, this longitudinal study compared leisure-time and occupational PA among more than 4,000 men in Denmark aged 40-59 at baseline in 1970-1971 and followed them until they turned 60. After adjustment, participants with high occupational PA had a 55% greater risk of developing dementia compared with those doing sedentary work.
 

Good vs. bad PA

“[T]he WHO [World Health Organization] guide to preventing dementia and disease on the whole mentions physical activity as an important factor. But our study suggests that it must be a ‘good’ form of physical activity, which hard physical work is not,” said Kirsten Nabe-Nielsen, PhD, lead author of this study

Beyond dementia, another recent study adds to a wealth of data on associations between occupational PA and cardiovascular risks. The cross-sectional analysis of U.S. data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health showed that odds of CVD were higher when participants were “always” performing total occupational activity (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), occupational exertion (OR, 2.15), or occupational standing and walking around (OR, 1.84) compared with “never” engaging in these activities.

The contrasting effects of leisure-time vs. occupational PA constitute the “physical activity paradox” hypothesis. Starting in 2011, multiple studies by Andreas Holtermann, PhD, of the National Research Centre for the Working Environment lend support to the PA paradox theory, as do subsequent studies by others.

Although only “marginally considered” until a few years ago, recent large cohort studies seem to confirm the paradox, Pier Luigi Temporelli, MD wrote in a recent editorial.

In separate interviews, Dr. Skirbekk and lead author Tyler Quinn, PhD, MS, West Virginia University, Morgantown, pointed to the PA paradox as an explanation for their own recent findings, suggesting that the mechanisms that underlie it probably are responsible for the associated deleterious effects of occupational PA on the brain and heart, and even mortality.

“It’s well established that PA in your leisure time can be positive, but in the workplace, the results are quite the opposite,” Dr. Skirbekk said. “The specific mechanisms for why occupational PA is associated with elevated dementia risk are still not well understood and we need more knowledge. But we know that higher occupational physical demands have been linked to smaller hippocampal volume and poorer memory performance.”

Furthermore, he said, individuals working in jobs with high demands, both psychological and physical, combined with low job control perform more poorly on cognitive testing later in life.

“We looked mainly at professions where people have heavy workloads and you have much less autonomy, such as nursing assistants, office cleaners, childcare workers, and other personal care workers,” he said. “You cannot sit. You have somebody relying on you. It’s not all pleasure, and it can be very hard. That’s where we find the associations.”
 

Lack of autonomy

Specific characteristics indirectly associated with high occupational PA jobs – low cognitive stimuli, lifestyle factors, and socioeconomic influences – as well as factors directly related to high occupational PA, such as long hours, repetitive tasks, low levels of control, and stress, could also adversely affect cognitive trajectories, Dr. Skirbekk explained.

“By contrast, leisure-time physical activities tend to be of much shorter duration; are associated with socialization, play, [and] positive emotions; and [include] the opportunity to take breaks or shift to other types of activities if one prefers,” he said. “It may also be that too little or too much PA could be adversely related to cognitive outcomes – hence moderate activity levels, for example 10,000 steps a day, are still likely beneficial for cognitive functioning.”

Dr. Quinn said most of the CVD risk linked to occupational PA has to do with long periods of exertion such as lifting and carrying objects. While occupational standing and walking all day are also linked to CVD risk, they’re not as risky as lifting and carrying, he said.

Like Dr. Skirbekk, Dr. Quinn noted that individuals can take a break from leisure-time PA when they are tired, but occupational PA doesn’t have that same autonomy to allow for recovery.

“So, in many cases, individuals are not getting the recovery their body needs to actually experience PA benefits, because those benefits come during rest,” Dr. Quinn said.

“We’ve shown that PA at work raises acute cardiovascular responses, which are related to cardiovascular risk. For example, 24-hour and waking heart rate and diastolic blood pressure, as well as nonwork diastolic blood pressure, all were significantly higher on workdays versus non-workdays,” he said.

Dr. Quinn also said that psychological stress at work amplifies risk. “A person who does PA at work and is stressed is likely to be at greater risk than someone who has a physically active job but doesn’t have psychological stress combined with it.”
 

Research gaps

However, Dr. Skirbekk noted that there are strategies that can reduce the risk for MCI and dementia despite high levels of occupational PA. “It is often difficult to change professions, and even if you do, it won’t immediately affect cognition. But altering one’s lifestyle is likely to have effects on cognitive development across the life cycle.

“Many clinicians say they always advise lifestyle changes, but nothing happens. But it makes sense to emphasize that these changes – stopping smoking, eating well, getting proper sleep, etc. – affect not only cardiovascular risk but also cognition. And I think clinicians should also take a patient’s occupation into account during any evaluation,” Dr. Skirbekk noted.

Dr. Quinn said it isn’t realistic to expect workers to come up with solutions to the PA paradox because many don’t have the autonomy to be able to mitigate their occupational risk.

“I think administrative controls and policy changes eventually will be the levers of change. We’re not quite there yet, but those are the types of things we should do when we’re trying to reduce loads in some way, or reduce the time that people spend doing certain tasks we know are potentially bad,” he said.

However, not everyone agrees that occupational PA doesn’t confer the same benefits of leisure-time PA, at least with respect to cardiovascular risk. For example, the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, which includes a cohort of 130,000 people from 17 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries, concluded that both higher recreational and nonrecreational PA were associated with a lower risk for mortality and CVD events.

What additional research is needed to clarify the effects of occupational and leisure-time activity and to address conflicting findings?

“Even studies coming out now regarding the effects of occupational PA have mainly used older data,” Dr. Skirbekk noted. “Labor markets and job demands have changed over time. There are different types of tasks and skills required now than there were 20 or 40 years ago. And of course, working from home is a recent phenomenon that’s happened on a large scale and might affect daily routines, sleep patterns, and also cognition. We need a better understanding of what the consequences might be.”
 

Health inequity issue

More research is also necessary to understand the social determinants of cognitive decline, impairment, and dementia, he said. “Many of the studies we see today are based on self-report of what someone has done in the past, which is particularly problematic for individuals who are impaired or who give interviews with others, which can induce biases.”

Dr. Quinn suggests that PA guidelines may need to differentiate between occupational and leisure-time PA to better reflect current research findings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Skirbekk and Dr. Quinn both point to the toll that occupational PA takes on the brain and body in lower-income workers as an important health equity issue.

“Our national guidelines for PA include occupational activity,” said Dr. Quinn. “But it’s clear that a lot of people who are getting a lot of occupational PA, particularly socioeconomic and racial/ethnic minorities, are not benefiting from it.”

Dr. Holtermann, who has arguably done the most research to date on the PA paradox, noted in a recent editorial that the majority of workers with high occupational PA have a low socioeconomic position and therefore “improving our understanding of the underlying mechanisms behind the PA health paradox and identifying new intervention targets along those pathways will be an important step to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities across the globe.”
 

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

In the pursuit of optimal health, regular physical activity (PA) is recommended to protect against dementia, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, and other noncommunicable diseases. A significant body of research suggests the benefits of PA are positively correlated with higher frequency and intensity – with more often deemed better. This research has spawned a focus on increasing step counts and investing in standing desks and other interventions aimed at keeping people active.

But for many people, PA is a work requirement over which they have little control, and emerging evidence suggests that these workers not only do not reap the benefits associated with leisure-time PA, but they also actually experience an increased risk for the very conditions that PA is intended to prevent.

A study published recently in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe used registry data from more than 7,000 adults in Norway, following them from age 33 to 65 years, to assess PA trajectories and risks for later-life mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia at age 70 or older.

“Incorporating a life-course perspective gives a broader picture of how participants’ occupational histories relate to cognitive impairment later in life,” principal investigator Vegard Skirbekk, PhD, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, said in an interview. Other studies typically have assessed occupational PA at a single time point, often close to the end of an individual’s career, and largely relied on self-report, he said.

Study participants worked in more than 300 different occupations. General physical activities performed on the included jobs required “considerable” use of arms and legs and moving the whole body, such as climbing, lifting, balancing, walking, stooping, and handling of materials.

Dr. Skirbekk and colleagues grouped participants into four PA trajectories over the 44-year study period: stable low, increasing then decreasing, stable intermediate, and stable high.

A total of 902 individuals were diagnosed with dementia and 2,407 with MCI at age 70 years or older. After adjustment, risks for MCI and dementia were 15.5% for those with higher occupational PA scores in the latter part of their working life and 9% for those with lower physical demands. The researchers concluded that “consistently working in an occupation with intermediate or high occupational PA was linked to an increased risk of cognitive impairment.”

The findings support those of the Copenhagen Male Study. Published in 2020, this longitudinal study compared leisure-time and occupational PA among more than 4,000 men in Denmark aged 40-59 at baseline in 1970-1971 and followed them until they turned 60. After adjustment, participants with high occupational PA had a 55% greater risk of developing dementia compared with those doing sedentary work.
 

Good vs. bad PA

“[T]he WHO [World Health Organization] guide to preventing dementia and disease on the whole mentions physical activity as an important factor. But our study suggests that it must be a ‘good’ form of physical activity, which hard physical work is not,” said Kirsten Nabe-Nielsen, PhD, lead author of this study

Beyond dementia, another recent study adds to a wealth of data on associations between occupational PA and cardiovascular risks. The cross-sectional analysis of U.S. data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health showed that odds of CVD were higher when participants were “always” performing total occupational activity (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), occupational exertion (OR, 2.15), or occupational standing and walking around (OR, 1.84) compared with “never” engaging in these activities.

The contrasting effects of leisure-time vs. occupational PA constitute the “physical activity paradox” hypothesis. Starting in 2011, multiple studies by Andreas Holtermann, PhD, of the National Research Centre for the Working Environment lend support to the PA paradox theory, as do subsequent studies by others.

Although only “marginally considered” until a few years ago, recent large cohort studies seem to confirm the paradox, Pier Luigi Temporelli, MD wrote in a recent editorial.

In separate interviews, Dr. Skirbekk and lead author Tyler Quinn, PhD, MS, West Virginia University, Morgantown, pointed to the PA paradox as an explanation for their own recent findings, suggesting that the mechanisms that underlie it probably are responsible for the associated deleterious effects of occupational PA on the brain and heart, and even mortality.

“It’s well established that PA in your leisure time can be positive, but in the workplace, the results are quite the opposite,” Dr. Skirbekk said. “The specific mechanisms for why occupational PA is associated with elevated dementia risk are still not well understood and we need more knowledge. But we know that higher occupational physical demands have been linked to smaller hippocampal volume and poorer memory performance.”

Furthermore, he said, individuals working in jobs with high demands, both psychological and physical, combined with low job control perform more poorly on cognitive testing later in life.

“We looked mainly at professions where people have heavy workloads and you have much less autonomy, such as nursing assistants, office cleaners, childcare workers, and other personal care workers,” he said. “You cannot sit. You have somebody relying on you. It’s not all pleasure, and it can be very hard. That’s where we find the associations.”
 

Lack of autonomy

Specific characteristics indirectly associated with high occupational PA jobs – low cognitive stimuli, lifestyle factors, and socioeconomic influences – as well as factors directly related to high occupational PA, such as long hours, repetitive tasks, low levels of control, and stress, could also adversely affect cognitive trajectories, Dr. Skirbekk explained.

“By contrast, leisure-time physical activities tend to be of much shorter duration; are associated with socialization, play, [and] positive emotions; and [include] the opportunity to take breaks or shift to other types of activities if one prefers,” he said. “It may also be that too little or too much PA could be adversely related to cognitive outcomes – hence moderate activity levels, for example 10,000 steps a day, are still likely beneficial for cognitive functioning.”

Dr. Quinn said most of the CVD risk linked to occupational PA has to do with long periods of exertion such as lifting and carrying objects. While occupational standing and walking all day are also linked to CVD risk, they’re not as risky as lifting and carrying, he said.

Like Dr. Skirbekk, Dr. Quinn noted that individuals can take a break from leisure-time PA when they are tired, but occupational PA doesn’t have that same autonomy to allow for recovery.

“So, in many cases, individuals are not getting the recovery their body needs to actually experience PA benefits, because those benefits come during rest,” Dr. Quinn said.

“We’ve shown that PA at work raises acute cardiovascular responses, which are related to cardiovascular risk. For example, 24-hour and waking heart rate and diastolic blood pressure, as well as nonwork diastolic blood pressure, all were significantly higher on workdays versus non-workdays,” he said.

Dr. Quinn also said that psychological stress at work amplifies risk. “A person who does PA at work and is stressed is likely to be at greater risk than someone who has a physically active job but doesn’t have psychological stress combined with it.”
 

Research gaps

However, Dr. Skirbekk noted that there are strategies that can reduce the risk for MCI and dementia despite high levels of occupational PA. “It is often difficult to change professions, and even if you do, it won’t immediately affect cognition. But altering one’s lifestyle is likely to have effects on cognitive development across the life cycle.

“Many clinicians say they always advise lifestyle changes, but nothing happens. But it makes sense to emphasize that these changes – stopping smoking, eating well, getting proper sleep, etc. – affect not only cardiovascular risk but also cognition. And I think clinicians should also take a patient’s occupation into account during any evaluation,” Dr. Skirbekk noted.

Dr. Quinn said it isn’t realistic to expect workers to come up with solutions to the PA paradox because many don’t have the autonomy to be able to mitigate their occupational risk.

“I think administrative controls and policy changes eventually will be the levers of change. We’re not quite there yet, but those are the types of things we should do when we’re trying to reduce loads in some way, or reduce the time that people spend doing certain tasks we know are potentially bad,” he said.

However, not everyone agrees that occupational PA doesn’t confer the same benefits of leisure-time PA, at least with respect to cardiovascular risk. For example, the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, which includes a cohort of 130,000 people from 17 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries, concluded that both higher recreational and nonrecreational PA were associated with a lower risk for mortality and CVD events.

What additional research is needed to clarify the effects of occupational and leisure-time activity and to address conflicting findings?

“Even studies coming out now regarding the effects of occupational PA have mainly used older data,” Dr. Skirbekk noted. “Labor markets and job demands have changed over time. There are different types of tasks and skills required now than there were 20 or 40 years ago. And of course, working from home is a recent phenomenon that’s happened on a large scale and might affect daily routines, sleep patterns, and also cognition. We need a better understanding of what the consequences might be.”
 

Health inequity issue

More research is also necessary to understand the social determinants of cognitive decline, impairment, and dementia, he said. “Many of the studies we see today are based on self-report of what someone has done in the past, which is particularly problematic for individuals who are impaired or who give interviews with others, which can induce biases.”

Dr. Quinn suggests that PA guidelines may need to differentiate between occupational and leisure-time PA to better reflect current research findings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Skirbekk and Dr. Quinn both point to the toll that occupational PA takes on the brain and body in lower-income workers as an important health equity issue.

“Our national guidelines for PA include occupational activity,” said Dr. Quinn. “But it’s clear that a lot of people who are getting a lot of occupational PA, particularly socioeconomic and racial/ethnic minorities, are not benefiting from it.”

Dr. Holtermann, who has arguably done the most research to date on the PA paradox, noted in a recent editorial that the majority of workers with high occupational PA have a low socioeconomic position and therefore “improving our understanding of the underlying mechanisms behind the PA health paradox and identifying new intervention targets along those pathways will be an important step to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities across the globe.”
 

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

In the pursuit of optimal health, regular physical activity (PA) is recommended to protect against dementia, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, and other noncommunicable diseases. A significant body of research suggests the benefits of PA are positively correlated with higher frequency and intensity – with more often deemed better. This research has spawned a focus on increasing step counts and investing in standing desks and other interventions aimed at keeping people active.

But for many people, PA is a work requirement over which they have little control, and emerging evidence suggests that these workers not only do not reap the benefits associated with leisure-time PA, but they also actually experience an increased risk for the very conditions that PA is intended to prevent.

A study published recently in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe used registry data from more than 7,000 adults in Norway, following them from age 33 to 65 years, to assess PA trajectories and risks for later-life mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia at age 70 or older.

“Incorporating a life-course perspective gives a broader picture of how participants’ occupational histories relate to cognitive impairment later in life,” principal investigator Vegard Skirbekk, PhD, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, said in an interview. Other studies typically have assessed occupational PA at a single time point, often close to the end of an individual’s career, and largely relied on self-report, he said.

Study participants worked in more than 300 different occupations. General physical activities performed on the included jobs required “considerable” use of arms and legs and moving the whole body, such as climbing, lifting, balancing, walking, stooping, and handling of materials.

Dr. Skirbekk and colleagues grouped participants into four PA trajectories over the 44-year study period: stable low, increasing then decreasing, stable intermediate, and stable high.

A total of 902 individuals were diagnosed with dementia and 2,407 with MCI at age 70 years or older. After adjustment, risks for MCI and dementia were 15.5% for those with higher occupational PA scores in the latter part of their working life and 9% for those with lower physical demands. The researchers concluded that “consistently working in an occupation with intermediate or high occupational PA was linked to an increased risk of cognitive impairment.”

The findings support those of the Copenhagen Male Study. Published in 2020, this longitudinal study compared leisure-time and occupational PA among more than 4,000 men in Denmark aged 40-59 at baseline in 1970-1971 and followed them until they turned 60. After adjustment, participants with high occupational PA had a 55% greater risk of developing dementia compared with those doing sedentary work.
 

Good vs. bad PA

“[T]he WHO [World Health Organization] guide to preventing dementia and disease on the whole mentions physical activity as an important factor. But our study suggests that it must be a ‘good’ form of physical activity, which hard physical work is not,” said Kirsten Nabe-Nielsen, PhD, lead author of this study

Beyond dementia, another recent study adds to a wealth of data on associations between occupational PA and cardiovascular risks. The cross-sectional analysis of U.S. data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health showed that odds of CVD were higher when participants were “always” performing total occupational activity (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), occupational exertion (OR, 2.15), or occupational standing and walking around (OR, 1.84) compared with “never” engaging in these activities.

The contrasting effects of leisure-time vs. occupational PA constitute the “physical activity paradox” hypothesis. Starting in 2011, multiple studies by Andreas Holtermann, PhD, of the National Research Centre for the Working Environment lend support to the PA paradox theory, as do subsequent studies by others.

Although only “marginally considered” until a few years ago, recent large cohort studies seem to confirm the paradox, Pier Luigi Temporelli, MD wrote in a recent editorial.

In separate interviews, Dr. Skirbekk and lead author Tyler Quinn, PhD, MS, West Virginia University, Morgantown, pointed to the PA paradox as an explanation for their own recent findings, suggesting that the mechanisms that underlie it probably are responsible for the associated deleterious effects of occupational PA on the brain and heart, and even mortality.

“It’s well established that PA in your leisure time can be positive, but in the workplace, the results are quite the opposite,” Dr. Skirbekk said. “The specific mechanisms for why occupational PA is associated with elevated dementia risk are still not well understood and we need more knowledge. But we know that higher occupational physical demands have been linked to smaller hippocampal volume and poorer memory performance.”

Furthermore, he said, individuals working in jobs with high demands, both psychological and physical, combined with low job control perform more poorly on cognitive testing later in life.

“We looked mainly at professions where people have heavy workloads and you have much less autonomy, such as nursing assistants, office cleaners, childcare workers, and other personal care workers,” he said. “You cannot sit. You have somebody relying on you. It’s not all pleasure, and it can be very hard. That’s where we find the associations.”
 

Lack of autonomy

Specific characteristics indirectly associated with high occupational PA jobs – low cognitive stimuli, lifestyle factors, and socioeconomic influences – as well as factors directly related to high occupational PA, such as long hours, repetitive tasks, low levels of control, and stress, could also adversely affect cognitive trajectories, Dr. Skirbekk explained.

“By contrast, leisure-time physical activities tend to be of much shorter duration; are associated with socialization, play, [and] positive emotions; and [include] the opportunity to take breaks or shift to other types of activities if one prefers,” he said. “It may also be that too little or too much PA could be adversely related to cognitive outcomes – hence moderate activity levels, for example 10,000 steps a day, are still likely beneficial for cognitive functioning.”

Dr. Quinn said most of the CVD risk linked to occupational PA has to do with long periods of exertion such as lifting and carrying objects. While occupational standing and walking all day are also linked to CVD risk, they’re not as risky as lifting and carrying, he said.

Like Dr. Skirbekk, Dr. Quinn noted that individuals can take a break from leisure-time PA when they are tired, but occupational PA doesn’t have that same autonomy to allow for recovery.

“So, in many cases, individuals are not getting the recovery their body needs to actually experience PA benefits, because those benefits come during rest,” Dr. Quinn said.

“We’ve shown that PA at work raises acute cardiovascular responses, which are related to cardiovascular risk. For example, 24-hour and waking heart rate and diastolic blood pressure, as well as nonwork diastolic blood pressure, all were significantly higher on workdays versus non-workdays,” he said.

Dr. Quinn also said that psychological stress at work amplifies risk. “A person who does PA at work and is stressed is likely to be at greater risk than someone who has a physically active job but doesn’t have psychological stress combined with it.”
 

Research gaps

However, Dr. Skirbekk noted that there are strategies that can reduce the risk for MCI and dementia despite high levels of occupational PA. “It is often difficult to change professions, and even if you do, it won’t immediately affect cognition. But altering one’s lifestyle is likely to have effects on cognitive development across the life cycle.

“Many clinicians say they always advise lifestyle changes, but nothing happens. But it makes sense to emphasize that these changes – stopping smoking, eating well, getting proper sleep, etc. – affect not only cardiovascular risk but also cognition. And I think clinicians should also take a patient’s occupation into account during any evaluation,” Dr. Skirbekk noted.

Dr. Quinn said it isn’t realistic to expect workers to come up with solutions to the PA paradox because many don’t have the autonomy to be able to mitigate their occupational risk.

“I think administrative controls and policy changes eventually will be the levers of change. We’re not quite there yet, but those are the types of things we should do when we’re trying to reduce loads in some way, or reduce the time that people spend doing certain tasks we know are potentially bad,” he said.

However, not everyone agrees that occupational PA doesn’t confer the same benefits of leisure-time PA, at least with respect to cardiovascular risk. For example, the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, which includes a cohort of 130,000 people from 17 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries, concluded that both higher recreational and nonrecreational PA were associated with a lower risk for mortality and CVD events.

What additional research is needed to clarify the effects of occupational and leisure-time activity and to address conflicting findings?

“Even studies coming out now regarding the effects of occupational PA have mainly used older data,” Dr. Skirbekk noted. “Labor markets and job demands have changed over time. There are different types of tasks and skills required now than there were 20 or 40 years ago. And of course, working from home is a recent phenomenon that’s happened on a large scale and might affect daily routines, sleep patterns, and also cognition. We need a better understanding of what the consequences might be.”
 

Health inequity issue

More research is also necessary to understand the social determinants of cognitive decline, impairment, and dementia, he said. “Many of the studies we see today are based on self-report of what someone has done in the past, which is particularly problematic for individuals who are impaired or who give interviews with others, which can induce biases.”

Dr. Quinn suggests that PA guidelines may need to differentiate between occupational and leisure-time PA to better reflect current research findings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Skirbekk and Dr. Quinn both point to the toll that occupational PA takes on the brain and body in lower-income workers as an important health equity issue.

“Our national guidelines for PA include occupational activity,” said Dr. Quinn. “But it’s clear that a lot of people who are getting a lot of occupational PA, particularly socioeconomic and racial/ethnic minorities, are not benefiting from it.”

Dr. Holtermann, who has arguably done the most research to date on the PA paradox, noted in a recent editorial that the majority of workers with high occupational PA have a low socioeconomic position and therefore “improving our understanding of the underlying mechanisms behind the PA health paradox and identifying new intervention targets along those pathways will be an important step to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities across the globe.”
 

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

Leading UK Alzheimer’s organizations have launched an ambitious plan to have a diagnostic Alzheimer’s disease (AD) blood test widely available within the next 5 years.

Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) are collaborating and leading AD researchers to bring a diagnostic blood test to the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).

“Dementia affects around 900,000 people in the UK today, and that number is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. It is the UK’s biggest killer,” Fiona Carragher, with the Alzheimer’s Society, said during a media briefing announcing the project.

Yet, many people face a very long wait of up to 2-4 years to get a dementia diagnosis, and many cases remain undiagnosed, she noted.

A chief reason is lack of access to specialized diagnostic testing. Currently, only 2% of people in the United Kingdom have access to advanced diagnostic tests such as PET scans and lumbar punctures owing to limited availability.

“Getting an early and accurate diagnosis is the pivotal first step to getting help today and unlocking hope for the future” and blood biomarkers provide a “real opportunity to disrupt the diagnostic paradigm,” Ms. Carragher said. It also offers greater opportunities to participate in research and clinical trials, she added.
 

Attitude shift

Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, noted that attitudes toward dementia diagnosis have changed in the past few years. The days when people may have not wanted to know if they have dementia are gone.

Data from the latest wave of the Alzheimer’s Research UK Dementia Attitudes Monitor survey show that 9 in 10 people would seek a diagnosis from their provider. “That’s been driven by awareness of treatments and things that people can proactively do to try and slow disease progression,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

“As new treatments for dementia become available there will to be a surge in people seeking a diagnosis. At the moment, we don’t have adequate infrastructure to cope with that demand,” Dr. Kohlhaas added.

She noted that blood tests are starting to show their potential as an effective part of the diagnosis and are widely used in research.

“In some cases, they are similar in sensitivity to gold-standard PET scans and lumbar punctures, and they’re less expensive and potentially more scalable on the NHS. What we need to do over the next several years is to understand how they fit into the clinical pathway,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

The project will involve working with leading dementia researchers to pilot the implementation of potential blood tests in the NHS that can give an early and accurate diagnose of dementia.

The project, which kicks off in January 2024, will receive £5 million ($6.13 million) awarded by the UK Postcode Dream Fund. Specific details regarding the leadership team, participating centers, and specific blood biomarker tests to be trialed will be announced then.

Ms. Carragher and Dr. Kohlhaas reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Leading UK Alzheimer’s organizations have launched an ambitious plan to have a diagnostic Alzheimer’s disease (AD) blood test widely available within the next 5 years.

Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) are collaborating and leading AD researchers to bring a diagnostic blood test to the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).

“Dementia affects around 900,000 people in the UK today, and that number is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. It is the UK’s biggest killer,” Fiona Carragher, with the Alzheimer’s Society, said during a media briefing announcing the project.

Yet, many people face a very long wait of up to 2-4 years to get a dementia diagnosis, and many cases remain undiagnosed, she noted.

A chief reason is lack of access to specialized diagnostic testing. Currently, only 2% of people in the United Kingdom have access to advanced diagnostic tests such as PET scans and lumbar punctures owing to limited availability.

“Getting an early and accurate diagnosis is the pivotal first step to getting help today and unlocking hope for the future” and blood biomarkers provide a “real opportunity to disrupt the diagnostic paradigm,” Ms. Carragher said. It also offers greater opportunities to participate in research and clinical trials, she added.
 

Attitude shift

Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, noted that attitudes toward dementia diagnosis have changed in the past few years. The days when people may have not wanted to know if they have dementia are gone.

Data from the latest wave of the Alzheimer’s Research UK Dementia Attitudes Monitor survey show that 9 in 10 people would seek a diagnosis from their provider. “That’s been driven by awareness of treatments and things that people can proactively do to try and slow disease progression,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

“As new treatments for dementia become available there will to be a surge in people seeking a diagnosis. At the moment, we don’t have adequate infrastructure to cope with that demand,” Dr. Kohlhaas added.

She noted that blood tests are starting to show their potential as an effective part of the diagnosis and are widely used in research.

“In some cases, they are similar in sensitivity to gold-standard PET scans and lumbar punctures, and they’re less expensive and potentially more scalable on the NHS. What we need to do over the next several years is to understand how they fit into the clinical pathway,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

The project will involve working with leading dementia researchers to pilot the implementation of potential blood tests in the NHS that can give an early and accurate diagnose of dementia.

The project, which kicks off in January 2024, will receive £5 million ($6.13 million) awarded by the UK Postcode Dream Fund. Specific details regarding the leadership team, participating centers, and specific blood biomarker tests to be trialed will be announced then.

Ms. Carragher and Dr. Kohlhaas reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Leading UK Alzheimer’s organizations have launched an ambitious plan to have a diagnostic Alzheimer’s disease (AD) blood test widely available within the next 5 years.

Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) are collaborating and leading AD researchers to bring a diagnostic blood test to the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).

“Dementia affects around 900,000 people in the UK today, and that number is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. It is the UK’s biggest killer,” Fiona Carragher, with the Alzheimer’s Society, said during a media briefing announcing the project.

Yet, many people face a very long wait of up to 2-4 years to get a dementia diagnosis, and many cases remain undiagnosed, she noted.

A chief reason is lack of access to specialized diagnostic testing. Currently, only 2% of people in the United Kingdom have access to advanced diagnostic tests such as PET scans and lumbar punctures owing to limited availability.

“Getting an early and accurate diagnosis is the pivotal first step to getting help today and unlocking hope for the future” and blood biomarkers provide a “real opportunity to disrupt the diagnostic paradigm,” Ms. Carragher said. It also offers greater opportunities to participate in research and clinical trials, she added.
 

Attitude shift

Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, noted that attitudes toward dementia diagnosis have changed in the past few years. The days when people may have not wanted to know if they have dementia are gone.

Data from the latest wave of the Alzheimer’s Research UK Dementia Attitudes Monitor survey show that 9 in 10 people would seek a diagnosis from their provider. “That’s been driven by awareness of treatments and things that people can proactively do to try and slow disease progression,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

“As new treatments for dementia become available there will to be a surge in people seeking a diagnosis. At the moment, we don’t have adequate infrastructure to cope with that demand,” Dr. Kohlhaas added.

She noted that blood tests are starting to show their potential as an effective part of the diagnosis and are widely used in research.

“In some cases, they are similar in sensitivity to gold-standard PET scans and lumbar punctures, and they’re less expensive and potentially more scalable on the NHS. What we need to do over the next several years is to understand how they fit into the clinical pathway,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

The project will involve working with leading dementia researchers to pilot the implementation of potential blood tests in the NHS that can give an early and accurate diagnose of dementia.

The project, which kicks off in January 2024, will receive £5 million ($6.13 million) awarded by the UK Postcode Dream Fund. Specific details regarding the leadership team, participating centers, and specific blood biomarker tests to be trialed will be announced then.

Ms. Carragher and Dr. Kohlhaas reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A history of military service is associated with a 26% increased risk for amyloid plaque and 10% increased risk for elevated tau tangle levels, underscoring the urgent need for amyloid screening among veterans.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 597 male decedents who donated their brains to one of two Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC) brain bank programs between 1986 and 2018.
• Researchers conducted public data tracing for historical information on military history, which included searching online commercial genealogical databases and paper archives.
• They evaluated tau tangles (using a B score of neurofibrillary tangle deposition in four stages: B0 [not present], B1 [transentorhinal stages], B2 [limbic stages], and B3 [isocortical stages]) and amyloid plaque pathology (using a C score that classifies neuritic amyloid plaque into four categories: no plaques, sparse, moderate, or frequent).
• The study involved three B score comparisons (1, 2, 3 vs. 0; 2, 3 vs. 0, 1; and 3 vs. 0, 1, 2) and two C score comparisons (sparse, moderate, or frequent vs. no plaques, and moderate or frequent vs. no plaque or sparse).

TAKEAWAY:

• Public record tracing determined that 60% of the sample of male decedents had a history of military service; the median year of birth was 1923 and the median year of death was 2007.
• After adjustment for age and year of death, those with a military service history had a 26% increased risk for a higher neuritic amyloid plaque C score compared with those without such history (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.49), an increase that applied for both relevant comparisons.
• A history of military service was also associated with a 10% greater adjusted odds of a higher neurofibrillary tangle B score (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12), with the increase applying to all three comparisons.
• A sensitivity analysis that included both the male decedents and 556 female decedents (increasing the overall sample to 1,153) and was adjusted for sex in addition to age and year of death showed similar results to the male-only sample estimations for both B and C score comparisons.

IN PRACTICE:

Understanding how military service affects AD biological processes is “essential” from a research perspective, the investigators noted. These new findings “emphasize that targeted AD therapies in the veteran population are urgently needed.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by W. Ryan Powell, Center for Health Disparities Research and Department of Medicine, Geriatrics Division, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, and colleagues. It was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Selection bias in brain donation is likely because ADRC cohorts are recruitment based. The study was unable to rigorously identify factors that may explain why individuals with military service are at greater risk of having amyloid and tau neuropathology (including the interplay between environmental and genetic risk factors such as apolipoprotein E status).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A history of military service is associated with a 26% increased risk for amyloid plaque and 10% increased risk for elevated tau tangle levels, underscoring the urgent need for amyloid screening among veterans.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 597 male decedents who donated their brains to one of two Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC) brain bank programs between 1986 and 2018.
• Researchers conducted public data tracing for historical information on military history, which included searching online commercial genealogical databases and paper archives.
• They evaluated tau tangles (using a B score of neurofibrillary tangle deposition in four stages: B0 [not present], B1 [transentorhinal stages], B2 [limbic stages], and B3 [isocortical stages]) and amyloid plaque pathology (using a C score that classifies neuritic amyloid plaque into four categories: no plaques, sparse, moderate, or frequent).
• The study involved three B score comparisons (1, 2, 3 vs. 0; 2, 3 vs. 0, 1; and 3 vs. 0, 1, 2) and two C score comparisons (sparse, moderate, or frequent vs. no plaques, and moderate or frequent vs. no plaque or sparse).

TAKEAWAY:

• Public record tracing determined that 60% of the sample of male decedents had a history of military service; the median year of birth was 1923 and the median year of death was 2007.
• After adjustment for age and year of death, those with a military service history had a 26% increased risk for a higher neuritic amyloid plaque C score compared with those without such history (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.49), an increase that applied for both relevant comparisons.
• A history of military service was also associated with a 10% greater adjusted odds of a higher neurofibrillary tangle B score (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12), with the increase applying to all three comparisons.
• A sensitivity analysis that included both the male decedents and 556 female decedents (increasing the overall sample to 1,153) and was adjusted for sex in addition to age and year of death showed similar results to the male-only sample estimations for both B and C score comparisons.

IN PRACTICE:

Understanding how military service affects AD biological processes is “essential” from a research perspective, the investigators noted. These new findings “emphasize that targeted AD therapies in the veteran population are urgently needed.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by W. Ryan Powell, Center for Health Disparities Research and Department of Medicine, Geriatrics Division, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, and colleagues. It was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Selection bias in brain donation is likely because ADRC cohorts are recruitment based. The study was unable to rigorously identify factors that may explain why individuals with military service are at greater risk of having amyloid and tau neuropathology (including the interplay between environmental and genetic risk factors such as apolipoprotein E status).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A history of military service is associated with a 26% increased risk for amyloid plaque and 10% increased risk for elevated tau tangle levels, underscoring the urgent need for amyloid screening among veterans.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 597 male decedents who donated their brains to one of two Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC) brain bank programs between 1986 and 2018.
• Researchers conducted public data tracing for historical information on military history, which included searching online commercial genealogical databases and paper archives.
• They evaluated tau tangles (using a B score of neurofibrillary tangle deposition in four stages: B0 [not present], B1 [transentorhinal stages], B2 [limbic stages], and B3 [isocortical stages]) and amyloid plaque pathology (using a C score that classifies neuritic amyloid plaque into four categories: no plaques, sparse, moderate, or frequent).
• The study involved three B score comparisons (1, 2, 3 vs. 0; 2, 3 vs. 0, 1; and 3 vs. 0, 1, 2) and two C score comparisons (sparse, moderate, or frequent vs. no plaques, and moderate or frequent vs. no plaque or sparse).

TAKEAWAY:

• Public record tracing determined that 60% of the sample of male decedents had a history of military service; the median year of birth was 1923 and the median year of death was 2007.
• After adjustment for age and year of death, those with a military service history had a 26% increased risk for a higher neuritic amyloid plaque C score compared with those without such history (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.49), an increase that applied for both relevant comparisons.
• A history of military service was also associated with a 10% greater adjusted odds of a higher neurofibrillary tangle B score (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12), with the increase applying to all three comparisons.
• A sensitivity analysis that included both the male decedents and 556 female decedents (increasing the overall sample to 1,153) and was adjusted for sex in addition to age and year of death showed similar results to the male-only sample estimations for both B and C score comparisons.

IN PRACTICE:

Understanding how military service affects AD biological processes is “essential” from a research perspective, the investigators noted. These new findings “emphasize that targeted AD therapies in the veteran population are urgently needed.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by W. Ryan Powell, Center for Health Disparities Research and Department of Medicine, Geriatrics Division, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, and colleagues. It was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Selection bias in brain donation is likely because ADRC cohorts are recruitment based. The study was unable to rigorously identify factors that may explain why individuals with military service are at greater risk of having amyloid and tau neuropathology (including the interplay between environmental and genetic risk factors such as apolipoprotein E status).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant drop in working memory and executive function in older individuals. This was attributed to an increase in known dementia risk factors, including increased alcohol use and a more sedentary lifestyle. This trend persisted into the second year of the pandemic, after social restrictions had eased.

METHODOLOGY:

• In total, 3,140 participants (54% women; mean age, 68 years) in the PROTECT study, a longitudinal aging study in the United Kingdom, completed annual cognitive assessments and self-reported questionnaires related to mental health and lifestyle.
• Investigators analyzed cognition across three time periods: during the year before the pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020), during pandemic year 1 (March 2020 to February 2021), and pandemic year 2 (March 2021 to February 2022).
• Investigators conducted a subanalysis on those with mild cognitive impairment and those with a history of COVID-19 (n = 752).

TAKEAWAY:

• During the first year of the pandemic, when there were societal lockdowns totaling 6 months, significant worsening of executive function and working memory was seen across the entire cohort (effect sizes, 0.15 and 0.51, respectively), in people with mild cognitive impairment (effect sizes, 0.13 and 0.40, respectively), and in those with a previous history of COVID-19 (effect sizes, 0.24 and 0.46, respectively).
• Worsening of working memory was sustained across the whole cohort in the second year of the pandemic after lockdowns were lifted (effect size, 0.47).
• Even after investigators removed data on people with mild cognitive impairment and COVID-19, the decline in executive function (effect size, 0.15; P < .0001) and working memory (effect size, 0.53; P < .0001) persisted.
• Cognitive decline was significantly associated with known risk factors for dementia, such as reduced exercise (P = .0049) and increased alcohol use (P = .049), across the whole cohort, as well as depression (P = .011) in those with a history of COVID-19 and loneliness (P = .0038) in those with mild cognitive impairment.

IN PRACTICE:

Investigators noted that these data add to existing knowledge of long-standing health consequences of COVID-19, especially for older people with memory problems. “On the positive note, there is evidence that lifestyle changes and improved health management can positively influence mental functioning,” study coauthor Dag Aarsland, MD, PhD, professor of old age psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience of King’s College London, said in a press release. “The current study underlines the importance of careful monitoring of people at risk during major events such as the pandemic.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anne Corbett, PhD, of University of Exeter, and was published online in The Lancet Healthy Longevity. The research was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London and the NIHR Exeter Biomedical Research Centre.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported data. In addition, the PROTECT cohort is self-selected and may skew toward participants with higher education levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Corbett reported receiving funding from the NIHR and grants from Synexus, reMYND, and Novo Nordisk. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant drop in working memory and executive function in older individuals. This was attributed to an increase in known dementia risk factors, including increased alcohol use and a more sedentary lifestyle. This trend persisted into the second year of the pandemic, after social restrictions had eased.

METHODOLOGY:

• In total, 3,140 participants (54% women; mean age, 68 years) in the PROTECT study, a longitudinal aging study in the United Kingdom, completed annual cognitive assessments and self-reported questionnaires related to mental health and lifestyle.
• Investigators analyzed cognition across three time periods: during the year before the pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020), during pandemic year 1 (March 2020 to February 2021), and pandemic year 2 (March 2021 to February 2022).
• Investigators conducted a subanalysis on those with mild cognitive impairment and those with a history of COVID-19 (n = 752).

TAKEAWAY:

• During the first year of the pandemic, when there were societal lockdowns totaling 6 months, significant worsening of executive function and working memory was seen across the entire cohort (effect sizes, 0.15 and 0.51, respectively), in people with mild cognitive impairment (effect sizes, 0.13 and 0.40, respectively), and in those with a previous history of COVID-19 (effect sizes, 0.24 and 0.46, respectively).
• Worsening of working memory was sustained across the whole cohort in the second year of the pandemic after lockdowns were lifted (effect size, 0.47).
• Even after investigators removed data on people with mild cognitive impairment and COVID-19, the decline in executive function (effect size, 0.15; P < .0001) and working memory (effect size, 0.53; P < .0001) persisted.
• Cognitive decline was significantly associated with known risk factors for dementia, such as reduced exercise (P = .0049) and increased alcohol use (P = .049), across the whole cohort, as well as depression (P = .011) in those with a history of COVID-19 and loneliness (P = .0038) in those with mild cognitive impairment.

IN PRACTICE:

Investigators noted that these data add to existing knowledge of long-standing health consequences of COVID-19, especially for older people with memory problems. “On the positive note, there is evidence that lifestyle changes and improved health management can positively influence mental functioning,” study coauthor Dag Aarsland, MD, PhD, professor of old age psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience of King’s College London, said in a press release. “The current study underlines the importance of careful monitoring of people at risk during major events such as the pandemic.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anne Corbett, PhD, of University of Exeter, and was published online in The Lancet Healthy Longevity. The research was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London and the NIHR Exeter Biomedical Research Centre.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported data. In addition, the PROTECT cohort is self-selected and may skew toward participants with higher education levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Corbett reported receiving funding from the NIHR and grants from Synexus, reMYND, and Novo Nordisk. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant drop in working memory and executive function in older individuals. This was attributed to an increase in known dementia risk factors, including increased alcohol use and a more sedentary lifestyle. This trend persisted into the second year of the pandemic, after social restrictions had eased.

METHODOLOGY:

• In total, 3,140 participants (54% women; mean age, 68 years) in the PROTECT study, a longitudinal aging study in the United Kingdom, completed annual cognitive assessments and self-reported questionnaires related to mental health and lifestyle.
• Investigators analyzed cognition across three time periods: during the year before the pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020), during pandemic year 1 (March 2020 to February 2021), and pandemic year 2 (March 2021 to February 2022).
• Investigators conducted a subanalysis on those with mild cognitive impairment and those with a history of COVID-19 (n = 752).

TAKEAWAY:

• During the first year of the pandemic, when there were societal lockdowns totaling 6 months, significant worsening of executive function and working memory was seen across the entire cohort (effect sizes, 0.15 and 0.51, respectively), in people with mild cognitive impairment (effect sizes, 0.13 and 0.40, respectively), and in those with a previous history of COVID-19 (effect sizes, 0.24 and 0.46, respectively).
• Worsening of working memory was sustained across the whole cohort in the second year of the pandemic after lockdowns were lifted (effect size, 0.47).
• Even after investigators removed data on people with mild cognitive impairment and COVID-19, the decline in executive function (effect size, 0.15; P < .0001) and working memory (effect size, 0.53; P < .0001) persisted.
• Cognitive decline was significantly associated with known risk factors for dementia, such as reduced exercise (P = .0049) and increased alcohol use (P = .049), across the whole cohort, as well as depression (P = .011) in those with a history of COVID-19 and loneliness (P = .0038) in those with mild cognitive impairment.

IN PRACTICE:

Investigators noted that these data add to existing knowledge of long-standing health consequences of COVID-19, especially for older people with memory problems. “On the positive note, there is evidence that lifestyle changes and improved health management can positively influence mental functioning,” study coauthor Dag Aarsland, MD, PhD, professor of old age psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience of King’s College London, said in a press release. “The current study underlines the importance of careful monitoring of people at risk during major events such as the pandemic.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anne Corbett, PhD, of University of Exeter, and was published online in The Lancet Healthy Longevity. The research was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London and the NIHR Exeter Biomedical Research Centre.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported data. In addition, the PROTECT cohort is self-selected and may skew toward participants with higher education levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Corbett reported receiving funding from the NIHR and grants from Synexus, reMYND, and Novo Nordisk. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Indu Subramanian, MD: It’s my pleasure to have Ray Dorsey on our program today. Ray is a professor of neurology at the University of Rochester and has been doing some amazing advocacy work in largely the space of trying to end Parkinson’s disease.

E. Ray Dorsey, MD: Thanks very much for having me, Indu. I’m delighted to be with you.
 

Trichloroethylene and PD

Dr. Subramanian: I wanted to first highlight some of the work that has come out and gotten a large amount of media attention around Camp Lejeune and specifically trichloroethylene (TCE) as a cause of Parkinson’s, and one of the environmental toxins that we talk about as something that is in pretty much everywhere. This paper came out, and you wrote a commentary in JAMA Neurology as well. Perhaps we can summarize the paper and its findings.

Dr. Dorsey: Like most people, I didn’t know what TCE was until about 5 or 6 years ago. TCE is a very simple molecule. It’s got six atoms – two carbon atoms, one hydrogen atom, and three chlorine atoms — hence, its name “trichloroethylene.” There’s a very similar chemical called perchloroethylene, which is widely used in dry cleaning. It’s got one additional chlorine atom, and the prefix “per-” means “four.” I’ll talk about TCE predominantly, but both of these chemicals probably have similar toxicity with respect to Parkinson’s disease.

Research done by Dr. Carlie Tanner and Dr. Sam Goldman about a decade ago showed that in twins who were exposed to this through their work (it’s widely used as a degreasing agent) or hobbies (it’s used in printing and painting, by varnish workers, or by anyone that needs it as a solvent) had a 500% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Importantly, in that study, they showed that there was a lag time of 10-40 years between exposure to that chemical and the diagnosis of the disease. Because TCE was so widely used, they said that public health implications could be substantial.

What’s Camp Lejeune? Camp Lejeune is a Marine base in North Carolina where many Marines are trained. Between 1953 and 1987 at that Marine base, the drinking water was contaminated with TCE, perchloroethylene, and other toxic chemicals. The reason Camp Lejeune is so infamous is because the Marines knew about the contamination for many years and covered it up.

Indeed, this story only came to the forefront because Jennie Ensminger, the daughter of a Marine drill instructor, developed leukemia at age 6 and died at age 9. Her father, Jerry Ensminger, a retired master sergeant, found out after the fact that these cancer-causing chemicals, including TCE, a known carcinogen, were found at the Marine base and could be an explanation for why his daughter developed and died of leukemia.

Dr. Sam Goldman and Dr. Carlie Tanner and colleagues from UCSF looked at the rates of Parkinson’s among Marines who served at Camp Lejeune during the 1970s and compared that with rates in Marines who served Camp Pendleton on the West Coast. It turned out that the Marines who served at Camp Lejeune had a 70% higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease than the Marines who served at Camp Pendleton.

Importantly, these Marines, by definition, were healthy. They were young. They were only 20 years old, on average, when they were at Camp Lejeune. They stayed at a Marine base for a short period of time, so on average, they were only there for 2 years. Yet 30 years later, they had a 70% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
 

Ending Parkinson’s disease

Dr. Subramanian: Wow, that’s pretty profound. You’ve done a large amount of work, and in fact you, along with some of our colleagues wrote a book about ending Parkinson’s disease. I read that book when it came out a couple of years ago, and I was really struck by a few things. Parkinson’s has doubled in the past 40 years and is going to double again in the next 20 years. Can you tell me a little bit about that statistic and why that is? It’s not just because people are aging. What is the sense of that? How do we interpret that?

Dr. Dorsey: According to the Global Burden of Disease study, which I was fortunate to be part of, the number of people with Parkinson’s disease has more than doubled in the past 25 years. A conservative projection based on aging alone suggests that it’s going to double again unless we change something about it. It’s now the world’s fastest-growing brain disease, and it is growing faster than can be explained by aging alone.

If you look at the map of Parkinson’s disease, if you thought it was purely genetic, you would have a relatively uniform map of rates of Parkinson’s disease. In fact, we don’t see that. Rates of Parkinson’s are five times higher in industrialized parts of the world, like the United States and Canada, than they are in sub-Saharan Africa. Rates of Parkinson’s disease are increasing most rapidly in areas of world that are undergoing the most rapid industrialization, such as India and China, where adjusted for age, the rates of Parkinson’s have more than doubled in the past 25 years.

The thesis of our book is that much of Parkinson’s disease is man-made. Work done by your colleagues at UCLA, including Jeff Bronstein and Beate Ritz, have demonstrated that air pollution and certain pesticides are likely fueling the rise of Parkinson’s disease.

Given that in the United States, rates of Parkinson’s disease are actually higher in urban and suburban areas than they are in rural areas, I think that this dry-cleaning chemical – which was widely used in the 1970s in everything from typewriter correction fluid to decaffeinated coffee and [over] 2 pounds per American [was produced] – could be one of the most important causes or contributing factors to Parkinson’s disease.

What to tell patients

Dr. Subramanian: For the general neurologists or practitioners out there watching this, what can they do? If you have a patient whom you suspect may have been exposed to toxins, what should we tell people who aren’t patients yet who are at risk? What are some things that you think would be helpful?

Dr. Dorsey: I think one of the shortcomings of American medicine is that we often just go from diagnosis to treatment. You’re depressed, you get an antidepressant; you have Parkinson’s disease, you get levodopa; you have seizures, you get put on an antiepileptic medication.

I think we need to spend a couple of minutes at least, maybe at the beginning, to go to the diagnosis of the condition and why you have this disease. If you just do a brief occupational history, after you start the exam – things like finding out what people do for a living or did for a living or how they spend their time – I think you’ll find many of these risk factors are actually present.

It’s pretty easy to identify whether people grew up in a rural area and drank well water, which is prone to be contaminated with pesticides. We know that people who drink [contaminated] well water have about a 75% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. I think you can find for people, especially when they grew up, when they were young, that the most relevant exposure might be that when people were young children.

It’s a little bit harder to identify all exposure to TCE. The Marines at Camp Lejeune didn’t know they were drinking the water that was contaminated with this and only found out about it after the fact because Jerry Ensminger launched a 26-year campaign to bring justice for the Marines and their dependents.

Some people who know that they work with chemicals or with solvents might know about this. In New York City, these chemicals are widely used in dry cleaning. They’re readily volatile. These chemicals can evaporate from dry-cleaning buildings and go into the indoor air of apartments above dry cleaners, for example, in New York City. That can be in toxic levels. These readily dissolve in fat, hence their use in degreasing.

There have been studies, for example, in Germany, that found that supermarkets that are simply near a dry cleaner will have TCE or perchloroethylene in the butter and the cheese that they’re selling.

It gets even worse. For example, you bring your daughter into the dry-cleaning building and she’s eating an ice cream cone. When she leaves, she’s eating perchloroethylene and TCE.

It’s a little bit harder to find it, but I think it’s relevant because some people might be still being exposed and some people might still be drinking well water and they rarely have their well tested. For those people, I recommend they get their well tested and I recommend all my patients to get a carbon filter to decrease exposure to pesticides and chemicals. A carbon filter is just like what Brita and Pure and other brands are.

Because they’re chemicals known to cause cancer, I get a little bit concerned about cancer screening. This is most strongly tied to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver cancer, and renal cancer. It’s also linked to multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, probably brain cancer, and probably breast cancer, especially in men.

I tell people to be concerned about those, and then I tell people to avoid pesticides if they have Parkinson’s disease in all its forms, not only in the drinking water but in the produce you buy, the food you eat, what you put on your lawn, what’s on the golf course where you play, and the like.

Dr. Subramanian: I would say, just from the wellness perspective, if people are at risk for degenerative disease in terms of their brain health, things like sleep, mind-body practices, exercise, diet (Mediterranean or organic, if you can), and avoiding pesticides are all important. Social connection is important as well – the things that we think are helpful in general as people age and to prevent Alzheimer’s and other things like that.

Dr. Dorsey: These are fantastic ways to modify disease course. The evidence for them is only increasing. There’s an analogy I like to use. If someone is diagnosed with lung cancer, the first thing we tell them to do is to stop smoking. If someone’s diagnosed with Parkinson’s, we don’t tell them to stop getting exposure to pesticides. We don’t tell them to stop dry cleaning their clothes. We don’t tell them to avoid air pollution. These are all risk factors that are increasingly well established for Parkinson’s disease.

I think Parkinson’s disease, fundamentally for the vast majority of people, is an entirely preventable disease. We’re not taking actions to prevent people from getting this very disabling and very deadly disease.
 

Advocacy work

Dr. Subramanian: You and I are quite interested in the sense of being advocates as neurologists, and I think it fuels our passion and helps us to wake up every morning feeling like we have something that is meaningful and purposeful in our lives. Could you describe this as your passion and how it may prevent burnout and what it’s given you as a neurologist?

Dr. Dorsey: The credit for much of this is Dr. Carlie Tanner at UC San Francisco. I had the gift of sabbatical and I started reading the literature, I started reading her literature, and I came away with that, over the past 25 years, she detailed these environmental risk factors that are linked to Parkinson’s disease. Pesticides, these dry-cleaning chemicals, and air pollution. When I read it, I just realized that this was the case.

The same time I was reading her work, I read this book called “How to Survive a Plague,” by David France, who was a member of a group called Act Up, which was a group of men in New York City who reacted to the emergence of HIV in the 1980s. If you remember the 1980s, there was no federal response to HIV. People were blamed for the diseases that they were developing. It was only because brave men and women in New York City and in San Francisco banded together and organized that they changed the course of HIV.

They didn’t just do it for themselves. They did it for all of us. You and I and many people may not have HIV because of their courage. They made HIV a treatable condition. It’s actually more treatable than Parkinson’s disease. It’s associated with a near-normal life expectancy. They also made it a preventable disease. Thousands, if not millions, of us don’t have HIV because of their work. It’s an increasingly less common disease. Rates of HIV are actually decreasing, which is something that you or I would never have expected when we were in medical training.

I can’t think of a better outcome for a neurologist or any physician than to make the diseases that they’re caring for nonexistent ... than if we lived in a world that didn’t have HIV, we lived in a world where lung cancer largely didn’t exist. We’ve had worlds in the past where Parkinson’s probably didn’t exist or existed in extremely small numbers. That might be true for diffuse Lewy body disease and others, and if these diseases are preventable, we can take actions as individuals and as a society to lower our risk.

What a wonderful gift for future generations and many generations to come, hopefully, to live in a world that’s largely devoid of Parkinson’s disease. Just like we live in a world free of typhus. We live in a world free of smallpox. We live in a world where polio is extraordinarily uncommon. We don’t even have treatments for polio because we just don’t have polio. I think we can do the same thing for Parkinson’s disease for the vast majority.

Dr. Subramanian: Thank you so much, Ray, for your advocacy. We’re getting to the point in neurology, which is exciting to me, of possibly primary prevention of some of these disorders. I think we have a role in that, which is exciting for the future.

Dr. Dorsey: Absolutely.
 

Dr. Subramanian is clinical professor, department of neurology, University of California Los Angeles, and director of PADRECC (Parkinson’s Disease Research, Education, and Clinical Centers), West Los Angeles Veterans Association, Los Angeles. She disclosed ties with Acorda Pharma. Dr. Dorsey is the David M. Levy Professor of Neurology, University of Rochester (N.Y.). He disclosed ties to Abbott, AbbVie, Acadia, Acorda Therapeutics, Averitas Pharma, Biogen, BioSensics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Caraway Therapeutics, CuraSen, DConsult2, Denali Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Health & Wellness Partners, HMP Education, Included Health, Karger, KOL Groups, Life Sciences, Mediflix, Medrhythms, Merck; MJH Holdings, North American Center for Continuing Medical Education, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Photopharmics, Praxis Medicine, Roche, Safra Foundation, Sanofi, Seelos Therapeutics, SemCap, Spark Therapeutics, Springer Healthcare, Synapticure, Theravance Biopharmaceuticals, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Indu Subramanian, MD: It’s my pleasure to have Ray Dorsey on our program today. Ray is a professor of neurology at the University of Rochester and has been doing some amazing advocacy work in largely the space of trying to end Parkinson’s disease.

E. Ray Dorsey, MD: Thanks very much for having me, Indu. I’m delighted to be with you.
 

Trichloroethylene and PD

Dr. Subramanian: I wanted to first highlight some of the work that has come out and gotten a large amount of media attention around Camp Lejeune and specifically trichloroethylene (TCE) as a cause of Parkinson’s, and one of the environmental toxins that we talk about as something that is in pretty much everywhere. This paper came out, and you wrote a commentary in JAMA Neurology as well. Perhaps we can summarize the paper and its findings.

Dr. Dorsey: Like most people, I didn’t know what TCE was until about 5 or 6 years ago. TCE is a very simple molecule. It’s got six atoms – two carbon atoms, one hydrogen atom, and three chlorine atoms — hence, its name “trichloroethylene.” There’s a very similar chemical called perchloroethylene, which is widely used in dry cleaning. It’s got one additional chlorine atom, and the prefix “per-” means “four.” I’ll talk about TCE predominantly, but both of these chemicals probably have similar toxicity with respect to Parkinson’s disease.

Research done by Dr. Carlie Tanner and Dr. Sam Goldman about a decade ago showed that in twins who were exposed to this through their work (it’s widely used as a degreasing agent) or hobbies (it’s used in printing and painting, by varnish workers, or by anyone that needs it as a solvent) had a 500% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Importantly, in that study, they showed that there was a lag time of 10-40 years between exposure to that chemical and the diagnosis of the disease. Because TCE was so widely used, they said that public health implications could be substantial.

What’s Camp Lejeune? Camp Lejeune is a Marine base in North Carolina where many Marines are trained. Between 1953 and 1987 at that Marine base, the drinking water was contaminated with TCE, perchloroethylene, and other toxic chemicals. The reason Camp Lejeune is so infamous is because the Marines knew about the contamination for many years and covered it up.

Indeed, this story only came to the forefront because Jennie Ensminger, the daughter of a Marine drill instructor, developed leukemia at age 6 and died at age 9. Her father, Jerry Ensminger, a retired master sergeant, found out after the fact that these cancer-causing chemicals, including TCE, a known carcinogen, were found at the Marine base and could be an explanation for why his daughter developed and died of leukemia.

Dr. Sam Goldman and Dr. Carlie Tanner and colleagues from UCSF looked at the rates of Parkinson’s among Marines who served at Camp Lejeune during the 1970s and compared that with rates in Marines who served Camp Pendleton on the West Coast. It turned out that the Marines who served at Camp Lejeune had a 70% higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease than the Marines who served at Camp Pendleton.

Importantly, these Marines, by definition, were healthy. They were young. They were only 20 years old, on average, when they were at Camp Lejeune. They stayed at a Marine base for a short period of time, so on average, they were only there for 2 years. Yet 30 years later, they had a 70% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
 

Ending Parkinson’s disease

Dr. Subramanian: Wow, that’s pretty profound. You’ve done a large amount of work, and in fact you, along with some of our colleagues wrote a book about ending Parkinson’s disease. I read that book when it came out a couple of years ago, and I was really struck by a few things. Parkinson’s has doubled in the past 40 years and is going to double again in the next 20 years. Can you tell me a little bit about that statistic and why that is? It’s not just because people are aging. What is the sense of that? How do we interpret that?

Dr. Dorsey: According to the Global Burden of Disease study, which I was fortunate to be part of, the number of people with Parkinson’s disease has more than doubled in the past 25 years. A conservative projection based on aging alone suggests that it’s going to double again unless we change something about it. It’s now the world’s fastest-growing brain disease, and it is growing faster than can be explained by aging alone.

If you look at the map of Parkinson’s disease, if you thought it was purely genetic, you would have a relatively uniform map of rates of Parkinson’s disease. In fact, we don’t see that. Rates of Parkinson’s are five times higher in industrialized parts of the world, like the United States and Canada, than they are in sub-Saharan Africa. Rates of Parkinson’s disease are increasing most rapidly in areas of world that are undergoing the most rapid industrialization, such as India and China, where adjusted for age, the rates of Parkinson’s have more than doubled in the past 25 years.

The thesis of our book is that much of Parkinson’s disease is man-made. Work done by your colleagues at UCLA, including Jeff Bronstein and Beate Ritz, have demonstrated that air pollution and certain pesticides are likely fueling the rise of Parkinson’s disease.

Given that in the United States, rates of Parkinson’s disease are actually higher in urban and suburban areas than they are in rural areas, I think that this dry-cleaning chemical – which was widely used in the 1970s in everything from typewriter correction fluid to decaffeinated coffee and [over] 2 pounds per American [was produced] – could be one of the most important causes or contributing factors to Parkinson’s disease.

What to tell patients

Dr. Subramanian: For the general neurologists or practitioners out there watching this, what can they do? If you have a patient whom you suspect may have been exposed to toxins, what should we tell people who aren’t patients yet who are at risk? What are some things that you think would be helpful?

Dr. Dorsey: I think one of the shortcomings of American medicine is that we often just go from diagnosis to treatment. You’re depressed, you get an antidepressant; you have Parkinson’s disease, you get levodopa; you have seizures, you get put on an antiepileptic medication.

I think we need to spend a couple of minutes at least, maybe at the beginning, to go to the diagnosis of the condition and why you have this disease. If you just do a brief occupational history, after you start the exam – things like finding out what people do for a living or did for a living or how they spend their time – I think you’ll find many of these risk factors are actually present.

It’s pretty easy to identify whether people grew up in a rural area and drank well water, which is prone to be contaminated with pesticides. We know that people who drink [contaminated] well water have about a 75% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. I think you can find for people, especially when they grew up, when they were young, that the most relevant exposure might be that when people were young children.

It’s a little bit harder to identify all exposure to TCE. The Marines at Camp Lejeune didn’t know they were drinking the water that was contaminated with this and only found out about it after the fact because Jerry Ensminger launched a 26-year campaign to bring justice for the Marines and their dependents.

Some people who know that they work with chemicals or with solvents might know about this. In New York City, these chemicals are widely used in dry cleaning. They’re readily volatile. These chemicals can evaporate from dry-cleaning buildings and go into the indoor air of apartments above dry cleaners, for example, in New York City. That can be in toxic levels. These readily dissolve in fat, hence their use in degreasing.

There have been studies, for example, in Germany, that found that supermarkets that are simply near a dry cleaner will have TCE or perchloroethylene in the butter and the cheese that they’re selling.

It gets even worse. For example, you bring your daughter into the dry-cleaning building and she’s eating an ice cream cone. When she leaves, she’s eating perchloroethylene and TCE.

It’s a little bit harder to find it, but I think it’s relevant because some people might be still being exposed and some people might still be drinking well water and they rarely have their well tested. For those people, I recommend they get their well tested and I recommend all my patients to get a carbon filter to decrease exposure to pesticides and chemicals. A carbon filter is just like what Brita and Pure and other brands are.

Because they’re chemicals known to cause cancer, I get a little bit concerned about cancer screening. This is most strongly tied to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver cancer, and renal cancer. It’s also linked to multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, probably brain cancer, and probably breast cancer, especially in men.

I tell people to be concerned about those, and then I tell people to avoid pesticides if they have Parkinson’s disease in all its forms, not only in the drinking water but in the produce you buy, the food you eat, what you put on your lawn, what’s on the golf course where you play, and the like.

Dr. Subramanian: I would say, just from the wellness perspective, if people are at risk for degenerative disease in terms of their brain health, things like sleep, mind-body practices, exercise, diet (Mediterranean or organic, if you can), and avoiding pesticides are all important. Social connection is important as well – the things that we think are helpful in general as people age and to prevent Alzheimer’s and other things like that.

Dr. Dorsey: These are fantastic ways to modify disease course. The evidence for them is only increasing. There’s an analogy I like to use. If someone is diagnosed with lung cancer, the first thing we tell them to do is to stop smoking. If someone’s diagnosed with Parkinson’s, we don’t tell them to stop getting exposure to pesticides. We don’t tell them to stop dry cleaning their clothes. We don’t tell them to avoid air pollution. These are all risk factors that are increasingly well established for Parkinson’s disease.

I think Parkinson’s disease, fundamentally for the vast majority of people, is an entirely preventable disease. We’re not taking actions to prevent people from getting this very disabling and very deadly disease.
 

Advocacy work

Dr. Subramanian: You and I are quite interested in the sense of being advocates as neurologists, and I think it fuels our passion and helps us to wake up every morning feeling like we have something that is meaningful and purposeful in our lives. Could you describe this as your passion and how it may prevent burnout and what it’s given you as a neurologist?

Dr. Dorsey: The credit for much of this is Dr. Carlie Tanner at UC San Francisco. I had the gift of sabbatical and I started reading the literature, I started reading her literature, and I came away with that, over the past 25 years, she detailed these environmental risk factors that are linked to Parkinson’s disease. Pesticides, these dry-cleaning chemicals, and air pollution. When I read it, I just realized that this was the case.

The same time I was reading her work, I read this book called “How to Survive a Plague,” by David France, who was a member of a group called Act Up, which was a group of men in New York City who reacted to the emergence of HIV in the 1980s. If you remember the 1980s, there was no federal response to HIV. People were blamed for the diseases that they were developing. It was only because brave men and women in New York City and in San Francisco banded together and organized that they changed the course of HIV.

They didn’t just do it for themselves. They did it for all of us. You and I and many people may not have HIV because of their courage. They made HIV a treatable condition. It’s actually more treatable than Parkinson’s disease. It’s associated with a near-normal life expectancy. They also made it a preventable disease. Thousands, if not millions, of us don’t have HIV because of their work. It’s an increasingly less common disease. Rates of HIV are actually decreasing, which is something that you or I would never have expected when we were in medical training.

I can’t think of a better outcome for a neurologist or any physician than to make the diseases that they’re caring for nonexistent ... than if we lived in a world that didn’t have HIV, we lived in a world where lung cancer largely didn’t exist. We’ve had worlds in the past where Parkinson’s probably didn’t exist or existed in extremely small numbers. That might be true for diffuse Lewy body disease and others, and if these diseases are preventable, we can take actions as individuals and as a society to lower our risk.

What a wonderful gift for future generations and many generations to come, hopefully, to live in a world that’s largely devoid of Parkinson’s disease. Just like we live in a world free of typhus. We live in a world free of smallpox. We live in a world where polio is extraordinarily uncommon. We don’t even have treatments for polio because we just don’t have polio. I think we can do the same thing for Parkinson’s disease for the vast majority.

Dr. Subramanian: Thank you so much, Ray, for your advocacy. We’re getting to the point in neurology, which is exciting to me, of possibly primary prevention of some of these disorders. I think we have a role in that, which is exciting for the future.

Dr. Dorsey: Absolutely.
 

Dr. Subramanian is clinical professor, department of neurology, University of California Los Angeles, and director of PADRECC (Parkinson’s Disease Research, Education, and Clinical Centers), West Los Angeles Veterans Association, Los Angeles. She disclosed ties with Acorda Pharma. Dr. Dorsey is the David M. Levy Professor of Neurology, University of Rochester (N.Y.). He disclosed ties to Abbott, AbbVie, Acadia, Acorda Therapeutics, Averitas Pharma, Biogen, BioSensics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Caraway Therapeutics, CuraSen, DConsult2, Denali Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Health & Wellness Partners, HMP Education, Included Health, Karger, KOL Groups, Life Sciences, Mediflix, Medrhythms, Merck; MJH Holdings, North American Center for Continuing Medical Education, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Photopharmics, Praxis Medicine, Roche, Safra Foundation, Sanofi, Seelos Therapeutics, SemCap, Spark Therapeutics, Springer Healthcare, Synapticure, Theravance Biopharmaceuticals, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Indu Subramanian, MD: It’s my pleasure to have Ray Dorsey on our program today. Ray is a professor of neurology at the University of Rochester and has been doing some amazing advocacy work in largely the space of trying to end Parkinson’s disease.

E. Ray Dorsey, MD: Thanks very much for having me, Indu. I’m delighted to be with you.
 

Trichloroethylene and PD

Dr. Subramanian: I wanted to first highlight some of the work that has come out and gotten a large amount of media attention around Camp Lejeune and specifically trichloroethylene (TCE) as a cause of Parkinson’s, and one of the environmental toxins that we talk about as something that is in pretty much everywhere. This paper came out, and you wrote a commentary in JAMA Neurology as well. Perhaps we can summarize the paper and its findings.

Dr. Dorsey: Like most people, I didn’t know what TCE was until about 5 or 6 years ago. TCE is a very simple molecule. It’s got six atoms – two carbon atoms, one hydrogen atom, and three chlorine atoms — hence, its name “trichloroethylene.” There’s a very similar chemical called perchloroethylene, which is widely used in dry cleaning. It’s got one additional chlorine atom, and the prefix “per-” means “four.” I’ll talk about TCE predominantly, but both of these chemicals probably have similar toxicity with respect to Parkinson’s disease.

Research done by Dr. Carlie Tanner and Dr. Sam Goldman about a decade ago showed that in twins who were exposed to this through their work (it’s widely used as a degreasing agent) or hobbies (it’s used in printing and painting, by varnish workers, or by anyone that needs it as a solvent) had a 500% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Importantly, in that study, they showed that there was a lag time of 10-40 years between exposure to that chemical and the diagnosis of the disease. Because TCE was so widely used, they said that public health implications could be substantial.

What’s Camp Lejeune? Camp Lejeune is a Marine base in North Carolina where many Marines are trained. Between 1953 and 1987 at that Marine base, the drinking water was contaminated with TCE, perchloroethylene, and other toxic chemicals. The reason Camp Lejeune is so infamous is because the Marines knew about the contamination for many years and covered it up.

Indeed, this story only came to the forefront because Jennie Ensminger, the daughter of a Marine drill instructor, developed leukemia at age 6 and died at age 9. Her father, Jerry Ensminger, a retired master sergeant, found out after the fact that these cancer-causing chemicals, including TCE, a known carcinogen, were found at the Marine base and could be an explanation for why his daughter developed and died of leukemia.

Dr. Sam Goldman and Dr. Carlie Tanner and colleagues from UCSF looked at the rates of Parkinson’s among Marines who served at Camp Lejeune during the 1970s and compared that with rates in Marines who served Camp Pendleton on the West Coast. It turned out that the Marines who served at Camp Lejeune had a 70% higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease than the Marines who served at Camp Pendleton.

Importantly, these Marines, by definition, were healthy. They were young. They were only 20 years old, on average, when they were at Camp Lejeune. They stayed at a Marine base for a short period of time, so on average, they were only there for 2 years. Yet 30 years later, they had a 70% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
 

Ending Parkinson’s disease

Dr. Subramanian: Wow, that’s pretty profound. You’ve done a large amount of work, and in fact you, along with some of our colleagues wrote a book about ending Parkinson’s disease. I read that book when it came out a couple of years ago, and I was really struck by a few things. Parkinson’s has doubled in the past 40 years and is going to double again in the next 20 years. Can you tell me a little bit about that statistic and why that is? It’s not just because people are aging. What is the sense of that? How do we interpret that?

Dr. Dorsey: According to the Global Burden of Disease study, which I was fortunate to be part of, the number of people with Parkinson’s disease has more than doubled in the past 25 years. A conservative projection based on aging alone suggests that it’s going to double again unless we change something about it. It’s now the world’s fastest-growing brain disease, and it is growing faster than can be explained by aging alone.

If you look at the map of Parkinson’s disease, if you thought it was purely genetic, you would have a relatively uniform map of rates of Parkinson’s disease. In fact, we don’t see that. Rates of Parkinson’s are five times higher in industrialized parts of the world, like the United States and Canada, than they are in sub-Saharan Africa. Rates of Parkinson’s disease are increasing most rapidly in areas of world that are undergoing the most rapid industrialization, such as India and China, where adjusted for age, the rates of Parkinson’s have more than doubled in the past 25 years.

The thesis of our book is that much of Parkinson’s disease is man-made. Work done by your colleagues at UCLA, including Jeff Bronstein and Beate Ritz, have demonstrated that air pollution and certain pesticides are likely fueling the rise of Parkinson’s disease.

Given that in the United States, rates of Parkinson’s disease are actually higher in urban and suburban areas than they are in rural areas, I think that this dry-cleaning chemical – which was widely used in the 1970s in everything from typewriter correction fluid to decaffeinated coffee and [over] 2 pounds per American [was produced] – could be one of the most important causes or contributing factors to Parkinson’s disease.

What to tell patients

Dr. Subramanian: For the general neurologists or practitioners out there watching this, what can they do? If you have a patient whom you suspect may have been exposed to toxins, what should we tell people who aren’t patients yet who are at risk? What are some things that you think would be helpful?

Dr. Dorsey: I think one of the shortcomings of American medicine is that we often just go from diagnosis to treatment. You’re depressed, you get an antidepressant; you have Parkinson’s disease, you get levodopa; you have seizures, you get put on an antiepileptic medication.

I think we need to spend a couple of minutes at least, maybe at the beginning, to go to the diagnosis of the condition and why you have this disease. If you just do a brief occupational history, after you start the exam – things like finding out what people do for a living or did for a living or how they spend their time – I think you’ll find many of these risk factors are actually present.

It’s pretty easy to identify whether people grew up in a rural area and drank well water, which is prone to be contaminated with pesticides. We know that people who drink [contaminated] well water have about a 75% increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. I think you can find for people, especially when they grew up, when they were young, that the most relevant exposure might be that when people were young children.

It’s a little bit harder to identify all exposure to TCE. The Marines at Camp Lejeune didn’t know they were drinking the water that was contaminated with this and only found out about it after the fact because Jerry Ensminger launched a 26-year campaign to bring justice for the Marines and their dependents.

Some people who know that they work with chemicals or with solvents might know about this. In New York City, these chemicals are widely used in dry cleaning. They’re readily volatile. These chemicals can evaporate from dry-cleaning buildings and go into the indoor air of apartments above dry cleaners, for example, in New York City. That can be in toxic levels. These readily dissolve in fat, hence their use in degreasing.

There have been studies, for example, in Germany, that found that supermarkets that are simply near a dry cleaner will have TCE or perchloroethylene in the butter and the cheese that they’re selling.

It gets even worse. For example, you bring your daughter into the dry-cleaning building and she’s eating an ice cream cone. When she leaves, she’s eating perchloroethylene and TCE.

It’s a little bit harder to find it, but I think it’s relevant because some people might be still being exposed and some people might still be drinking well water and they rarely have their well tested. For those people, I recommend they get their well tested and I recommend all my patients to get a carbon filter to decrease exposure to pesticides and chemicals. A carbon filter is just like what Brita and Pure and other brands are.

Because they’re chemicals known to cause cancer, I get a little bit concerned about cancer screening. This is most strongly tied to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver cancer, and renal cancer. It’s also linked to multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, probably brain cancer, and probably breast cancer, especially in men.

I tell people to be concerned about those, and then I tell people to avoid pesticides if they have Parkinson’s disease in all its forms, not only in the drinking water but in the produce you buy, the food you eat, what you put on your lawn, what’s on the golf course where you play, and the like.

Dr. Subramanian: I would say, just from the wellness perspective, if people are at risk for degenerative disease in terms of their brain health, things like sleep, mind-body practices, exercise, diet (Mediterranean or organic, if you can), and avoiding pesticides are all important. Social connection is important as well – the things that we think are helpful in general as people age and to prevent Alzheimer’s and other things like that.

Dr. Dorsey: These are fantastic ways to modify disease course. The evidence for them is only increasing. There’s an analogy I like to use. If someone is diagnosed with lung cancer, the first thing we tell them to do is to stop smoking. If someone’s diagnosed with Parkinson’s, we don’t tell them to stop getting exposure to pesticides. We don’t tell them to stop dry cleaning their clothes. We don’t tell them to avoid air pollution. These are all risk factors that are increasingly well established for Parkinson’s disease.

I think Parkinson’s disease, fundamentally for the vast majority of people, is an entirely preventable disease. We’re not taking actions to prevent people from getting this very disabling and very deadly disease.
 

Advocacy work

Dr. Subramanian: You and I are quite interested in the sense of being advocates as neurologists, and I think it fuels our passion and helps us to wake up every morning feeling like we have something that is meaningful and purposeful in our lives. Could you describe this as your passion and how it may prevent burnout and what it’s given you as a neurologist?

Dr. Dorsey: The credit for much of this is Dr. Carlie Tanner at UC San Francisco. I had the gift of sabbatical and I started reading the literature, I started reading her literature, and I came away with that, over the past 25 years, she detailed these environmental risk factors that are linked to Parkinson’s disease. Pesticides, these dry-cleaning chemicals, and air pollution. When I read it, I just realized that this was the case.

The same time I was reading her work, I read this book called “How to Survive a Plague,” by David France, who was a member of a group called Act Up, which was a group of men in New York City who reacted to the emergence of HIV in the 1980s. If you remember the 1980s, there was no federal response to HIV. People were blamed for the diseases that they were developing. It was only because brave men and women in New York City and in San Francisco banded together and organized that they changed the course of HIV.

They didn’t just do it for themselves. They did it for all of us. You and I and many people may not have HIV because of their courage. They made HIV a treatable condition. It’s actually more treatable than Parkinson’s disease. It’s associated with a near-normal life expectancy. They also made it a preventable disease. Thousands, if not millions, of us don’t have HIV because of their work. It’s an increasingly less common disease. Rates of HIV are actually decreasing, which is something that you or I would never have expected when we were in medical training.

I can’t think of a better outcome for a neurologist or any physician than to make the diseases that they’re caring for nonexistent ... than if we lived in a world that didn’t have HIV, we lived in a world where lung cancer largely didn’t exist. We’ve had worlds in the past where Parkinson’s probably didn’t exist or existed in extremely small numbers. That might be true for diffuse Lewy body disease and others, and if these diseases are preventable, we can take actions as individuals and as a society to lower our risk.

What a wonderful gift for future generations and many generations to come, hopefully, to live in a world that’s largely devoid of Parkinson’s disease. Just like we live in a world free of typhus. We live in a world free of smallpox. We live in a world where polio is extraordinarily uncommon. We don’t even have treatments for polio because we just don’t have polio. I think we can do the same thing for Parkinson’s disease for the vast majority.

Dr. Subramanian: Thank you so much, Ray, for your advocacy. We’re getting to the point in neurology, which is exciting to me, of possibly primary prevention of some of these disorders. I think we have a role in that, which is exciting for the future.

Dr. Dorsey: Absolutely.
 

Dr. Subramanian is clinical professor, department of neurology, University of California Los Angeles, and director of PADRECC (Parkinson’s Disease Research, Education, and Clinical Centers), West Los Angeles Veterans Association, Los Angeles. She disclosed ties with Acorda Pharma. Dr. Dorsey is the David M. Levy Professor of Neurology, University of Rochester (N.Y.). He disclosed ties to Abbott, AbbVie, Acadia, Acorda Therapeutics, Averitas Pharma, Biogen, BioSensics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Caraway Therapeutics, CuraSen, DConsult2, Denali Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Health & Wellness Partners, HMP Education, Included Health, Karger, KOL Groups, Life Sciences, Mediflix, Medrhythms, Merck; MJH Holdings, North American Center for Continuing Medical Education, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Photopharmics, Praxis Medicine, Roche, Safra Foundation, Sanofi, Seelos Therapeutics, SemCap, Spark Therapeutics, Springer Healthcare, Synapticure, Theravance Biopharmaceuticals, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded October 13, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I’ll be talking today with Dr. Meredith Wicklund, senior associate consultant and behavioral neurologist specialist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Welcome, Meredith.

Meredith Wicklund, MD: Thank you.
 

Lecanemab data

Dr. LaFaver: I’m very excited about our topic. We’ll be talking about monoclonal antibody therapy against amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease – which has really been a hot topic, especially this year with the FDA approval of lecanemab – and associated questions. Could you give us a brief overview of why there has been so much research interest in this topic of anti-amyloid antibodies?

Dr. Wicklund: The pathologic component of what defines something as Alzheimer’s disease is, by definition, presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles. When it was first discovered in the 1980s that the component of the plaques was actually the amyloid protein – beta amyloid specifically – interest went right from there to developing therapies to directly target the pathology that is Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Lecanemab is the first FDA-approved disease-modifying antibody in that realm. Could you review the study data, especially as it applies to both of us in daily neurology clinic?

Dr. Wicklund: The study data from a phase 3 trial did show, for the primary outcome, that there was a 27% slowing of decline compared with individuals on placebo. It’s important to point out that this was slowing of decline. It was not stabilizing decline. It was not improving decline.

I think it’s important that we inform our patients that really, even with this therapy, there’s no prospect of stabilizing or restoring cognition or function. We do progress at a slower rate compared with individuals not on this treatment, which, given that this medication is for individuals in mild disease who have relatively preserved functional status, that can be potentially very meaningful to families.

The overall benefit was small. It essentially amounts to half a point on an 18-point scale, which is statistically significant. How much clinical meaningfulness that actually leads to is unclear. Finding clinical meaningfulness cannot be defined by a particular test. It really can only be defined on the individual level, what is meaningful to them.
 

Recommended tests

Dr. LaFaver: It is my understanding that, to qualify for lecanemab use, one needs to have a biomarker-supported diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, either via an amyloid PET scan or CSF biomarkers. What would your recommendation be for a neurologist in practice to go about these requirements?

Dr. Wicklund: Since this medication is directly targeting the amyloid pathology, and it does convey a potential risk, we want to make sure that the actual pathology is present in the individuals before we treat them and potentially expose them to risk. The best way of doing that is through either an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid testing of beta amyloid and tau.

There are several plasma-based biomarkers in development. However, I would avoid using those currently. There are still many unknowns in terms of what exactly is the right species of tau that we should be looking at, the right mechanism of the lab test, how minority status may influence it, and how different comorbidities may influence it.

I would recommend, at this time, sticking with amyloid PET or CSF testing. Given that amyloid PET is not widely available in many community practices, generally only available at academic centers, and is quite costly, many insurances do not cover it – although Medicare has a proposal to potentially start covering it – I generally go with spinal fluid testing, which is more widely available. There are several labs across the country that can process that testing in a reliable way.
 

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities

Dr. LaFaver: That’s very helpful to know. There’s been a large amount of buzz just these past couple of weeks about the blood biomarker coming up. I think, as you point out, this wasn’t the marker used in the clinical studies and there are still unknowns. Maybe it’s not quite time for clinical use, unfortunately.

We also have learned that there are significant potential risks involved. One issue that’s really been a focus is ARIA – amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. Could you speak a bit about that and requirements for monitoring?

Dr. Wicklund: ARIA essentially amounts to either vasogenic edema, microhemorrhages, or superficial siderosis that develops as a result of treatment. It relates to activation of the immune system with these passive monoclonal antibodies that’s going to occur with targeting against the plaques. In the parenchyma, it will cause edema. If you have amyloid in the walls of the blood vessels, it can cause microhemorrhages.

While the term “ARIA” implies an imaging-related abnormality, and it largely is purely an imaging finding, it’s not solely an imaging-related finding. It can cause symptoms, including very serious symptoms.

Overall, with lecanemab, the incidence of ARIA within the treatment group in the phase 3 study, combined between both ARIA-E (edema/effusion) and ARIA-H (hemorrhage), was 21.5%, with about 17% being ARIA-H and about 12.5% being ARIA-E. Of course, they can occur at the same time.

Overall, in terms of people in the clinical trials, for most it was purely an imaging-related finding. About 3% developed symptomatic ARIA. Some of those were very serious symptoms, including things like seizures and need to be hospitalized. A couple of deaths have been attributed to ARIA as well.

Patients on anticoagulation

Dr. LaFaver: Along those lines, any additional words to say for people who might be on anticoagulation or might require medications for a stroke, for example?

Dr. Wicklund: While individuals on anticoagulation were allowed in the clinical trials, the current, published appropriate-use guideline is recommending against its use, as several of the serious adverse effects, including the deaths, were for the most part attributed to anticoagulation use.

When it comes to acute stroke treatment, one must carefully consider use of tPA, as two of the three deaths were tPA associated in the clinical trials. It shouldn’t necessarily be an absolute contraindication, but it can make the clinical picture very muddy. If an individual is on lecanemab and comes to the ER with acute stroke-like symptoms, it’s more likely that they’re going to be having an ARIA side effect rather than an acute stroke.

A general recommendation would be to obtain an acute head CT with a CTA, and if there is a large vessel occlusion, proceed to thrombectomy. However, if there isn’t a large vessel occlusion, if you have the ability to get a rapid MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to screen for acute stroke changes or tissue flair with acute edema changes suggestive of ARIA, that would be preferred before proceeding with thrombolysis. These are all relative contraindications and are going to depend on what’s available near you.
 

Donanemab approval pending

Dr. LaFaver: This will be an issue because the population we’re talking about is definitely at risk for stroke as well as Alzheimer’s disease. Where do you see this field going as far as amyloid antibody therapy is concerned, with another agent, donanemab, possibly getting FDA approval later this year as well?

Dr. Wicklund: We’re anticipating that donanemab will get FDA approval in the next coming months. Donanemab also targets the amyloid in the brain, although lecanemab and donanemab target different aspects of the production of the amyloid plaque. They were both shown to have roughly equal efficacy in their phase 3 clinical trials. Donanemab has the benefit of being a once-monthly infusion as opposed to twice-monthly infusions with lecanemab. It does have a slightly higher risk for ARIA compared with lecanemab.

Those are just some things to take into consideration when talking with your patients. In terms of where we’re going from here, we’re moving even earlier in terms of disease state. The lecanemab and donanemab phase 3 trials were done in individuals with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. They should not be used in individuals with moderate or more advanced Alzheimer’s disease.

There are ongoing, large, national, multicenter clinical trials of both lecanemab and donanemab in a preclinical state of Alzheimer’s disease. These individuals have evidence of amyloidosis, either through PET imaging or through CSF, but are clinically asymptomatic and do not yet have any signs of cognitive impairment or functional decline. We look forward to those results in the next few years. Hopefully, they’ll be able to show even greater benefit when moving into these early disease states in terms of delaying or even preventing cognitive decline.

Dr. LaFaver: That’s definitely very interesting to hear about. Where can people go for more information?

Dr. Wicklund: There’s a guideline on the use of lecanemab through the American Academy of Neurology. I encourage you to look at that. Also, look at the appropriate-use recommendations that were published this year in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Wonderful. With that being said, thank you so much for talking to me. I learned a lot. Thanks, everyone, for listening.
 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, N.Y. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wicklund is senior associate consultant in the department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded October 13, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I’ll be talking today with Dr. Meredith Wicklund, senior associate consultant and behavioral neurologist specialist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Welcome, Meredith.

Meredith Wicklund, MD: Thank you.
 

Lecanemab data

Dr. LaFaver: I’m very excited about our topic. We’ll be talking about monoclonal antibody therapy against amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease – which has really been a hot topic, especially this year with the FDA approval of lecanemab – and associated questions. Could you give us a brief overview of why there has been so much research interest in this topic of anti-amyloid antibodies?

Dr. Wicklund: The pathologic component of what defines something as Alzheimer’s disease is, by definition, presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles. When it was first discovered in the 1980s that the component of the plaques was actually the amyloid protein – beta amyloid specifically – interest went right from there to developing therapies to directly target the pathology that is Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Lecanemab is the first FDA-approved disease-modifying antibody in that realm. Could you review the study data, especially as it applies to both of us in daily neurology clinic?

Dr. Wicklund: The study data from a phase 3 trial did show, for the primary outcome, that there was a 27% slowing of decline compared with individuals on placebo. It’s important to point out that this was slowing of decline. It was not stabilizing decline. It was not improving decline.

I think it’s important that we inform our patients that really, even with this therapy, there’s no prospect of stabilizing or restoring cognition or function. We do progress at a slower rate compared with individuals not on this treatment, which, given that this medication is for individuals in mild disease who have relatively preserved functional status, that can be potentially very meaningful to families.

The overall benefit was small. It essentially amounts to half a point on an 18-point scale, which is statistically significant. How much clinical meaningfulness that actually leads to is unclear. Finding clinical meaningfulness cannot be defined by a particular test. It really can only be defined on the individual level, what is meaningful to them.
 

Recommended tests

Dr. LaFaver: It is my understanding that, to qualify for lecanemab use, one needs to have a biomarker-supported diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, either via an amyloid PET scan or CSF biomarkers. What would your recommendation be for a neurologist in practice to go about these requirements?

Dr. Wicklund: Since this medication is directly targeting the amyloid pathology, and it does convey a potential risk, we want to make sure that the actual pathology is present in the individuals before we treat them and potentially expose them to risk. The best way of doing that is through either an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid testing of beta amyloid and tau.

There are several plasma-based biomarkers in development. However, I would avoid using those currently. There are still many unknowns in terms of what exactly is the right species of tau that we should be looking at, the right mechanism of the lab test, how minority status may influence it, and how different comorbidities may influence it.

I would recommend, at this time, sticking with amyloid PET or CSF testing. Given that amyloid PET is not widely available in many community practices, generally only available at academic centers, and is quite costly, many insurances do not cover it – although Medicare has a proposal to potentially start covering it – I generally go with spinal fluid testing, which is more widely available. There are several labs across the country that can process that testing in a reliable way.
 

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities

Dr. LaFaver: That’s very helpful to know. There’s been a large amount of buzz just these past couple of weeks about the blood biomarker coming up. I think, as you point out, this wasn’t the marker used in the clinical studies and there are still unknowns. Maybe it’s not quite time for clinical use, unfortunately.

We also have learned that there are significant potential risks involved. One issue that’s really been a focus is ARIA – amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. Could you speak a bit about that and requirements for monitoring?

Dr. Wicklund: ARIA essentially amounts to either vasogenic edema, microhemorrhages, or superficial siderosis that develops as a result of treatment. It relates to activation of the immune system with these passive monoclonal antibodies that’s going to occur with targeting against the plaques. In the parenchyma, it will cause edema. If you have amyloid in the walls of the blood vessels, it can cause microhemorrhages.

While the term “ARIA” implies an imaging-related abnormality, and it largely is purely an imaging finding, it’s not solely an imaging-related finding. It can cause symptoms, including very serious symptoms.

Overall, with lecanemab, the incidence of ARIA within the treatment group in the phase 3 study, combined between both ARIA-E (edema/effusion) and ARIA-H (hemorrhage), was 21.5%, with about 17% being ARIA-H and about 12.5% being ARIA-E. Of course, they can occur at the same time.

Overall, in terms of people in the clinical trials, for most it was purely an imaging-related finding. About 3% developed symptomatic ARIA. Some of those were very serious symptoms, including things like seizures and need to be hospitalized. A couple of deaths have been attributed to ARIA as well.

Patients on anticoagulation

Dr. LaFaver: Along those lines, any additional words to say for people who might be on anticoagulation or might require medications for a stroke, for example?

Dr. Wicklund: While individuals on anticoagulation were allowed in the clinical trials, the current, published appropriate-use guideline is recommending against its use, as several of the serious adverse effects, including the deaths, were for the most part attributed to anticoagulation use.

When it comes to acute stroke treatment, one must carefully consider use of tPA, as two of the three deaths were tPA associated in the clinical trials. It shouldn’t necessarily be an absolute contraindication, but it can make the clinical picture very muddy. If an individual is on lecanemab and comes to the ER with acute stroke-like symptoms, it’s more likely that they’re going to be having an ARIA side effect rather than an acute stroke.

A general recommendation would be to obtain an acute head CT with a CTA, and if there is a large vessel occlusion, proceed to thrombectomy. However, if there isn’t a large vessel occlusion, if you have the ability to get a rapid MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to screen for acute stroke changes or tissue flair with acute edema changes suggestive of ARIA, that would be preferred before proceeding with thrombolysis. These are all relative contraindications and are going to depend on what’s available near you.
 

Donanemab approval pending

Dr. LaFaver: This will be an issue because the population we’re talking about is definitely at risk for stroke as well as Alzheimer’s disease. Where do you see this field going as far as amyloid antibody therapy is concerned, with another agent, donanemab, possibly getting FDA approval later this year as well?

Dr. Wicklund: We’re anticipating that donanemab will get FDA approval in the next coming months. Donanemab also targets the amyloid in the brain, although lecanemab and donanemab target different aspects of the production of the amyloid plaque. They were both shown to have roughly equal efficacy in their phase 3 clinical trials. Donanemab has the benefit of being a once-monthly infusion as opposed to twice-monthly infusions with lecanemab. It does have a slightly higher risk for ARIA compared with lecanemab.

Those are just some things to take into consideration when talking with your patients. In terms of where we’re going from here, we’re moving even earlier in terms of disease state. The lecanemab and donanemab phase 3 trials were done in individuals with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. They should not be used in individuals with moderate or more advanced Alzheimer’s disease.

There are ongoing, large, national, multicenter clinical trials of both lecanemab and donanemab in a preclinical state of Alzheimer’s disease. These individuals have evidence of amyloidosis, either through PET imaging or through CSF, but are clinically asymptomatic and do not yet have any signs of cognitive impairment or functional decline. We look forward to those results in the next few years. Hopefully, they’ll be able to show even greater benefit when moving into these early disease states in terms of delaying or even preventing cognitive decline.

Dr. LaFaver: That’s definitely very interesting to hear about. Where can people go for more information?

Dr. Wicklund: There’s a guideline on the use of lecanemab through the American Academy of Neurology. I encourage you to look at that. Also, look at the appropriate-use recommendations that were published this year in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Wonderful. With that being said, thank you so much for talking to me. I learned a lot. Thanks, everyone, for listening.
 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, N.Y. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wicklund is senior associate consultant in the department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded October 13, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I’ll be talking today with Dr. Meredith Wicklund, senior associate consultant and behavioral neurologist specialist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Welcome, Meredith.

Meredith Wicklund, MD: Thank you.
 

Lecanemab data

Dr. LaFaver: I’m very excited about our topic. We’ll be talking about monoclonal antibody therapy against amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease – which has really been a hot topic, especially this year with the FDA approval of lecanemab – and associated questions. Could you give us a brief overview of why there has been so much research interest in this topic of anti-amyloid antibodies?

Dr. Wicklund: The pathologic component of what defines something as Alzheimer’s disease is, by definition, presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles. When it was first discovered in the 1980s that the component of the plaques was actually the amyloid protein – beta amyloid specifically – interest went right from there to developing therapies to directly target the pathology that is Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Lecanemab is the first FDA-approved disease-modifying antibody in that realm. Could you review the study data, especially as it applies to both of us in daily neurology clinic?

Dr. Wicklund: The study data from a phase 3 trial did show, for the primary outcome, that there was a 27% slowing of decline compared with individuals on placebo. It’s important to point out that this was slowing of decline. It was not stabilizing decline. It was not improving decline.

I think it’s important that we inform our patients that really, even with this therapy, there’s no prospect of stabilizing or restoring cognition or function. We do progress at a slower rate compared with individuals not on this treatment, which, given that this medication is for individuals in mild disease who have relatively preserved functional status, that can be potentially very meaningful to families.

The overall benefit was small. It essentially amounts to half a point on an 18-point scale, which is statistically significant. How much clinical meaningfulness that actually leads to is unclear. Finding clinical meaningfulness cannot be defined by a particular test. It really can only be defined on the individual level, what is meaningful to them.
 

Recommended tests

Dr. LaFaver: It is my understanding that, to qualify for lecanemab use, one needs to have a biomarker-supported diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, either via an amyloid PET scan or CSF biomarkers. What would your recommendation be for a neurologist in practice to go about these requirements?

Dr. Wicklund: Since this medication is directly targeting the amyloid pathology, and it does convey a potential risk, we want to make sure that the actual pathology is present in the individuals before we treat them and potentially expose them to risk. The best way of doing that is through either an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid testing of beta amyloid and tau.

There are several plasma-based biomarkers in development. However, I would avoid using those currently. There are still many unknowns in terms of what exactly is the right species of tau that we should be looking at, the right mechanism of the lab test, how minority status may influence it, and how different comorbidities may influence it.

I would recommend, at this time, sticking with amyloid PET or CSF testing. Given that amyloid PET is not widely available in many community practices, generally only available at academic centers, and is quite costly, many insurances do not cover it – although Medicare has a proposal to potentially start covering it – I generally go with spinal fluid testing, which is more widely available. There are several labs across the country that can process that testing in a reliable way.
 

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities

Dr. LaFaver: That’s very helpful to know. There’s been a large amount of buzz just these past couple of weeks about the blood biomarker coming up. I think, as you point out, this wasn’t the marker used in the clinical studies and there are still unknowns. Maybe it’s not quite time for clinical use, unfortunately.

We also have learned that there are significant potential risks involved. One issue that’s really been a focus is ARIA – amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. Could you speak a bit about that and requirements for monitoring?

Dr. Wicklund: ARIA essentially amounts to either vasogenic edema, microhemorrhages, or superficial siderosis that develops as a result of treatment. It relates to activation of the immune system with these passive monoclonal antibodies that’s going to occur with targeting against the plaques. In the parenchyma, it will cause edema. If you have amyloid in the walls of the blood vessels, it can cause microhemorrhages.

While the term “ARIA” implies an imaging-related abnormality, and it largely is purely an imaging finding, it’s not solely an imaging-related finding. It can cause symptoms, including very serious symptoms.

Overall, with lecanemab, the incidence of ARIA within the treatment group in the phase 3 study, combined between both ARIA-E (edema/effusion) and ARIA-H (hemorrhage), was 21.5%, with about 17% being ARIA-H and about 12.5% being ARIA-E. Of course, they can occur at the same time.

Overall, in terms of people in the clinical trials, for most it was purely an imaging-related finding. About 3% developed symptomatic ARIA. Some of those were very serious symptoms, including things like seizures and need to be hospitalized. A couple of deaths have been attributed to ARIA as well.

Patients on anticoagulation

Dr. LaFaver: Along those lines, any additional words to say for people who might be on anticoagulation or might require medications for a stroke, for example?

Dr. Wicklund: While individuals on anticoagulation were allowed in the clinical trials, the current, published appropriate-use guideline is recommending against its use, as several of the serious adverse effects, including the deaths, were for the most part attributed to anticoagulation use.

When it comes to acute stroke treatment, one must carefully consider use of tPA, as two of the three deaths were tPA associated in the clinical trials. It shouldn’t necessarily be an absolute contraindication, but it can make the clinical picture very muddy. If an individual is on lecanemab and comes to the ER with acute stroke-like symptoms, it’s more likely that they’re going to be having an ARIA side effect rather than an acute stroke.

A general recommendation would be to obtain an acute head CT with a CTA, and if there is a large vessel occlusion, proceed to thrombectomy. However, if there isn’t a large vessel occlusion, if you have the ability to get a rapid MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to screen for acute stroke changes or tissue flair with acute edema changes suggestive of ARIA, that would be preferred before proceeding with thrombolysis. These are all relative contraindications and are going to depend on what’s available near you.
 

Donanemab approval pending

Dr. LaFaver: This will be an issue because the population we’re talking about is definitely at risk for stroke as well as Alzheimer’s disease. Where do you see this field going as far as amyloid antibody therapy is concerned, with another agent, donanemab, possibly getting FDA approval later this year as well?

Dr. Wicklund: We’re anticipating that donanemab will get FDA approval in the next coming months. Donanemab also targets the amyloid in the brain, although lecanemab and donanemab target different aspects of the production of the amyloid plaque. They were both shown to have roughly equal efficacy in their phase 3 clinical trials. Donanemab has the benefit of being a once-monthly infusion as opposed to twice-monthly infusions with lecanemab. It does have a slightly higher risk for ARIA compared with lecanemab.

Those are just some things to take into consideration when talking with your patients. In terms of where we’re going from here, we’re moving even earlier in terms of disease state. The lecanemab and donanemab phase 3 trials were done in individuals with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. They should not be used in individuals with moderate or more advanced Alzheimer’s disease.

There are ongoing, large, national, multicenter clinical trials of both lecanemab and donanemab in a preclinical state of Alzheimer’s disease. These individuals have evidence of amyloidosis, either through PET imaging or through CSF, but are clinically asymptomatic and do not yet have any signs of cognitive impairment or functional decline. We look forward to those results in the next few years. Hopefully, they’ll be able to show even greater benefit when moving into these early disease states in terms of delaying or even preventing cognitive decline.

Dr. LaFaver: That’s definitely very interesting to hear about. Where can people go for more information?

Dr. Wicklund: There’s a guideline on the use of lecanemab through the American Academy of Neurology. I encourage you to look at that. Also, look at the appropriate-use recommendations that were published this year in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Wonderful. With that being said, thank you so much for talking to me. I learned a lot. Thanks, everyone, for listening.
 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, N.Y. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wicklund is senior associate consultant in the department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.