User login
New meningococcal vaccine wins FDA approval
The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.
This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.
“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
One shot, five common types
“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.
Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.
The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.
The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.
This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.
“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
One shot, five common types
“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.
Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.
The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.
The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.
This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.
“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
One shot, five common types
“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.
Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.
The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.
The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Playing board games may slow cognitive decline, improve QoL
“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).
After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.
The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.
Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
Which games are best?
Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).
Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).
In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.
Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.
The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.
He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.
Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.
In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
Social and cognitive value
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.
Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.
There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.
“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”
But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.
“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”
Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).
After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.
The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.
Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
Which games are best?
Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).
Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).
In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.
Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.
The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.
He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.
Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.
In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
Social and cognitive value
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.
Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.
There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.
“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”
But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.
“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”
Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).
After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.
The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.
Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
Which games are best?
Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).
Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).
In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.
Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.
The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.
He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.
Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.
In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
Social and cognitive value
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.
Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.
There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.
“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”
But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.
“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”
Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Are migraine preventives underused in young adults?
, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.
“Approximately two-fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this did not differ between pediatric and adult neurologists,” Hannah F. J. Shapiro MD, of the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, and colleagues wrote in their study. “This finding suggests that pediatric neurologists are providing comparable care to adult neurologists for young adults with migraine; however, this may represent the underuse of preventive medications in this patient population.”
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 767 patients (mean age 20.3 years) at Mass General Brigham Hospital in Boston between 2017 and 2021 who received care from a pediatric or adult neurologist for episodic migraine. The majority of patients in the study were white (72.2%), non-Hispanic (82.1%) women (80.3%) with episodic migraine (72.8%), some of whom experienced a psychiatric comorbidity (12.7%), and had a 3.88 mean clinic visits for migraine. Researchers assessed prescription of migraine preventive medication as a primary outcome, with a secondary outcome of comparing the rate of migraine preventive prescriptions written by pediatric and adult neurologists.
Overall, 290 patients (37.8%) received care from a pediatric neurologist, and 131 of those 290 patients (45.2%) received preventive medications (95% confidence interval, 39.5%-51.0%). The remaining 477 patients received care from an adult neurologist; of these, 206 patients (43.2%) received preventive medications (95% CI, 39.0%-47.7%; P = .591). The most common preventive medication prescribed was topiramate, which was prescribed in 19.1% of cases by adult neurologists and 15.2% of cases by pediatric neurologists. Other preventive medications included tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and nortriptyline; pediatric neurologists prescribed amitriptyline more often than adult neurologists (14.5% vs. 5.5%; P < .001), and adult neurologists prescribed nortriptyline more often than pediatric neurologists (12.8% vs. 2.4%; P < .001).
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues performed a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of potential confounders, and found no significant association between clinician specialty and use of preventive medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.62-2.31), while factors such as female sex (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.07-2.66) and number of visits (aOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.49-1.80) carried associations with preventive medication use.
The finding that pediatric and adult neurologists use similar preventive medications is a positive one because “patients who continue care into adulthood with a pediatric neurologist should receive comparable care to the care they would receive with an adult neurologist,” Dr. Shapiro and colleagues said. “It is even more pertinent now for pediatric neurologists to have comfort prescribing preventive medication to young adults, as the newer calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway antagonists are currently only FDA approved for use in patients aged 18 years or older.”
Roadblocks may prevent adoption
M. Cristina Victorio, MD, a pediatric neurologist and director of the headache program at Akron (Ohio) Children’s, said in an interview that the study is well-designed, but the results cannot be generalized as the study is retrospective, was conducted at a single institution, and data about nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices were excluded from the analysis.
Another aspect of the study to consider is that episodic migraine, defined as between 0 and 14 migraine days per month, comprised most of the diagnoses in this study, while preventive medication is usually considered in patients with migraines occurring at least 6 days per month. “[I]f migraine is only once every other month or once a month, preventive treatment may not be recommended,” she said.
There is also the element of patient preference, which is “difficult to obtain” in a retrospective study, she noted.
Citing the authors’ comments about pediatric neurologists’ comfortability prescribing preventive medications, including CGRP antagonists, Dr. Victorio said she offers CGRP antagonists to “young adult patients who have failed at least two of the guideline-recommended preventive medications.”
However, pediatric neurologists may encounter roadblocks to prescribing these medications. “A big challenge is access, as it requires prior authorization as well as writing a letter of appeal or medical necessity, which can be a nuisance for clinicians who are already inundated with clinical responsibilities,” she said.
More education is needed
“As a pediatric headache specialist and knowing the results of this study, my colleagues and I have a role in educating all clinicians as well as trainees on headache management to improve and provide optimal care for young adult patients with migraine,” Dr. Victorio said.
In her experience, more clinic visits usually mean a need for preventative medication, and psychiatric morbidities are common. “I differ in the sense that as a headache specialist I am comfortable offering various preventive treatment options when indicated, so I do not believe I am underutilizing,” she said.
Dr. Victorio said she prescribes topiramate, amitriptyline, and propranolol as migraine preventatives for adolescents and young adults, but recommends cyproheptadine for younger children “due to lesser side effects, tolerability, and convenience of formulation (both liquid and tablet forms are available), which can be challenging for younger children who are unable to swallow pills.”
“Cognizant that there are patients who are reluctant to take daily prescription medication and that consideration for preventive treatment includes patient’s preference, I include the use of nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices when discussing preventive treatment options,” she added, noting that children and adolescents “[m]ore often than not” prefer nutraceuticals like magnesium and vitamin B2.
“I think the bottom line is that all clinicians managing young adults with migraine should know when to consider starting preventive migraine medication,” Dr. Victorio said. “Not offering preventive treatment to young adults specifically for those who have frequent migraine attacks, or those who have severe migraine despite adequate acute treatment, or those with significant adverse reactions to acute medications will only put these patients at risk to progression to chronic migraine (meaning having migraine more often than not – at least 15 days per month), and increases headache-related disability and reduces quality of life.”
The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. This study was supported by Harvard University and an award from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Victorio reports being on the advisory board for Theranica Bio-electronics, has received honorarium serving as an author of the Merck Manual, and is involved in industry-sponsored clinical trials through Akron Children’s Hospital.
, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.
“Approximately two-fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this did not differ between pediatric and adult neurologists,” Hannah F. J. Shapiro MD, of the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, and colleagues wrote in their study. “This finding suggests that pediatric neurologists are providing comparable care to adult neurologists for young adults with migraine; however, this may represent the underuse of preventive medications in this patient population.”
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 767 patients (mean age 20.3 years) at Mass General Brigham Hospital in Boston between 2017 and 2021 who received care from a pediatric or adult neurologist for episodic migraine. The majority of patients in the study were white (72.2%), non-Hispanic (82.1%) women (80.3%) with episodic migraine (72.8%), some of whom experienced a psychiatric comorbidity (12.7%), and had a 3.88 mean clinic visits for migraine. Researchers assessed prescription of migraine preventive medication as a primary outcome, with a secondary outcome of comparing the rate of migraine preventive prescriptions written by pediatric and adult neurologists.
Overall, 290 patients (37.8%) received care from a pediatric neurologist, and 131 of those 290 patients (45.2%) received preventive medications (95% confidence interval, 39.5%-51.0%). The remaining 477 patients received care from an adult neurologist; of these, 206 patients (43.2%) received preventive medications (95% CI, 39.0%-47.7%; P = .591). The most common preventive medication prescribed was topiramate, which was prescribed in 19.1% of cases by adult neurologists and 15.2% of cases by pediatric neurologists. Other preventive medications included tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and nortriptyline; pediatric neurologists prescribed amitriptyline more often than adult neurologists (14.5% vs. 5.5%; P < .001), and adult neurologists prescribed nortriptyline more often than pediatric neurologists (12.8% vs. 2.4%; P < .001).
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues performed a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of potential confounders, and found no significant association between clinician specialty and use of preventive medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.62-2.31), while factors such as female sex (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.07-2.66) and number of visits (aOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.49-1.80) carried associations with preventive medication use.
The finding that pediatric and adult neurologists use similar preventive medications is a positive one because “patients who continue care into adulthood with a pediatric neurologist should receive comparable care to the care they would receive with an adult neurologist,” Dr. Shapiro and colleagues said. “It is even more pertinent now for pediatric neurologists to have comfort prescribing preventive medication to young adults, as the newer calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway antagonists are currently only FDA approved for use in patients aged 18 years or older.”
Roadblocks may prevent adoption
M. Cristina Victorio, MD, a pediatric neurologist and director of the headache program at Akron (Ohio) Children’s, said in an interview that the study is well-designed, but the results cannot be generalized as the study is retrospective, was conducted at a single institution, and data about nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices were excluded from the analysis.
Another aspect of the study to consider is that episodic migraine, defined as between 0 and 14 migraine days per month, comprised most of the diagnoses in this study, while preventive medication is usually considered in patients with migraines occurring at least 6 days per month. “[I]f migraine is only once every other month or once a month, preventive treatment may not be recommended,” she said.
There is also the element of patient preference, which is “difficult to obtain” in a retrospective study, she noted.
Citing the authors’ comments about pediatric neurologists’ comfortability prescribing preventive medications, including CGRP antagonists, Dr. Victorio said she offers CGRP antagonists to “young adult patients who have failed at least two of the guideline-recommended preventive medications.”
However, pediatric neurologists may encounter roadblocks to prescribing these medications. “A big challenge is access, as it requires prior authorization as well as writing a letter of appeal or medical necessity, which can be a nuisance for clinicians who are already inundated with clinical responsibilities,” she said.
More education is needed
“As a pediatric headache specialist and knowing the results of this study, my colleagues and I have a role in educating all clinicians as well as trainees on headache management to improve and provide optimal care for young adult patients with migraine,” Dr. Victorio said.
In her experience, more clinic visits usually mean a need for preventative medication, and psychiatric morbidities are common. “I differ in the sense that as a headache specialist I am comfortable offering various preventive treatment options when indicated, so I do not believe I am underutilizing,” she said.
Dr. Victorio said she prescribes topiramate, amitriptyline, and propranolol as migraine preventatives for adolescents and young adults, but recommends cyproheptadine for younger children “due to lesser side effects, tolerability, and convenience of formulation (both liquid and tablet forms are available), which can be challenging for younger children who are unable to swallow pills.”
“Cognizant that there are patients who are reluctant to take daily prescription medication and that consideration for preventive treatment includes patient’s preference, I include the use of nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices when discussing preventive treatment options,” she added, noting that children and adolescents “[m]ore often than not” prefer nutraceuticals like magnesium and vitamin B2.
“I think the bottom line is that all clinicians managing young adults with migraine should know when to consider starting preventive migraine medication,” Dr. Victorio said. “Not offering preventive treatment to young adults specifically for those who have frequent migraine attacks, or those who have severe migraine despite adequate acute treatment, or those with significant adverse reactions to acute medications will only put these patients at risk to progression to chronic migraine (meaning having migraine more often than not – at least 15 days per month), and increases headache-related disability and reduces quality of life.”
The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. This study was supported by Harvard University and an award from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Victorio reports being on the advisory board for Theranica Bio-electronics, has received honorarium serving as an author of the Merck Manual, and is involved in industry-sponsored clinical trials through Akron Children’s Hospital.
, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.
“Approximately two-fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this did not differ between pediatric and adult neurologists,” Hannah F. J. Shapiro MD, of the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, and colleagues wrote in their study. “This finding suggests that pediatric neurologists are providing comparable care to adult neurologists for young adults with migraine; however, this may represent the underuse of preventive medications in this patient population.”
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 767 patients (mean age 20.3 years) at Mass General Brigham Hospital in Boston between 2017 and 2021 who received care from a pediatric or adult neurologist for episodic migraine. The majority of patients in the study were white (72.2%), non-Hispanic (82.1%) women (80.3%) with episodic migraine (72.8%), some of whom experienced a psychiatric comorbidity (12.7%), and had a 3.88 mean clinic visits for migraine. Researchers assessed prescription of migraine preventive medication as a primary outcome, with a secondary outcome of comparing the rate of migraine preventive prescriptions written by pediatric and adult neurologists.
Overall, 290 patients (37.8%) received care from a pediatric neurologist, and 131 of those 290 patients (45.2%) received preventive medications (95% confidence interval, 39.5%-51.0%). The remaining 477 patients received care from an adult neurologist; of these, 206 patients (43.2%) received preventive medications (95% CI, 39.0%-47.7%; P = .591). The most common preventive medication prescribed was topiramate, which was prescribed in 19.1% of cases by adult neurologists and 15.2% of cases by pediatric neurologists. Other preventive medications included tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline and nortriptyline; pediatric neurologists prescribed amitriptyline more often than adult neurologists (14.5% vs. 5.5%; P < .001), and adult neurologists prescribed nortriptyline more often than pediatric neurologists (12.8% vs. 2.4%; P < .001).
Dr. Shapiro and colleagues performed a mixed effects logistic regression analysis of potential confounders, and found no significant association between clinician specialty and use of preventive medication (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.62-2.31), while factors such as female sex (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.07-2.66) and number of visits (aOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.49-1.80) carried associations with preventive medication use.
The finding that pediatric and adult neurologists use similar preventive medications is a positive one because “patients who continue care into adulthood with a pediatric neurologist should receive comparable care to the care they would receive with an adult neurologist,” Dr. Shapiro and colleagues said. “It is even more pertinent now for pediatric neurologists to have comfort prescribing preventive medication to young adults, as the newer calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway antagonists are currently only FDA approved for use in patients aged 18 years or older.”
Roadblocks may prevent adoption
M. Cristina Victorio, MD, a pediatric neurologist and director of the headache program at Akron (Ohio) Children’s, said in an interview that the study is well-designed, but the results cannot be generalized as the study is retrospective, was conducted at a single institution, and data about nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices were excluded from the analysis.
Another aspect of the study to consider is that episodic migraine, defined as between 0 and 14 migraine days per month, comprised most of the diagnoses in this study, while preventive medication is usually considered in patients with migraines occurring at least 6 days per month. “[I]f migraine is only once every other month or once a month, preventive treatment may not be recommended,” she said.
There is also the element of patient preference, which is “difficult to obtain” in a retrospective study, she noted.
Citing the authors’ comments about pediatric neurologists’ comfortability prescribing preventive medications, including CGRP antagonists, Dr. Victorio said she offers CGRP antagonists to “young adult patients who have failed at least two of the guideline-recommended preventive medications.”
However, pediatric neurologists may encounter roadblocks to prescribing these medications. “A big challenge is access, as it requires prior authorization as well as writing a letter of appeal or medical necessity, which can be a nuisance for clinicians who are already inundated with clinical responsibilities,” she said.
More education is needed
“As a pediatric headache specialist and knowing the results of this study, my colleagues and I have a role in educating all clinicians as well as trainees on headache management to improve and provide optimal care for young adult patients with migraine,” Dr. Victorio said.
In her experience, more clinic visits usually mean a need for preventative medication, and psychiatric morbidities are common. “I differ in the sense that as a headache specialist I am comfortable offering various preventive treatment options when indicated, so I do not believe I am underutilizing,” she said.
Dr. Victorio said she prescribes topiramate, amitriptyline, and propranolol as migraine preventatives for adolescents and young adults, but recommends cyproheptadine for younger children “due to lesser side effects, tolerability, and convenience of formulation (both liquid and tablet forms are available), which can be challenging for younger children who are unable to swallow pills.”
“Cognizant that there are patients who are reluctant to take daily prescription medication and that consideration for preventive treatment includes patient’s preference, I include the use of nutraceuticals and drug-free neuromodulation devices when discussing preventive treatment options,” she added, noting that children and adolescents “[m]ore often than not” prefer nutraceuticals like magnesium and vitamin B2.
“I think the bottom line is that all clinicians managing young adults with migraine should know when to consider starting preventive migraine medication,” Dr. Victorio said. “Not offering preventive treatment to young adults specifically for those who have frequent migraine attacks, or those who have severe migraine despite adequate acute treatment, or those with significant adverse reactions to acute medications will only put these patients at risk to progression to chronic migraine (meaning having migraine more often than not – at least 15 days per month), and increases headache-related disability and reduces quality of life.”
The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. This study was supported by Harvard University and an award from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Victorio reports being on the advisory board for Theranica Bio-electronics, has received honorarium serving as an author of the Merck Manual, and is involved in industry-sponsored clinical trials through Akron Children’s Hospital.
FROM HEADACHE
Autism spectrum disorders
According to the CDC, the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has gone from roughly 1 in 68 children in 2010 to 1 in 36 children in 2020.1 This is nearly a 50% increase over that 10-year period. Over the last several years, there has been evidence suggesting that increasing numbers of young people with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions identify as transgender or gender diverse.2 Experts agree more careful attention must be paid to these patients.
This includes things such as difficulty with communication, possible concrete thinking, and obsessive interests. While earlier research has shown a higher incidence of ASD in those referred to specialized gender medical clinics, it is important to realize that not all of these youth are seeking medical care. They may be brought to the attention of a primary care pediatrician (PCP) if the child has discussed their gender identity at home. It is important that PCPs approach these young people with an open mind and address any coexisting mental health conditions. PCPs must be careful not to dismiss any gender identity concerns as another of the patient’s “obsessions”; rather, they should ensure the patient receives the appropriate mental health care that they need to explore these concerns. One challenge for PCPs is that there is a dearth of mental health professionals who have experience in working with young people who have both gender dysphoria and a neurodivergent condition.
For those clinicians who provide gender-affirming medical care to these young people, it is imperative that they have a thorough understanding of the patient’s gender identity and medical goals before starting any treatment. This may require extensive collaboration with the patient’s mental health provider. The clinician providing medical care may also choose to proceed slower with the introduction of hormones and their subsequent dosing to allow the young person time to continue discussing their effects with their mental health provider. To help clinicians, Dr. John Strang and a multidisciplinary group of collaborators developed a set of guidelines for co-occurring ASD and gender dysphoria in adolescents.3 More recently, Dr. Strang and other collaborators have also developed a questionnaire that can be used by clinicians in the care of these patients.4 The goal of this questionnaire is to allow the young people to “communicate their experiences and needs in a report format attuned to common autistic thinking and communication styles.”
In summary, pediatricians and those who care for children and adolescents need to be aware of the increased association between those with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions and gender dysphoria. To ensure that these young people receive optimal care, it is important to connect them to experts (if possible) in coexisting ASD and gender dysphoria. If such experts are not readily available, the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center has developed a resource for providing an affirmative approach to care for these young people.5 While more research is needed to better understand young people with coexisting ASD (or other neurodivergent conditions), taking an individualized approach to their care can help ensure optimal outcomes.
Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.
References
1. Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html.
2. Glidden D et al. Gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(1):3-14. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.10.003.
3. Strang JF et al. Initial clinical guidelines for co-occurring autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria or incongruence in adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2018;47(1):105-15. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462.
4. Strang JF et. al. The Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire: A Community-Developed Clinical, Research, and Self-Advocacy Tool for Autistic Transgender and Gender-Diverse Young Adults. Autism Adulthood. 2023 Jun 1;5(2):175-90. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0002.
5. National LGBT Health Education Center. Neurodiversity & gender-diverse youth: An affirming approach to care 2020. https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/neurodiversity-gender-diverse-youth-an-affirming-approach-to-care-2020/download
According to the CDC, the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has gone from roughly 1 in 68 children in 2010 to 1 in 36 children in 2020.1 This is nearly a 50% increase over that 10-year period. Over the last several years, there has been evidence suggesting that increasing numbers of young people with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions identify as transgender or gender diverse.2 Experts agree more careful attention must be paid to these patients.
This includes things such as difficulty with communication, possible concrete thinking, and obsessive interests. While earlier research has shown a higher incidence of ASD in those referred to specialized gender medical clinics, it is important to realize that not all of these youth are seeking medical care. They may be brought to the attention of a primary care pediatrician (PCP) if the child has discussed their gender identity at home. It is important that PCPs approach these young people with an open mind and address any coexisting mental health conditions. PCPs must be careful not to dismiss any gender identity concerns as another of the patient’s “obsessions”; rather, they should ensure the patient receives the appropriate mental health care that they need to explore these concerns. One challenge for PCPs is that there is a dearth of mental health professionals who have experience in working with young people who have both gender dysphoria and a neurodivergent condition.
For those clinicians who provide gender-affirming medical care to these young people, it is imperative that they have a thorough understanding of the patient’s gender identity and medical goals before starting any treatment. This may require extensive collaboration with the patient’s mental health provider. The clinician providing medical care may also choose to proceed slower with the introduction of hormones and their subsequent dosing to allow the young person time to continue discussing their effects with their mental health provider. To help clinicians, Dr. John Strang and a multidisciplinary group of collaborators developed a set of guidelines for co-occurring ASD and gender dysphoria in adolescents.3 More recently, Dr. Strang and other collaborators have also developed a questionnaire that can be used by clinicians in the care of these patients.4 The goal of this questionnaire is to allow the young people to “communicate their experiences and needs in a report format attuned to common autistic thinking and communication styles.”
In summary, pediatricians and those who care for children and adolescents need to be aware of the increased association between those with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions and gender dysphoria. To ensure that these young people receive optimal care, it is important to connect them to experts (if possible) in coexisting ASD and gender dysphoria. If such experts are not readily available, the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center has developed a resource for providing an affirmative approach to care for these young people.5 While more research is needed to better understand young people with coexisting ASD (or other neurodivergent conditions), taking an individualized approach to their care can help ensure optimal outcomes.
Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.
References
1. Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html.
2. Glidden D et al. Gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(1):3-14. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.10.003.
3. Strang JF et al. Initial clinical guidelines for co-occurring autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria or incongruence in adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2018;47(1):105-15. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462.
4. Strang JF et. al. The Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire: A Community-Developed Clinical, Research, and Self-Advocacy Tool for Autistic Transgender and Gender-Diverse Young Adults. Autism Adulthood. 2023 Jun 1;5(2):175-90. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0002.
5. National LGBT Health Education Center. Neurodiversity & gender-diverse youth: An affirming approach to care 2020. https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/neurodiversity-gender-diverse-youth-an-affirming-approach-to-care-2020/download
According to the CDC, the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has gone from roughly 1 in 68 children in 2010 to 1 in 36 children in 2020.1 This is nearly a 50% increase over that 10-year period. Over the last several years, there has been evidence suggesting that increasing numbers of young people with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions identify as transgender or gender diverse.2 Experts agree more careful attention must be paid to these patients.
This includes things such as difficulty with communication, possible concrete thinking, and obsessive interests. While earlier research has shown a higher incidence of ASD in those referred to specialized gender medical clinics, it is important to realize that not all of these youth are seeking medical care. They may be brought to the attention of a primary care pediatrician (PCP) if the child has discussed their gender identity at home. It is important that PCPs approach these young people with an open mind and address any coexisting mental health conditions. PCPs must be careful not to dismiss any gender identity concerns as another of the patient’s “obsessions”; rather, they should ensure the patient receives the appropriate mental health care that they need to explore these concerns. One challenge for PCPs is that there is a dearth of mental health professionals who have experience in working with young people who have both gender dysphoria and a neurodivergent condition.
For those clinicians who provide gender-affirming medical care to these young people, it is imperative that they have a thorough understanding of the patient’s gender identity and medical goals before starting any treatment. This may require extensive collaboration with the patient’s mental health provider. The clinician providing medical care may also choose to proceed slower with the introduction of hormones and their subsequent dosing to allow the young person time to continue discussing their effects with their mental health provider. To help clinicians, Dr. John Strang and a multidisciplinary group of collaborators developed a set of guidelines for co-occurring ASD and gender dysphoria in adolescents.3 More recently, Dr. Strang and other collaborators have also developed a questionnaire that can be used by clinicians in the care of these patients.4 The goal of this questionnaire is to allow the young people to “communicate their experiences and needs in a report format attuned to common autistic thinking and communication styles.”
In summary, pediatricians and those who care for children and adolescents need to be aware of the increased association between those with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions and gender dysphoria. To ensure that these young people receive optimal care, it is important to connect them to experts (if possible) in coexisting ASD and gender dysphoria. If such experts are not readily available, the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center has developed a resource for providing an affirmative approach to care for these young people.5 While more research is needed to better understand young people with coexisting ASD (or other neurodivergent conditions), taking an individualized approach to their care can help ensure optimal outcomes.
Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.
References
1. Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html.
2. Glidden D et al. Gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(1):3-14. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.10.003.
3. Strang JF et al. Initial clinical guidelines for co-occurring autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria or incongruence in adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2018;47(1):105-15. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462.
4. Strang JF et. al. The Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire: A Community-Developed Clinical, Research, and Self-Advocacy Tool for Autistic Transgender and Gender-Diverse Young Adults. Autism Adulthood. 2023 Jun 1;5(2):175-90. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0002.
5. National LGBT Health Education Center. Neurodiversity & gender-diverse youth: An affirming approach to care 2020. https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/neurodiversity-gender-diverse-youth-an-affirming-approach-to-care-2020/download
High and low HDL cholesterol levels linked to dementia risk
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Obesity linked to multiple ills in MS study
MILAN – Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m2) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).
Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).
Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”
The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.
Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.
Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.
The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.
While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.
As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.
A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”
However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
Interpretation and commentary
Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.
What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.
In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”
Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.
Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”
He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”
Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”
However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.
Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”
As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”
According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”
Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.
This article was updated 10/20/23.
MILAN – Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m2) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).
Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).
Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”
The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.
Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.
Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.
The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.
While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.
As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.
A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”
However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
Interpretation and commentary
Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.
What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.
In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”
Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.
Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”
He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”
Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”
However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.
Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”
As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”
According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”
Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.
This article was updated 10/20/23.
MILAN – Swedish researchers reported at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
In a group of 3,249 subjects tracked for up to 5 years (74% female; mean age, 37.8 years), patients who were obese at diagnosis were 1.41 times more likely than normal-weight patients to reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3. About 35% of 355 obese subjects (body mass index > 30 kg/m2) reached that level versus 29% of 713 overweight patients (BMI, 25-30) and 28% of 1,475 normal-weight patients (BMI, 18.5-24.99).
Among subjects whose BMI category didn’t change over follow-up, those who were obese at diagnosis were more likely to develop cognitive worsening than those who weren’t obese (hazard ratio, 1.47, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.01).
Lars Alfredsson, PhD, a professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who presented the study findings, said in an interview that they fill a gap in knowledge about obesity and MS. “It is known that obesity around the age of 20 or in adolescence is a risk factor for developing MS. But much less is known in regard to progression, and the studies have been very inconclusive.”
The researchers tracked patients via the Swedish MS registry: 1,475 of normal weight, 713 overweight, and 355 obese. Before adjustment for factors such as age, gender, and baseline EDSS, obese subjects were 1.51 times more likely to reach EDSS score 3 than normal-weight subjects.
Obese subjects whose BMI level didn’t change over time were 1.70 times more likely than the nonobese to develop physical worsening as measured by an increased Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale physical score of 7.5 points or more, and they were 1.36 times more likely to have psychological worsening as measured by increased MSIS-28 psychological score of 7.5 points or more.
Also, among subjects whose BMI didn’t change over time, the likelihood of cognitive disability worsening was 1.47 times higher among obese participants versus nonobese participants. Worsening was defined as an increased Symbol Digit Modalities Test score of 8 points or more.
The level of excess cognitive decline “will affect people significantly,” Dr. Alfredsson said.
While obesity can counterintuitively provide a protective effect in some diseases, he said there’s no sign of such an effect in the subjects.
As for limitations, Dr. Alfredsson noted in his presentation that BMI data is self-reported, and it’s possible that the researchers didn’t adjust their statistics to reflect important confounders.
A 2023 German study of outcomes in MS patients with obesity came to similar conclusions. It tracked 1,066 subjects for up to 6 years and found that “median time to reach EDSS 3 was 0.99 years for patients with BMI of 30 or higher and 1.46 years for nonobese patients. Risk to reach EDSS 3 over 6 years was significantly increased in patients with BMI of at least 30, compared with patients with BMI less than 30 after adjustment for sex, age, smoking (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6; P < .001), and independent of disease-modifying therapies.”
However, the German researchers found no link between obesity and higher levels of relapse, contrast-enhancing MRI lesions, or MRI T2 lesion burden.
Interpretation and commentary
Could obesity be causing worse outcomes? The new study doesn’t provide insight into cause and effect. However, obesity may speed up progression via low-grade inflammation, Dr. Alfredsson said.
What can clinicians do with the information from the study? If patients are obese, it can be a good idea to more carefully monitor them and use reliable tools to improve their progression, Dr. Alfredsson said.
In an interview, Michael D. Kornberg, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study, agreed with Dr. Alfredsson that other research has linked obesity early in life to higher rates of MS. He added that “a number of studies have shown that comorbidities in general are usually associated with a higher rate of disability.”
Dr. Kornberg said the new research is important, and he noted that it has a “robust” cohort because of its larger size.
Could patients with MS reverse the risk of progression and other poor outcomes by losing weight? “It’s hard to say,” Dr. Kornberg said. “We have to be cautious when we assume causation. There’s a plausible rationale that obesity might worsen progression in MS, but it could just be a marker of some other factor that reflects a different phenotype of MS.”
He doesn’t think it’s likely that weight loss would “dramatically reverse the biology of MS,” but he said reversing the obesity epidemic would still be a good thing. An interventional study could examine the effects of weight-loss intervention on disability measures, he said, “and that’s the next step.”
Also contacted for commentary, Adil Harroud, MD, a neurologist at McGill University who studies obesity in MS, said research suggests that “obesity seems to exacerbate MS disability. While some studies show no effect, the majority indicate a detrimental impact.”
However, “the effect of obesity on MS progression remains unclear. Animal studies suggest that shifts in immune cell subsets and functions may play a role, but the relevance to humans is yet to be determined,” he said.
Dr. Harroud, who did not take part in the new study, said it’s “one of the largest examining the impact of obesity on MS disability.” He added that “the cohort was relatively early in their disease course, suggesting that obesity impacts even the early stages of MS. This underscores the importance of obesity as a modifiable risk factor for disability accumulation.”
As for why obesity affects MS, he said one theory is that obesity plays a role through its impact on vitamin D levels. “However, using a genetic approach, we have demonstrated that, at least for MS risk, the effect of obesity is independent of vitamin D. This is also likely true for MS progression, as recent trials of vitamin D supplementation have not shown a meaningful impact on MS outcomes.”
According to Dr. Harroud, “other theories suggest that obesity leads to a pro-inflammatory immune shift. Additionally, it has been proposed that obesity may influence the response to disease-modifying therapy by reducing drug bioavailability, potentially necessitating weight-based dosing for some therapies.”
Dr. Alfredsson reported receiving grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Research Council for Health Working Life and Welfare, and the Swedish Brain Foundation and personal fees from Teva and Biogene Idec. Some of the other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Kornberg and Dr. Harroud reported no relevant disclosures.
This article was updated 10/20/23.
AT ECTRIMS 2023
Guillain-Barré syndrome: Honing treatment strategies
Recent insights into the pathophysiology of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) – which affects 1 or 2 persons for every 100,000 people annually, usually post infection – indicate that classic subtypes represent varying manifestations of a shared disease process. This knowledge is yielding new treatment strategies aimed at halting the illness in its tracks. Promising therapies include inhibitors of complement and, perhaps one day, the calcium-activated protease calpain.
Meanwhile, an association between COVID-19 and GBS has been debunked, whereas a small risk of GBS following adenovirus-vectored COVID vaccination is now accepted and quantified. Regardless of cause, the potential severity of GBS and variability in its presentation demand constant vigilance.
Shutting down the disease process
When patients present to an emergency department with sensory symptoms and increasing muscle weakness, “most of the damage has been or is being done,” said Michael P. Lunn, MBBS, MRCP, PhD, professor of clinical neurology, consultant neurologist, and clinical lead in neuroimmunology at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, who spoke at length about GBS with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. “The crucial reason that GBS treatment has not advanced significantly – and why we’re still slightly stuck where we are in terms of helping people get better more quickly – is that we need something that absolutely turns the disease off as patients come through the door.”
GBS is probably the best-understood autoimmune-mediated neurological disease, in some respects surpassing myasthenia gravis, Dr. Lunn said. “We know very frequently the organisms and stimuli that set off Guillain-Barré syndrome. We understand, to an extent, the immunology and how you break tolerance of the immune system so that an invading organism can provoke an immune response that damages peripheral nerves.”
Compared to what was known about GBS in decades past, neurologists now better understand how and where antibodies attack the nerve; how complement then damages the nodes of Ranvier and paranodes; and how an external attack results in sometimes irreparable internal nerve damage. “We’ve got a string, beginning to end, of understanding the disease,” declared Dr. Lunn.
Understanding of differences in the spectrum of pathology of GBS has led to additional diagnostic categories, said Dr. Lunn. Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, or typical GBS, represents the most common form in affluent Western nations. A motor variant was recognized in the 1980s; in the mid-1990s, Ho and colleagues described a cohort of patients in China who had acute motor axonal neuropathy and acute motor sensory axonal neuropathy1 – two forms that are particularly common throughout Asia and South America.
Shared mechanism
Based on the findings of electrophysiologic studies, Dr. Lunn said, experts traditionally believed that GBS attacked either axons themselves or their myelin sheaths. “That’s where the anti-ganglioside antibodies come in, providing targeting to nerve structures.” The dichotomous classification system, he added, was partially correct.
Then, through the 2010s and 2020s, neurophysiologist Antonio Uncini, MD, recognized, based partly on histologic studies by Ho and colleagues, that the myelin and axonal subtypes are both likely to stem from the same mechanism.2 When antibodies and complement damage the node of Ranvier, Dr. Lunn said, “the myelin gets stripped off and the conduction becomes slow. But then the myelin can return, and patients get better.” But if damage is severe, it severs the axon, resulting in unrecoverable motor axonal neuropathy. “It’s basically all the same spectrum of disease,” Dr. Lunn said. “Anti-ganglioside antibodies may account for different GBS ‘flavors,’ but the immunological attack all occurs at the node of Ranvier in one way or another.”
The foregoing insight has focused development efforts on the shared seminal pathway of all GBS subtypes and given rise to the concept of nodo-paranodopathy, which incorporates damage at either the node of Ranvier or nearby paranodes.3
Simultaneously, Spanish and French researchers began elucidating new antibodies responsible for neuropathology at the node of Ranvier.4 Anti-ganglioside antibodies have long been loosely associated with acute motor axonal neuropathy and poor outcomes, although, Dr. Lunn said, they fail to tell the full story. Anti-GQ1b antibodies are associated with the Miller-Fisher syndrome subtype, well recognized for its medical features: double vision, loss of tendon reflexes, and arm and leg weakness.
However, Dr. Lunn said, most GBS cases lack anti-ganglioside antibodies. In some GBS cases, antibodies attack neurofascin, contactins, and gliomedin, which are mainly adhesion proteins at nodes of Ranvier.
“Therefore,” Dr. Lunn said, “there must be an antibody-mediated attack of the node of Ranvier or the paranode. That’s an important series of discoveries, primarily because it helps us understand the immunological attack at the node of Ranvier, which goes along with what Dr. Uncini was saying. But it also divides off a group of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathies (CIDP) that present acutely and look initially, for all purposes, like GBS.”
Recognizing acute CIDP (A-CIDP) is critically important for clinicians, Dr. Lunn stressed, because it requires treatment with rituximab (the most commonly used option), steroids, or plasma exchange.
Key clues that distinguish A-CIDP from GBS include:
• A high level of cerebrospinal fluid protein.
• Very slow nerve conduction.
• Early muscle wasting (rare in GBS).
Recognizing CIDP and A-CIDP is crucial, said Dr. Lunn, because it begins to bring all the pathology back together to make sense of GBS. Neurologists have known for decades that, if one damages a nerve with antibodies, then binds complement to those antibodies, the complement punches holes in the affected cells, resulting in death. “But it wasn’t quite clear how those cells might die,” Dr. Lunn said.
After complement-induced injury, calcium-activated calpain permanently damages the entire internal axonal structure.5 Perhaps more important, a 2022 mouse study showed that complement-mediated damage could be directed to myelin or axons using the genetically programmed presence or absence of gangliosides to understand subsequent calpain-induced destruction in either axons or myelin.6
Some of the engineered mouse cells included ganglioside; others did not. “So you can have anti-ganglioside antibodies directed at one cell type or the other, which would, or would not, have calpain within them,” Dr. Lunn said. Investigators also showed that a calpain inhibitor (AK295) or overproduction of an endogenous inhibitor, calpastatin, prevented damage to both cell types.6All existing calpain inhibitors are unsuitable for clinical use because they are highly toxic. “But if you could inhibit calpain and stop it from being activated by calcium,” Dr. Lunn explained, “you would have a mechanism for stopping cell degradation during GBS. That would be an important future target for pharmacotherapy. That whole story – from the beginning to the end of GBS – has opened up options for treatment.”
Because complement bound to antibodies, set up by infection, plays a pivotal role, complement inhibitors have become an exciting area of research over the past decade. The 36-patient Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) trial showed that, after 6 months, significantly more eculizumab-treated patients could run, compared with placebo-treated patients.7
“No other trials of complement inhibitors have yet been completed,” Dr. Lunn said. “But several different complement inhibitors work at different places, in a very complicated immune process. One of the complement inhibitors will become transformative in treating GBS – preventing disability and improving recovery – in the not-very-distant future.”
Additional investigational treatments that have demonstrated early promise in eliminating problem antibodies faster include imlifidase (Idefirix [Hansa Biopharma]), which destroys antibodies, and Fc receptor inhibitors such as efgartigimod alfa-fcab (Vyvgart [argenx]), which push antibodies into the natural catabolic pathway.
“We’ve been stuck with plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for three or four decades,” Dr. Lunn said. “We now have a series of strategies by which we can completely turn off complement and resulting nerve damage. If we can find a calpain inhibitor that turns off the end of that pathway, we will make dramatic improvements. Our understanding of the immunopathology has changed enormously and influences pharmacotherapy going forward.”
Recap of diagnosis and treatment
For decades, the diagnosis of GBS has relied on the presence of symptoms, including progressive weakness and loss of reflexes and sensations. Nerve-conduction studies and cerebrospinal fluid evaluation can help confirm the diagnosis.
IVIg shortens recovery, said Dr. Lunn, although nothing cures GBS. “And that’s a common problem: Clinicians think that they’re going to give somebody IVIg, and the patient’s going to get better immediately.” When that doesn’t happen, he said, physicians are tempted to give a second immunoglobulin dose.
However, a study published in 2021 shows that a second IVIg dose does not result in faster or better improvement – only in a significant risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other thrombotic events 3 weeks later.8 Dr. Lunn noted that, although adverse-event data were “buried” in the supplemental materials of that study, the high cost of IVIg (approximately $12,500 per dose) means that the study has changed practice for the benefit of patients, providers, and health care systems.
COVID-19 and GBS triggers
Campylobacter jejuni infection still accounts for 30% to 40% of GBS cases, followed by other bacteria, including Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, and then by viruses, including cytomegalovirus and, rarely, human immunodeficiency virus. In recent years, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection – COVID-19 – and vaccines against the viral infection have captured headlines for purportedly being a cause of GBS.
The Zika virus epidemic of 2015-2016 has been linked to GBS-like illness. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic were associated with GBS – although, taken together, SARS and MERS-CoV produced fewer than 10 cases of GBS, Dr. Lunn noted. Nevertheless, heightened awareness of these viruses fueled hypervigilance regarding the prospect that COVID-19 could cause GBS. Following reports of a single such case in Wuhan and hundreds in Italy, worry over pandemic GBS grew worldwide.
Dr. Lunn and colleagues addressed the COVID-19–GBS question in a 2023 publication.9 “Because GBS is largely treated only with IVIg, and IVIg costs a lot of money, and the U.K. government insists on every dose of IVIg being logged in a government database, we were able to identify virtually every case of GBS,” he said.
GBS diagnoses were reliable, he added, because each case was confirmed by physicians outside the emergency department. Analysis revealed that, in 2020, U.K. GBS cases actually declined by around one-third. “And even when there was a second wave of COVID-19 at the end of 2020, partly caused by better counting,” Dr. Lunn said, “there was no further increase in GBS cases. We concluded that there was no link between GBS and COVID-19, as the cases simply didn’t appear.”
The foregoing findings have since been corroborated by studies in Singapore, the United States, and South America, he pointed out. Earlier case series suggesting a link between COVID-19 and GBS were selective, Dr. Lunn added, with numbers too small to support robust conclusions.
The lack of a causal link between COVID-19 and GBS suggested to Dr. Lunn that there was no reason COVID-19 vaccination should cause GBS. All COVID-19 vaccines were designed to provoke an immune response either (1) by producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the surface of virus (through a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector) or (2) through DNA or mRNA transcription, he explained. “The spike protein is only a small part of COVID-19.”
GBS: ‘Adverse event of interest’
A link between modern vaccines and GBS first appeared in the 1970s with the hastily developed swine flu vaccine. “In late 1976,” Dr. Lunn explained, “it was identified that patients who were given that vaccine seemed to be developing illnesses consistent with GBS.” By 1980, Dr. Lunn said, the risk level was determined to be only five or six cases for every 1 million doses of vaccine administered. “But the vaccine program was aborted, and swine flu never really happened.” Every year since, “there has been a surveillance program looking at the occurrence of an association of GBS with influenza vaccine.”
Minor fluctuations aside, he said, the overall incidence of GBS with influenza vaccination – 1 GBS case for every 1 million vaccine doses given – has remained consistent over several decades. “Nevertheless, GBS became an adverse event of special interest for any vaccination campaign.”
COVID-19 vaccination. Dr. Lunn and colleagues used the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) National Immunoglobulin Database, and other databases, to pinpoint the risk of GBS presented by the first dose of the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vaccine.10 As with U.K. GBS cases, every COVID-19 vaccination is linked to an NHS number. “We identified all the cases of GBS, found their NHS numbers, and went back and found the exact dates they’d been vaccinated, and with which vaccine.” Only the adenoviral-vector vaccine carried an excess risk of GBS – 5.8 cases for every 1 million doses, associated only with the first dose and peaking at approximately 25 days post vaccination – compared with other vaccines used in the United Kingdom.
Researchers looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, encompassing nearly 500 million COVID-19 vaccine doses given between December 2020 and January 2022. They found that patients who received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) had a rate of GBS (within 21 and 41 days post vaccination) that was 9 and 12 times higher, respectively, than corresponding rates for the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccines.11 Risk was distributed relatively evenly by gender and age. Also at day 21 and day 41, observed event ratios with the adenoviral-vector vaccine (use of which has been suspended in the United States) were 3.79 and 2.34, respectively. Observed-event ratios with the other vaccines mirrored expected background rates.
The VAERS analysis confirms earlier data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which showed that, among approximately 15 million U.S. vaccine doses given between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, the unadjusted GBS incidence rate for every 100,000 person-years for the adenoviral vaccine, 21 days post exposure, was 32.4, compared with 1.3 for the mRNA vaccine. The adjusted relative risk with the adenoviral vaccine in the first 3 weeks post vaccination, compared to the 3- to 6-week interval post vaccination, was 6.03.12 In addition, a head-to-head comparison of adenoviral versus mRNA vaccines at 21 days revealed an adjusted rate ratio of 20.56. Mechanistically, some experts theorize that antibodies induced by the Janssen vaccine might cross-react with glycoproteins on the myelin sheath of peripheral nerve axons to cause GBS, but this remains unproven.11
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus; the Janssen vaccine uses a human adenoviral carrier. “The only commonality between the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, and the only thing that’s different from the other vaccines, is the adenoviral vector packaging,” Dr. Lunn emphasized. “I believe it’s what generates GBS after COVID-19 vaccination. It has nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccination, the spike protein, the nucleic acid, the DNA, or anything else.”
The adenoviral vector probably also explains why GBS peaks during winter, said Dr. Lunn. “That’s when adenovirus is circulating.” When people contract the common cold, he explained, they don’t visit their family physician and request a swab to isolate the adenovirus. “By the time you get GBS, the adenovirus has been cleared. We’ve all got antibodies to adenovirus all over the place, anyway, because we get it so often.”
It would be difficult to prove conclusively that adenovirus belongs on the list of GBS causes, Dr. Lunn allowed. “But I have a strong suspicion that it does. COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination have given us some new avenues into identifying GBS causation potentially in the near future.” More research is needed in this area, he said.
Dr. Lunn has been a principal investigator for argenx (efgartigimod) and an adviser to AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). He has received travel grants from CSL Behring.
References
1. Ho TW et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome in northern China. Relationship to Campylobacter jejuni infection and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain. 1995;118(Pt 3):597-605. doi: 10.1093/brain/118.3.597.
2. Uncini A. A common mechanism and a new categorization for anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathies. Exp Neurol. 2012;235(2):513-6. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.03.023.
3. Uncini A and Kuwabara S. The electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: where do we stand? Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(12):2586-93. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025.
4. Delmont E et al. Autoantibodies to nodal isoforms of neurofascin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain. 2017;140(7):1851-8. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx124.
5. McGonigal R et al. Anti-GD1a antibodies activate complement and calpain to injure distal motor nodes of Ranvier in mice. Brain. 2010;133(Pt 7):1944-60. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq119.
6. Cunningham ME et al. Real time imaging of intra-axonal calcium flux in an explant mouse model of axonal Guillain-Barré syndrome. Exp Neurol. 2022 Sep;355:114127. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114127.
7. Misawa S et al; Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) Study Group. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.
8. Walgaard C et al; Dutch GBS Study Group. Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(4):275-83. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30494-4.
9. Keddie S et al. Epidemiological and cohort study finds no association between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Brain. 2021;144(2):682-93. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa433.
10. Keh RYS et al; BPNS/ABN COVID-19 Vaccine GBS Study Group. COVID-19 vaccination and Guillain-Barré syndrome: Analyses using the National Immunoglobulin Database. Brain. 2023;146(2):739-48. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac067.
11. Abara WE et al. Reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2253845. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53845.
12. Hanson KE et al. Incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e228879. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8879.
Recent insights into the pathophysiology of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) – which affects 1 or 2 persons for every 100,000 people annually, usually post infection – indicate that classic subtypes represent varying manifestations of a shared disease process. This knowledge is yielding new treatment strategies aimed at halting the illness in its tracks. Promising therapies include inhibitors of complement and, perhaps one day, the calcium-activated protease calpain.
Meanwhile, an association between COVID-19 and GBS has been debunked, whereas a small risk of GBS following adenovirus-vectored COVID vaccination is now accepted and quantified. Regardless of cause, the potential severity of GBS and variability in its presentation demand constant vigilance.
Shutting down the disease process
When patients present to an emergency department with sensory symptoms and increasing muscle weakness, “most of the damage has been or is being done,” said Michael P. Lunn, MBBS, MRCP, PhD, professor of clinical neurology, consultant neurologist, and clinical lead in neuroimmunology at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, who spoke at length about GBS with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. “The crucial reason that GBS treatment has not advanced significantly – and why we’re still slightly stuck where we are in terms of helping people get better more quickly – is that we need something that absolutely turns the disease off as patients come through the door.”
GBS is probably the best-understood autoimmune-mediated neurological disease, in some respects surpassing myasthenia gravis, Dr. Lunn said. “We know very frequently the organisms and stimuli that set off Guillain-Barré syndrome. We understand, to an extent, the immunology and how you break tolerance of the immune system so that an invading organism can provoke an immune response that damages peripheral nerves.”
Compared to what was known about GBS in decades past, neurologists now better understand how and where antibodies attack the nerve; how complement then damages the nodes of Ranvier and paranodes; and how an external attack results in sometimes irreparable internal nerve damage. “We’ve got a string, beginning to end, of understanding the disease,” declared Dr. Lunn.
Understanding of differences in the spectrum of pathology of GBS has led to additional diagnostic categories, said Dr. Lunn. Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, or typical GBS, represents the most common form in affluent Western nations. A motor variant was recognized in the 1980s; in the mid-1990s, Ho and colleagues described a cohort of patients in China who had acute motor axonal neuropathy and acute motor sensory axonal neuropathy1 – two forms that are particularly common throughout Asia and South America.
Shared mechanism
Based on the findings of electrophysiologic studies, Dr. Lunn said, experts traditionally believed that GBS attacked either axons themselves or their myelin sheaths. “That’s where the anti-ganglioside antibodies come in, providing targeting to nerve structures.” The dichotomous classification system, he added, was partially correct.
Then, through the 2010s and 2020s, neurophysiologist Antonio Uncini, MD, recognized, based partly on histologic studies by Ho and colleagues, that the myelin and axonal subtypes are both likely to stem from the same mechanism.2 When antibodies and complement damage the node of Ranvier, Dr. Lunn said, “the myelin gets stripped off and the conduction becomes slow. But then the myelin can return, and patients get better.” But if damage is severe, it severs the axon, resulting in unrecoverable motor axonal neuropathy. “It’s basically all the same spectrum of disease,” Dr. Lunn said. “Anti-ganglioside antibodies may account for different GBS ‘flavors,’ but the immunological attack all occurs at the node of Ranvier in one way or another.”
The foregoing insight has focused development efforts on the shared seminal pathway of all GBS subtypes and given rise to the concept of nodo-paranodopathy, which incorporates damage at either the node of Ranvier or nearby paranodes.3
Simultaneously, Spanish and French researchers began elucidating new antibodies responsible for neuropathology at the node of Ranvier.4 Anti-ganglioside antibodies have long been loosely associated with acute motor axonal neuropathy and poor outcomes, although, Dr. Lunn said, they fail to tell the full story. Anti-GQ1b antibodies are associated with the Miller-Fisher syndrome subtype, well recognized for its medical features: double vision, loss of tendon reflexes, and arm and leg weakness.
However, Dr. Lunn said, most GBS cases lack anti-ganglioside antibodies. In some GBS cases, antibodies attack neurofascin, contactins, and gliomedin, which are mainly adhesion proteins at nodes of Ranvier.
“Therefore,” Dr. Lunn said, “there must be an antibody-mediated attack of the node of Ranvier or the paranode. That’s an important series of discoveries, primarily because it helps us understand the immunological attack at the node of Ranvier, which goes along with what Dr. Uncini was saying. But it also divides off a group of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathies (CIDP) that present acutely and look initially, for all purposes, like GBS.”
Recognizing acute CIDP (A-CIDP) is critically important for clinicians, Dr. Lunn stressed, because it requires treatment with rituximab (the most commonly used option), steroids, or plasma exchange.
Key clues that distinguish A-CIDP from GBS include:
• A high level of cerebrospinal fluid protein.
• Very slow nerve conduction.
• Early muscle wasting (rare in GBS).
Recognizing CIDP and A-CIDP is crucial, said Dr. Lunn, because it begins to bring all the pathology back together to make sense of GBS. Neurologists have known for decades that, if one damages a nerve with antibodies, then binds complement to those antibodies, the complement punches holes in the affected cells, resulting in death. “But it wasn’t quite clear how those cells might die,” Dr. Lunn said.
After complement-induced injury, calcium-activated calpain permanently damages the entire internal axonal structure.5 Perhaps more important, a 2022 mouse study showed that complement-mediated damage could be directed to myelin or axons using the genetically programmed presence or absence of gangliosides to understand subsequent calpain-induced destruction in either axons or myelin.6
Some of the engineered mouse cells included ganglioside; others did not. “So you can have anti-ganglioside antibodies directed at one cell type or the other, which would, or would not, have calpain within them,” Dr. Lunn said. Investigators also showed that a calpain inhibitor (AK295) or overproduction of an endogenous inhibitor, calpastatin, prevented damage to both cell types.6All existing calpain inhibitors are unsuitable for clinical use because they are highly toxic. “But if you could inhibit calpain and stop it from being activated by calcium,” Dr. Lunn explained, “you would have a mechanism for stopping cell degradation during GBS. That would be an important future target for pharmacotherapy. That whole story – from the beginning to the end of GBS – has opened up options for treatment.”
Because complement bound to antibodies, set up by infection, plays a pivotal role, complement inhibitors have become an exciting area of research over the past decade. The 36-patient Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) trial showed that, after 6 months, significantly more eculizumab-treated patients could run, compared with placebo-treated patients.7
“No other trials of complement inhibitors have yet been completed,” Dr. Lunn said. “But several different complement inhibitors work at different places, in a very complicated immune process. One of the complement inhibitors will become transformative in treating GBS – preventing disability and improving recovery – in the not-very-distant future.”
Additional investigational treatments that have demonstrated early promise in eliminating problem antibodies faster include imlifidase (Idefirix [Hansa Biopharma]), which destroys antibodies, and Fc receptor inhibitors such as efgartigimod alfa-fcab (Vyvgart [argenx]), which push antibodies into the natural catabolic pathway.
“We’ve been stuck with plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for three or four decades,” Dr. Lunn said. “We now have a series of strategies by which we can completely turn off complement and resulting nerve damage. If we can find a calpain inhibitor that turns off the end of that pathway, we will make dramatic improvements. Our understanding of the immunopathology has changed enormously and influences pharmacotherapy going forward.”
Recap of diagnosis and treatment
For decades, the diagnosis of GBS has relied on the presence of symptoms, including progressive weakness and loss of reflexes and sensations. Nerve-conduction studies and cerebrospinal fluid evaluation can help confirm the diagnosis.
IVIg shortens recovery, said Dr. Lunn, although nothing cures GBS. “And that’s a common problem: Clinicians think that they’re going to give somebody IVIg, and the patient’s going to get better immediately.” When that doesn’t happen, he said, physicians are tempted to give a second immunoglobulin dose.
However, a study published in 2021 shows that a second IVIg dose does not result in faster or better improvement – only in a significant risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other thrombotic events 3 weeks later.8 Dr. Lunn noted that, although adverse-event data were “buried” in the supplemental materials of that study, the high cost of IVIg (approximately $12,500 per dose) means that the study has changed practice for the benefit of patients, providers, and health care systems.
COVID-19 and GBS triggers
Campylobacter jejuni infection still accounts for 30% to 40% of GBS cases, followed by other bacteria, including Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, and then by viruses, including cytomegalovirus and, rarely, human immunodeficiency virus. In recent years, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection – COVID-19 – and vaccines against the viral infection have captured headlines for purportedly being a cause of GBS.
The Zika virus epidemic of 2015-2016 has been linked to GBS-like illness. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic were associated with GBS – although, taken together, SARS and MERS-CoV produced fewer than 10 cases of GBS, Dr. Lunn noted. Nevertheless, heightened awareness of these viruses fueled hypervigilance regarding the prospect that COVID-19 could cause GBS. Following reports of a single such case in Wuhan and hundreds in Italy, worry over pandemic GBS grew worldwide.
Dr. Lunn and colleagues addressed the COVID-19–GBS question in a 2023 publication.9 “Because GBS is largely treated only with IVIg, and IVIg costs a lot of money, and the U.K. government insists on every dose of IVIg being logged in a government database, we were able to identify virtually every case of GBS,” he said.
GBS diagnoses were reliable, he added, because each case was confirmed by physicians outside the emergency department. Analysis revealed that, in 2020, U.K. GBS cases actually declined by around one-third. “And even when there was a second wave of COVID-19 at the end of 2020, partly caused by better counting,” Dr. Lunn said, “there was no further increase in GBS cases. We concluded that there was no link between GBS and COVID-19, as the cases simply didn’t appear.”
The foregoing findings have since been corroborated by studies in Singapore, the United States, and South America, he pointed out. Earlier case series suggesting a link between COVID-19 and GBS were selective, Dr. Lunn added, with numbers too small to support robust conclusions.
The lack of a causal link between COVID-19 and GBS suggested to Dr. Lunn that there was no reason COVID-19 vaccination should cause GBS. All COVID-19 vaccines were designed to provoke an immune response either (1) by producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the surface of virus (through a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector) or (2) through DNA or mRNA transcription, he explained. “The spike protein is only a small part of COVID-19.”
GBS: ‘Adverse event of interest’
A link between modern vaccines and GBS first appeared in the 1970s with the hastily developed swine flu vaccine. “In late 1976,” Dr. Lunn explained, “it was identified that patients who were given that vaccine seemed to be developing illnesses consistent with GBS.” By 1980, Dr. Lunn said, the risk level was determined to be only five or six cases for every 1 million doses of vaccine administered. “But the vaccine program was aborted, and swine flu never really happened.” Every year since, “there has been a surveillance program looking at the occurrence of an association of GBS with influenza vaccine.”
Minor fluctuations aside, he said, the overall incidence of GBS with influenza vaccination – 1 GBS case for every 1 million vaccine doses given – has remained consistent over several decades. “Nevertheless, GBS became an adverse event of special interest for any vaccination campaign.”
COVID-19 vaccination. Dr. Lunn and colleagues used the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) National Immunoglobulin Database, and other databases, to pinpoint the risk of GBS presented by the first dose of the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vaccine.10 As with U.K. GBS cases, every COVID-19 vaccination is linked to an NHS number. “We identified all the cases of GBS, found their NHS numbers, and went back and found the exact dates they’d been vaccinated, and with which vaccine.” Only the adenoviral-vector vaccine carried an excess risk of GBS – 5.8 cases for every 1 million doses, associated only with the first dose and peaking at approximately 25 days post vaccination – compared with other vaccines used in the United Kingdom.
Researchers looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, encompassing nearly 500 million COVID-19 vaccine doses given between December 2020 and January 2022. They found that patients who received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) had a rate of GBS (within 21 and 41 days post vaccination) that was 9 and 12 times higher, respectively, than corresponding rates for the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccines.11 Risk was distributed relatively evenly by gender and age. Also at day 21 and day 41, observed event ratios with the adenoviral-vector vaccine (use of which has been suspended in the United States) were 3.79 and 2.34, respectively. Observed-event ratios with the other vaccines mirrored expected background rates.
The VAERS analysis confirms earlier data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which showed that, among approximately 15 million U.S. vaccine doses given between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, the unadjusted GBS incidence rate for every 100,000 person-years for the adenoviral vaccine, 21 days post exposure, was 32.4, compared with 1.3 for the mRNA vaccine. The adjusted relative risk with the adenoviral vaccine in the first 3 weeks post vaccination, compared to the 3- to 6-week interval post vaccination, was 6.03.12 In addition, a head-to-head comparison of adenoviral versus mRNA vaccines at 21 days revealed an adjusted rate ratio of 20.56. Mechanistically, some experts theorize that antibodies induced by the Janssen vaccine might cross-react with glycoproteins on the myelin sheath of peripheral nerve axons to cause GBS, but this remains unproven.11
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus; the Janssen vaccine uses a human adenoviral carrier. “The only commonality between the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, and the only thing that’s different from the other vaccines, is the adenoviral vector packaging,” Dr. Lunn emphasized. “I believe it’s what generates GBS after COVID-19 vaccination. It has nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccination, the spike protein, the nucleic acid, the DNA, or anything else.”
The adenoviral vector probably also explains why GBS peaks during winter, said Dr. Lunn. “That’s when adenovirus is circulating.” When people contract the common cold, he explained, they don’t visit their family physician and request a swab to isolate the adenovirus. “By the time you get GBS, the adenovirus has been cleared. We’ve all got antibodies to adenovirus all over the place, anyway, because we get it so often.”
It would be difficult to prove conclusively that adenovirus belongs on the list of GBS causes, Dr. Lunn allowed. “But I have a strong suspicion that it does. COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination have given us some new avenues into identifying GBS causation potentially in the near future.” More research is needed in this area, he said.
Dr. Lunn has been a principal investigator for argenx (efgartigimod) and an adviser to AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). He has received travel grants from CSL Behring.
References
1. Ho TW et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome in northern China. Relationship to Campylobacter jejuni infection and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain. 1995;118(Pt 3):597-605. doi: 10.1093/brain/118.3.597.
2. Uncini A. A common mechanism and a new categorization for anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathies. Exp Neurol. 2012;235(2):513-6. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.03.023.
3. Uncini A and Kuwabara S. The electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: where do we stand? Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(12):2586-93. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025.
4. Delmont E et al. Autoantibodies to nodal isoforms of neurofascin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain. 2017;140(7):1851-8. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx124.
5. McGonigal R et al. Anti-GD1a antibodies activate complement and calpain to injure distal motor nodes of Ranvier in mice. Brain. 2010;133(Pt 7):1944-60. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq119.
6. Cunningham ME et al. Real time imaging of intra-axonal calcium flux in an explant mouse model of axonal Guillain-Barré syndrome. Exp Neurol. 2022 Sep;355:114127. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114127.
7. Misawa S et al; Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) Study Group. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.
8. Walgaard C et al; Dutch GBS Study Group. Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(4):275-83. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30494-4.
9. Keddie S et al. Epidemiological and cohort study finds no association between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Brain. 2021;144(2):682-93. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa433.
10. Keh RYS et al; BPNS/ABN COVID-19 Vaccine GBS Study Group. COVID-19 vaccination and Guillain-Barré syndrome: Analyses using the National Immunoglobulin Database. Brain. 2023;146(2):739-48. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac067.
11. Abara WE et al. Reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2253845. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53845.
12. Hanson KE et al. Incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e228879. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8879.
Recent insights into the pathophysiology of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) – which affects 1 or 2 persons for every 100,000 people annually, usually post infection – indicate that classic subtypes represent varying manifestations of a shared disease process. This knowledge is yielding new treatment strategies aimed at halting the illness in its tracks. Promising therapies include inhibitors of complement and, perhaps one day, the calcium-activated protease calpain.
Meanwhile, an association between COVID-19 and GBS has been debunked, whereas a small risk of GBS following adenovirus-vectored COVID vaccination is now accepted and quantified. Regardless of cause, the potential severity of GBS and variability in its presentation demand constant vigilance.
Shutting down the disease process
When patients present to an emergency department with sensory symptoms and increasing muscle weakness, “most of the damage has been or is being done,” said Michael P. Lunn, MBBS, MRCP, PhD, professor of clinical neurology, consultant neurologist, and clinical lead in neuroimmunology at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, who spoke at length about GBS with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. “The crucial reason that GBS treatment has not advanced significantly – and why we’re still slightly stuck where we are in terms of helping people get better more quickly – is that we need something that absolutely turns the disease off as patients come through the door.”
GBS is probably the best-understood autoimmune-mediated neurological disease, in some respects surpassing myasthenia gravis, Dr. Lunn said. “We know very frequently the organisms and stimuli that set off Guillain-Barré syndrome. We understand, to an extent, the immunology and how you break tolerance of the immune system so that an invading organism can provoke an immune response that damages peripheral nerves.”
Compared to what was known about GBS in decades past, neurologists now better understand how and where antibodies attack the nerve; how complement then damages the nodes of Ranvier and paranodes; and how an external attack results in sometimes irreparable internal nerve damage. “We’ve got a string, beginning to end, of understanding the disease,” declared Dr. Lunn.
Understanding of differences in the spectrum of pathology of GBS has led to additional diagnostic categories, said Dr. Lunn. Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, or typical GBS, represents the most common form in affluent Western nations. A motor variant was recognized in the 1980s; in the mid-1990s, Ho and colleagues described a cohort of patients in China who had acute motor axonal neuropathy and acute motor sensory axonal neuropathy1 – two forms that are particularly common throughout Asia and South America.
Shared mechanism
Based on the findings of electrophysiologic studies, Dr. Lunn said, experts traditionally believed that GBS attacked either axons themselves or their myelin sheaths. “That’s where the anti-ganglioside antibodies come in, providing targeting to nerve structures.” The dichotomous classification system, he added, was partially correct.
Then, through the 2010s and 2020s, neurophysiologist Antonio Uncini, MD, recognized, based partly on histologic studies by Ho and colleagues, that the myelin and axonal subtypes are both likely to stem from the same mechanism.2 When antibodies and complement damage the node of Ranvier, Dr. Lunn said, “the myelin gets stripped off and the conduction becomes slow. But then the myelin can return, and patients get better.” But if damage is severe, it severs the axon, resulting in unrecoverable motor axonal neuropathy. “It’s basically all the same spectrum of disease,” Dr. Lunn said. “Anti-ganglioside antibodies may account for different GBS ‘flavors,’ but the immunological attack all occurs at the node of Ranvier in one way or another.”
The foregoing insight has focused development efforts on the shared seminal pathway of all GBS subtypes and given rise to the concept of nodo-paranodopathy, which incorporates damage at either the node of Ranvier or nearby paranodes.3
Simultaneously, Spanish and French researchers began elucidating new antibodies responsible for neuropathology at the node of Ranvier.4 Anti-ganglioside antibodies have long been loosely associated with acute motor axonal neuropathy and poor outcomes, although, Dr. Lunn said, they fail to tell the full story. Anti-GQ1b antibodies are associated with the Miller-Fisher syndrome subtype, well recognized for its medical features: double vision, loss of tendon reflexes, and arm and leg weakness.
However, Dr. Lunn said, most GBS cases lack anti-ganglioside antibodies. In some GBS cases, antibodies attack neurofascin, contactins, and gliomedin, which are mainly adhesion proteins at nodes of Ranvier.
“Therefore,” Dr. Lunn said, “there must be an antibody-mediated attack of the node of Ranvier or the paranode. That’s an important series of discoveries, primarily because it helps us understand the immunological attack at the node of Ranvier, which goes along with what Dr. Uncini was saying. But it also divides off a group of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathies (CIDP) that present acutely and look initially, for all purposes, like GBS.”
Recognizing acute CIDP (A-CIDP) is critically important for clinicians, Dr. Lunn stressed, because it requires treatment with rituximab (the most commonly used option), steroids, or plasma exchange.
Key clues that distinguish A-CIDP from GBS include:
• A high level of cerebrospinal fluid protein.
• Very slow nerve conduction.
• Early muscle wasting (rare in GBS).
Recognizing CIDP and A-CIDP is crucial, said Dr. Lunn, because it begins to bring all the pathology back together to make sense of GBS. Neurologists have known for decades that, if one damages a nerve with antibodies, then binds complement to those antibodies, the complement punches holes in the affected cells, resulting in death. “But it wasn’t quite clear how those cells might die,” Dr. Lunn said.
After complement-induced injury, calcium-activated calpain permanently damages the entire internal axonal structure.5 Perhaps more important, a 2022 mouse study showed that complement-mediated damage could be directed to myelin or axons using the genetically programmed presence or absence of gangliosides to understand subsequent calpain-induced destruction in either axons or myelin.6
Some of the engineered mouse cells included ganglioside; others did not. “So you can have anti-ganglioside antibodies directed at one cell type or the other, which would, or would not, have calpain within them,” Dr. Lunn said. Investigators also showed that a calpain inhibitor (AK295) or overproduction of an endogenous inhibitor, calpastatin, prevented damage to both cell types.6All existing calpain inhibitors are unsuitable for clinical use because they are highly toxic. “But if you could inhibit calpain and stop it from being activated by calcium,” Dr. Lunn explained, “you would have a mechanism for stopping cell degradation during GBS. That would be an important future target for pharmacotherapy. That whole story – from the beginning to the end of GBS – has opened up options for treatment.”
Because complement bound to antibodies, set up by infection, plays a pivotal role, complement inhibitors have become an exciting area of research over the past decade. The 36-patient Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) trial showed that, after 6 months, significantly more eculizumab-treated patients could run, compared with placebo-treated patients.7
“No other trials of complement inhibitors have yet been completed,” Dr. Lunn said. “But several different complement inhibitors work at different places, in a very complicated immune process. One of the complement inhibitors will become transformative in treating GBS – preventing disability and improving recovery – in the not-very-distant future.”
Additional investigational treatments that have demonstrated early promise in eliminating problem antibodies faster include imlifidase (Idefirix [Hansa Biopharma]), which destroys antibodies, and Fc receptor inhibitors such as efgartigimod alfa-fcab (Vyvgart [argenx]), which push antibodies into the natural catabolic pathway.
“We’ve been stuck with plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for three or four decades,” Dr. Lunn said. “We now have a series of strategies by which we can completely turn off complement and resulting nerve damage. If we can find a calpain inhibitor that turns off the end of that pathway, we will make dramatic improvements. Our understanding of the immunopathology has changed enormously and influences pharmacotherapy going forward.”
Recap of diagnosis and treatment
For decades, the diagnosis of GBS has relied on the presence of symptoms, including progressive weakness and loss of reflexes and sensations. Nerve-conduction studies and cerebrospinal fluid evaluation can help confirm the diagnosis.
IVIg shortens recovery, said Dr. Lunn, although nothing cures GBS. “And that’s a common problem: Clinicians think that they’re going to give somebody IVIg, and the patient’s going to get better immediately.” When that doesn’t happen, he said, physicians are tempted to give a second immunoglobulin dose.
However, a study published in 2021 shows that a second IVIg dose does not result in faster or better improvement – only in a significant risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and other thrombotic events 3 weeks later.8 Dr. Lunn noted that, although adverse-event data were “buried” in the supplemental materials of that study, the high cost of IVIg (approximately $12,500 per dose) means that the study has changed practice for the benefit of patients, providers, and health care systems.
COVID-19 and GBS triggers
Campylobacter jejuni infection still accounts for 30% to 40% of GBS cases, followed by other bacteria, including Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae, and then by viruses, including cytomegalovirus and, rarely, human immunodeficiency virus. In recent years, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection – COVID-19 – and vaccines against the viral infection have captured headlines for purportedly being a cause of GBS.
The Zika virus epidemic of 2015-2016 has been linked to GBS-like illness. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic were associated with GBS – although, taken together, SARS and MERS-CoV produced fewer than 10 cases of GBS, Dr. Lunn noted. Nevertheless, heightened awareness of these viruses fueled hypervigilance regarding the prospect that COVID-19 could cause GBS. Following reports of a single such case in Wuhan and hundreds in Italy, worry over pandemic GBS grew worldwide.
Dr. Lunn and colleagues addressed the COVID-19–GBS question in a 2023 publication.9 “Because GBS is largely treated only with IVIg, and IVIg costs a lot of money, and the U.K. government insists on every dose of IVIg being logged in a government database, we were able to identify virtually every case of GBS,” he said.
GBS diagnoses were reliable, he added, because each case was confirmed by physicians outside the emergency department. Analysis revealed that, in 2020, U.K. GBS cases actually declined by around one-third. “And even when there was a second wave of COVID-19 at the end of 2020, partly caused by better counting,” Dr. Lunn said, “there was no further increase in GBS cases. We concluded that there was no link between GBS and COVID-19, as the cases simply didn’t appear.”
The foregoing findings have since been corroborated by studies in Singapore, the United States, and South America, he pointed out. Earlier case series suggesting a link between COVID-19 and GBS were selective, Dr. Lunn added, with numbers too small to support robust conclusions.
The lack of a causal link between COVID-19 and GBS suggested to Dr. Lunn that there was no reason COVID-19 vaccination should cause GBS. All COVID-19 vaccines were designed to provoke an immune response either (1) by producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the surface of virus (through a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector) or (2) through DNA or mRNA transcription, he explained. “The spike protein is only a small part of COVID-19.”
GBS: ‘Adverse event of interest’
A link between modern vaccines and GBS first appeared in the 1970s with the hastily developed swine flu vaccine. “In late 1976,” Dr. Lunn explained, “it was identified that patients who were given that vaccine seemed to be developing illnesses consistent with GBS.” By 1980, Dr. Lunn said, the risk level was determined to be only five or six cases for every 1 million doses of vaccine administered. “But the vaccine program was aborted, and swine flu never really happened.” Every year since, “there has been a surveillance program looking at the occurrence of an association of GBS with influenza vaccine.”
Minor fluctuations aside, he said, the overall incidence of GBS with influenza vaccination – 1 GBS case for every 1 million vaccine doses given – has remained consistent over several decades. “Nevertheless, GBS became an adverse event of special interest for any vaccination campaign.”
COVID-19 vaccination. Dr. Lunn and colleagues used the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) National Immunoglobulin Database, and other databases, to pinpoint the risk of GBS presented by the first dose of the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vaccine.10 As with U.K. GBS cases, every COVID-19 vaccination is linked to an NHS number. “We identified all the cases of GBS, found their NHS numbers, and went back and found the exact dates they’d been vaccinated, and with which vaccine.” Only the adenoviral-vector vaccine carried an excess risk of GBS – 5.8 cases for every 1 million doses, associated only with the first dose and peaking at approximately 25 days post vaccination – compared with other vaccines used in the United Kingdom.
Researchers looked at data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, encompassing nearly 500 million COVID-19 vaccine doses given between December 2020 and January 2022. They found that patients who received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) had a rate of GBS (within 21 and 41 days post vaccination) that was 9 and 12 times higher, respectively, than corresponding rates for the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccines.11 Risk was distributed relatively evenly by gender and age. Also at day 21 and day 41, observed event ratios with the adenoviral-vector vaccine (use of which has been suspended in the United States) were 3.79 and 2.34, respectively. Observed-event ratios with the other vaccines mirrored expected background rates.
The VAERS analysis confirms earlier data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which showed that, among approximately 15 million U.S. vaccine doses given between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, the unadjusted GBS incidence rate for every 100,000 person-years for the adenoviral vaccine, 21 days post exposure, was 32.4, compared with 1.3 for the mRNA vaccine. The adjusted relative risk with the adenoviral vaccine in the first 3 weeks post vaccination, compared to the 3- to 6-week interval post vaccination, was 6.03.12 In addition, a head-to-head comparison of adenoviral versus mRNA vaccines at 21 days revealed an adjusted rate ratio of 20.56. Mechanistically, some experts theorize that antibodies induced by the Janssen vaccine might cross-react with glycoproteins on the myelin sheath of peripheral nerve axons to cause GBS, but this remains unproven.11
The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus; the Janssen vaccine uses a human adenoviral carrier. “The only commonality between the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, and the only thing that’s different from the other vaccines, is the adenoviral vector packaging,” Dr. Lunn emphasized. “I believe it’s what generates GBS after COVID-19 vaccination. It has nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccination, the spike protein, the nucleic acid, the DNA, or anything else.”
The adenoviral vector probably also explains why GBS peaks during winter, said Dr. Lunn. “That’s when adenovirus is circulating.” When people contract the common cold, he explained, they don’t visit their family physician and request a swab to isolate the adenovirus. “By the time you get GBS, the adenovirus has been cleared. We’ve all got antibodies to adenovirus all over the place, anyway, because we get it so often.”
It would be difficult to prove conclusively that adenovirus belongs on the list of GBS causes, Dr. Lunn allowed. “But I have a strong suspicion that it does. COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination have given us some new avenues into identifying GBS causation potentially in the near future.” More research is needed in this area, he said.
Dr. Lunn has been a principal investigator for argenx (efgartigimod) and an adviser to AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). He has received travel grants from CSL Behring.
References
1. Ho TW et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome in northern China. Relationship to Campylobacter jejuni infection and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain. 1995;118(Pt 3):597-605. doi: 10.1093/brain/118.3.597.
2. Uncini A. A common mechanism and a new categorization for anti-ganglioside antibody-mediated neuropathies. Exp Neurol. 2012;235(2):513-6. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.03.023.
3. Uncini A and Kuwabara S. The electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome subtypes: where do we stand? Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(12):2586-93. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.025.
4. Delmont E et al. Autoantibodies to nodal isoforms of neurofascin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Brain. 2017;140(7):1851-8. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx124.
5. McGonigal R et al. Anti-GD1a antibodies activate complement and calpain to injure distal motor nodes of Ranvier in mice. Brain. 2010;133(Pt 7):1944-60. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq119.
6. Cunningham ME et al. Real time imaging of intra-axonal calcium flux in an explant mouse model of axonal Guillain-Barré syndrome. Exp Neurol. 2022 Sep;355:114127. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2022.114127.
7. Misawa S et al; Japanese Eculizumab Trial for GBS (JET-GBS) Study Group. Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in Guillain-Barré syndrome: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(6):519-29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30114-5.
8. Walgaard C et al; Dutch GBS Study Group. Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(4):275-83. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30494-4.
9. Keddie S et al. Epidemiological and cohort study finds no association between COVID-19 and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Brain. 2021;144(2):682-93. doi: 10.1093/brain/awaa433.
10. Keh RYS et al; BPNS/ABN COVID-19 Vaccine GBS Study Group. COVID-19 vaccination and Guillain-Barré syndrome: Analyses using the National Immunoglobulin Database. Brain. 2023;146(2):739-48. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac067.
11. Abara WE et al. Reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2253845. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53845.
12. Hanson KE et al. Incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e228879. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8879.
Pragmatic solutions to ‘catastrophic’ global stroke burden
Deaths and disability because of stroke are expected to rise alarmingly over the next 30 years, with almost 10 million stroke deaths forecast annually by 2050, according to a new report from the World Stroke Organization–Lancet Neurology Commission Stroke Collaboration Group.
“This highlights the need for urgent measures to reduce stroke burden worldwide, with an emphasis on low- and middle-income countries,” the report authors stated.
These measures include an increase in trained health care workers who can implement effective primary prevention strategies, including the early detection and adequate management of hypertension.
On the basis of a review of evidence-based guidelines, recent surveys, and in-depth interviews with stroke experts around the world, the WSO–Lancet Neurology Commission made evidence-based pragmatic recommendations to reduce the global burden of stroke, including measures to improve surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation.
The report was announced on Oct. 10 by WSO President, Sheila Martins, MD, at the World Stroke Conference in Toronto. The report was also published online in The Lancet Neurology.
“Stroke care has changed a lot in the last few years,” said Dr. Martins, who is chief of neurology and neurosurgery at Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and founder and president of the Brazilian Stroke Network. “We know what we need to do to reduce the global burden of stroke, and high-income countries are making progress in that regard. But the situation in low- and middle-income countries is catastrophic, with mortality rates of up to 80% in individuals who have had a stroke in some countries. There is a very large gap between knowledge and implementation.”
Dr. Martins said that the commission is offering potential innovative suggestions on how to change this reality.
“While we have the knowledge on the strategies needed to reduce stroke burden, the mechanisms needed to implement this knowledge will be different in different countries and cultures. Our commission includes several representatives from low- and middle-income countries, and we will be working with local stakeholders in these countries to try and implement our recommendations,” Dr. Martins explained.
Stroke mortality and disability is on the rise
In the report, the authors pointed out that the global burden of stroke is “huge.” In 2020, stroke was the second leading cause of death (6.6 million deaths) and the third leading cause of disability – responsible for 143 million disability-adjusted life-years – after neonatal disorders and ischemic heart disease. Stroke is also a leading cause of depression and dementia.
The absolute number of people affected by stroke, which includes those who die or remain disabled, has almost doubled in the past 30 years, the report authors noted. Most of the contemporary stroke burden is in low- and middle-income countries, and the burden of disability after a stroke is increasing at a faster pace in low- and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. Alarmingly, the incidence of stroke is increasing in young and middle-aged people globally.
The commission forecasts the burden of stroke from 2020 to 2050, with projections estimating that stroke mortality will increase by 50% to 9.7 million and disability-adjusted life-years growing to over 189.3 million by 2050.
“Stroke exerts an enormous toll on the world’s population, leading to the death and permanent disability of millions of people each year, and costing billions of dollars,” said Valery L. Feigin, MD, of Auckland (New Zealand) University of Technology, and commission cochair. “Precisely forecasting the health and economic impacts of stroke decades into the future is inherently challenging given the levels of uncertainty involved, but these estimates are indicative of the ever-increasing burden we will see in the years ahead unless urgent, effective action is taken.”
The report authors explained that multiple factors contribute to the high burden of stroke in low- and middle-income countries, including undetected and uncontrolled hypertension; lack of easily accessible, high-quality health services; insufficient attention to and investment in prevention, air pollution; population growth; unhealthy lifestyles (for example, poor diet, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, obesity); an earlier age of stroke onset and greater proportion of hemorrhagic strokes than in high-income countries; and the burden of infectious diseases resulting in competition for limited health care resources.
The enormous financial cost of stroke
The total cost of stroke (both direct treatment and rehabilitation costs and indirect costs due to loss of income) is estimated to rise from $891 billion per year in 2017 to as much as $2.31 trillion by 2050. “These substantial increases in the costs associated with stroke will cause distressing financial circumstances for many communities and national health systems,” the authors said.
However, this increase can be avoided because stroke is highly preventable and treatable, they stressed. “These unsustainable trends in burden and costs of stroke underline the importance of identifying interventions to prevent and manage stroke more effectively.”
The Commission pointed out that population-wide primary prevention across the lifespan is extremely cost effective. It has been estimated that for every $1 spent on the prevention of stroke and cardiovascular disease, there is a more than $10 return on investment.
Additionally, primary prevention efforts directed at stroke would probably yield large gains because of the secondary effects of reducing the risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, and some types of cancer that share common risk factors, the authors noted.
“One of the most common problems in implementing stroke prevention and care recommendations is the lack of funding. Our commission recommends introducing legislative regulations and taxations of unhealthy products (such as salt, alcohol, sugary drinks, trans fats) by each and every government in the world,” Dr. Feigin said.
“Such taxation would not only reduce consumption of these products – and therefore lead to the reduction of burden from stroke and major other noncommunicable diseases – but also generate a large revenue sufficient to fund not only prevention programs and services for stroke and other major disorders, but also reduce poverty, inequality in health service provision, and improve wellbeing of the population,” he added.
Recommendations
The commission authors made the following recommendations for key priorities to reduce the burden of stroke:
Surveillance and prevention
- Incorporate stroke events and risk factor surveillance into national stroke action plans.
- Establish a system for population-wide primary and secondary stroke prevention, with emphasis on lifestyle modification for people at any level of risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease.
- Primary and secondary stroke prevention services should be freely accessible and supported by universal health coverage, with access to affordable drugs for management of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and clotting disorders.
- Governments must allocate a fixed proportion of their annual health care funding for prevention of stroke and related noncommunicable diseases. This funding could come from taxation of tobacco, salt, alcohol, and sugar.
- Raise public awareness and take action to encourage a healthy lifestyle and prevent stroke via population-wide deployment of digital technologies with simple, inexpensive screening for cardiovascular disease and modifiable risk factors.
- Establish protocol-based shifting of tasks from highly trained health care professionals to supervised paramedical health care workers, to facilitate population-wide primary stroke prevention interventions across rural and urban settings.
Acute care
- Prioritize effective planning of acute stroke care services; capacity building, training, and certification of a multidisciplinary workforce; provision of evidence-based equipment and affordable medicines; and adequate resource allocation at national and regional levels.
- Establish regional networks and protocol-driven services, including community-wide awareness campaigns for early recognition of a stroke, regionally coordinated prehospital services, telemedicine networks, and stroke centers that can triage and treat all cases of acute stroke, and facilitate timely access to reperfusion therapy.
- Integrate acute care networks into the four pillars of the stroke “quadrangle” of resources, including surveillance, prevention, and rehabilitation services, by involving all relevant stakeholders (that is, communities, policy makers, nongovernmental organizations, national and regional stroke organizations, and public and private health care providers) in the stroke care continuum.
Rehabilitation
- Establish multidisciplinary rehabilitation services and adapt evidence-based recommendations to the local context, including the training, support, and supervision of community health care workers and caregivers to assist in long-term care.
- Invest in research to generate innovative low-cost interventions, in public awareness to improve demand for rehabilitation services, and in advocacy to mobilize resources for multidisciplinary rehabilitation.
- Promote the training of stroke rehabilitation professionals. Use digital portals to improve training and to extend the use of assessment tools – such as the Modified Rankin Scale and the U.S. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale – and quality of life measures to assess functional impairment and monitor recovery.
The commission concluded that, “overall, if the recommendations of this Commission are implemented, the burden of stroke will be reduced substantially ... which will improve brain health and overall wellbeing worldwide.”
Dr. Martins said that the WSO is committed to supporting and accelerating the implementation of these recommendations globally through the WSO Implementation Task Force, with stroke experts to advise the establishment of stroke prevention and care and to contribute with educational programs, and through Global Stroke Alliance meetings facilitating the discussions between stroke experts and policy makers, giving technical support to governments to elaborate national plans for stroke and to include stroke care in universal health coverage packages.
The Commission received funding from the WSO, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Health Research Council of New Zealand, and National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia and was supported by the NIH.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Deaths and disability because of stroke are expected to rise alarmingly over the next 30 years, with almost 10 million stroke deaths forecast annually by 2050, according to a new report from the World Stroke Organization–Lancet Neurology Commission Stroke Collaboration Group.
“This highlights the need for urgent measures to reduce stroke burden worldwide, with an emphasis on low- and middle-income countries,” the report authors stated.
These measures include an increase in trained health care workers who can implement effective primary prevention strategies, including the early detection and adequate management of hypertension.
On the basis of a review of evidence-based guidelines, recent surveys, and in-depth interviews with stroke experts around the world, the WSO–Lancet Neurology Commission made evidence-based pragmatic recommendations to reduce the global burden of stroke, including measures to improve surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation.
The report was announced on Oct. 10 by WSO President, Sheila Martins, MD, at the World Stroke Conference in Toronto. The report was also published online in The Lancet Neurology.
“Stroke care has changed a lot in the last few years,” said Dr. Martins, who is chief of neurology and neurosurgery at Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and founder and president of the Brazilian Stroke Network. “We know what we need to do to reduce the global burden of stroke, and high-income countries are making progress in that regard. But the situation in low- and middle-income countries is catastrophic, with mortality rates of up to 80% in individuals who have had a stroke in some countries. There is a very large gap between knowledge and implementation.”
Dr. Martins said that the commission is offering potential innovative suggestions on how to change this reality.
“While we have the knowledge on the strategies needed to reduce stroke burden, the mechanisms needed to implement this knowledge will be different in different countries and cultures. Our commission includes several representatives from low- and middle-income countries, and we will be working with local stakeholders in these countries to try and implement our recommendations,” Dr. Martins explained.
Stroke mortality and disability is on the rise
In the report, the authors pointed out that the global burden of stroke is “huge.” In 2020, stroke was the second leading cause of death (6.6 million deaths) and the third leading cause of disability – responsible for 143 million disability-adjusted life-years – after neonatal disorders and ischemic heart disease. Stroke is also a leading cause of depression and dementia.
The absolute number of people affected by stroke, which includes those who die or remain disabled, has almost doubled in the past 30 years, the report authors noted. Most of the contemporary stroke burden is in low- and middle-income countries, and the burden of disability after a stroke is increasing at a faster pace in low- and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. Alarmingly, the incidence of stroke is increasing in young and middle-aged people globally.
The commission forecasts the burden of stroke from 2020 to 2050, with projections estimating that stroke mortality will increase by 50% to 9.7 million and disability-adjusted life-years growing to over 189.3 million by 2050.
“Stroke exerts an enormous toll on the world’s population, leading to the death and permanent disability of millions of people each year, and costing billions of dollars,” said Valery L. Feigin, MD, of Auckland (New Zealand) University of Technology, and commission cochair. “Precisely forecasting the health and economic impacts of stroke decades into the future is inherently challenging given the levels of uncertainty involved, but these estimates are indicative of the ever-increasing burden we will see in the years ahead unless urgent, effective action is taken.”
The report authors explained that multiple factors contribute to the high burden of stroke in low- and middle-income countries, including undetected and uncontrolled hypertension; lack of easily accessible, high-quality health services; insufficient attention to and investment in prevention, air pollution; population growth; unhealthy lifestyles (for example, poor diet, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, obesity); an earlier age of stroke onset and greater proportion of hemorrhagic strokes than in high-income countries; and the burden of infectious diseases resulting in competition for limited health care resources.
The enormous financial cost of stroke
The total cost of stroke (both direct treatment and rehabilitation costs and indirect costs due to loss of income) is estimated to rise from $891 billion per year in 2017 to as much as $2.31 trillion by 2050. “These substantial increases in the costs associated with stroke will cause distressing financial circumstances for many communities and national health systems,” the authors said.
However, this increase can be avoided because stroke is highly preventable and treatable, they stressed. “These unsustainable trends in burden and costs of stroke underline the importance of identifying interventions to prevent and manage stroke more effectively.”
The Commission pointed out that population-wide primary prevention across the lifespan is extremely cost effective. It has been estimated that for every $1 spent on the prevention of stroke and cardiovascular disease, there is a more than $10 return on investment.
Additionally, primary prevention efforts directed at stroke would probably yield large gains because of the secondary effects of reducing the risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, and some types of cancer that share common risk factors, the authors noted.
“One of the most common problems in implementing stroke prevention and care recommendations is the lack of funding. Our commission recommends introducing legislative regulations and taxations of unhealthy products (such as salt, alcohol, sugary drinks, trans fats) by each and every government in the world,” Dr. Feigin said.
“Such taxation would not only reduce consumption of these products – and therefore lead to the reduction of burden from stroke and major other noncommunicable diseases – but also generate a large revenue sufficient to fund not only prevention programs and services for stroke and other major disorders, but also reduce poverty, inequality in health service provision, and improve wellbeing of the population,” he added.
Recommendations
The commission authors made the following recommendations for key priorities to reduce the burden of stroke:
Surveillance and prevention
- Incorporate stroke events and risk factor surveillance into national stroke action plans.
- Establish a system for population-wide primary and secondary stroke prevention, with emphasis on lifestyle modification for people at any level of risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease.
- Primary and secondary stroke prevention services should be freely accessible and supported by universal health coverage, with access to affordable drugs for management of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and clotting disorders.
- Governments must allocate a fixed proportion of their annual health care funding for prevention of stroke and related noncommunicable diseases. This funding could come from taxation of tobacco, salt, alcohol, and sugar.
- Raise public awareness and take action to encourage a healthy lifestyle and prevent stroke via population-wide deployment of digital technologies with simple, inexpensive screening for cardiovascular disease and modifiable risk factors.
- Establish protocol-based shifting of tasks from highly trained health care professionals to supervised paramedical health care workers, to facilitate population-wide primary stroke prevention interventions across rural and urban settings.
Acute care
- Prioritize effective planning of acute stroke care services; capacity building, training, and certification of a multidisciplinary workforce; provision of evidence-based equipment and affordable medicines; and adequate resource allocation at national and regional levels.
- Establish regional networks and protocol-driven services, including community-wide awareness campaigns for early recognition of a stroke, regionally coordinated prehospital services, telemedicine networks, and stroke centers that can triage and treat all cases of acute stroke, and facilitate timely access to reperfusion therapy.
- Integrate acute care networks into the four pillars of the stroke “quadrangle” of resources, including surveillance, prevention, and rehabilitation services, by involving all relevant stakeholders (that is, communities, policy makers, nongovernmental organizations, national and regional stroke organizations, and public and private health care providers) in the stroke care continuum.
Rehabilitation
- Establish multidisciplinary rehabilitation services and adapt evidence-based recommendations to the local context, including the training, support, and supervision of community health care workers and caregivers to assist in long-term care.
- Invest in research to generate innovative low-cost interventions, in public awareness to improve demand for rehabilitation services, and in advocacy to mobilize resources for multidisciplinary rehabilitation.
- Promote the training of stroke rehabilitation professionals. Use digital portals to improve training and to extend the use of assessment tools – such as the Modified Rankin Scale and the U.S. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale – and quality of life measures to assess functional impairment and monitor recovery.
The commission concluded that, “overall, if the recommendations of this Commission are implemented, the burden of stroke will be reduced substantially ... which will improve brain health and overall wellbeing worldwide.”
Dr. Martins said that the WSO is committed to supporting and accelerating the implementation of these recommendations globally through the WSO Implementation Task Force, with stroke experts to advise the establishment of stroke prevention and care and to contribute with educational programs, and through Global Stroke Alliance meetings facilitating the discussions between stroke experts and policy makers, giving technical support to governments to elaborate national plans for stroke and to include stroke care in universal health coverage packages.
The Commission received funding from the WSO, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Health Research Council of New Zealand, and National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia and was supported by the NIH.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Deaths and disability because of stroke are expected to rise alarmingly over the next 30 years, with almost 10 million stroke deaths forecast annually by 2050, according to a new report from the World Stroke Organization–Lancet Neurology Commission Stroke Collaboration Group.
“This highlights the need for urgent measures to reduce stroke burden worldwide, with an emphasis on low- and middle-income countries,” the report authors stated.
These measures include an increase in trained health care workers who can implement effective primary prevention strategies, including the early detection and adequate management of hypertension.
On the basis of a review of evidence-based guidelines, recent surveys, and in-depth interviews with stroke experts around the world, the WSO–Lancet Neurology Commission made evidence-based pragmatic recommendations to reduce the global burden of stroke, including measures to improve surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation.
The report was announced on Oct. 10 by WSO President, Sheila Martins, MD, at the World Stroke Conference in Toronto. The report was also published online in The Lancet Neurology.
“Stroke care has changed a lot in the last few years,” said Dr. Martins, who is chief of neurology and neurosurgery at Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and founder and president of the Brazilian Stroke Network. “We know what we need to do to reduce the global burden of stroke, and high-income countries are making progress in that regard. But the situation in low- and middle-income countries is catastrophic, with mortality rates of up to 80% in individuals who have had a stroke in some countries. There is a very large gap between knowledge and implementation.”
Dr. Martins said that the commission is offering potential innovative suggestions on how to change this reality.
“While we have the knowledge on the strategies needed to reduce stroke burden, the mechanisms needed to implement this knowledge will be different in different countries and cultures. Our commission includes several representatives from low- and middle-income countries, and we will be working with local stakeholders in these countries to try and implement our recommendations,” Dr. Martins explained.
Stroke mortality and disability is on the rise
In the report, the authors pointed out that the global burden of stroke is “huge.” In 2020, stroke was the second leading cause of death (6.6 million deaths) and the third leading cause of disability – responsible for 143 million disability-adjusted life-years – after neonatal disorders and ischemic heart disease. Stroke is also a leading cause of depression and dementia.
The absolute number of people affected by stroke, which includes those who die or remain disabled, has almost doubled in the past 30 years, the report authors noted. Most of the contemporary stroke burden is in low- and middle-income countries, and the burden of disability after a stroke is increasing at a faster pace in low- and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. Alarmingly, the incidence of stroke is increasing in young and middle-aged people globally.
The commission forecasts the burden of stroke from 2020 to 2050, with projections estimating that stroke mortality will increase by 50% to 9.7 million and disability-adjusted life-years growing to over 189.3 million by 2050.
“Stroke exerts an enormous toll on the world’s population, leading to the death and permanent disability of millions of people each year, and costing billions of dollars,” said Valery L. Feigin, MD, of Auckland (New Zealand) University of Technology, and commission cochair. “Precisely forecasting the health and economic impacts of stroke decades into the future is inherently challenging given the levels of uncertainty involved, but these estimates are indicative of the ever-increasing burden we will see in the years ahead unless urgent, effective action is taken.”
The report authors explained that multiple factors contribute to the high burden of stroke in low- and middle-income countries, including undetected and uncontrolled hypertension; lack of easily accessible, high-quality health services; insufficient attention to and investment in prevention, air pollution; population growth; unhealthy lifestyles (for example, poor diet, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, obesity); an earlier age of stroke onset and greater proportion of hemorrhagic strokes than in high-income countries; and the burden of infectious diseases resulting in competition for limited health care resources.
The enormous financial cost of stroke
The total cost of stroke (both direct treatment and rehabilitation costs and indirect costs due to loss of income) is estimated to rise from $891 billion per year in 2017 to as much as $2.31 trillion by 2050. “These substantial increases in the costs associated with stroke will cause distressing financial circumstances for many communities and national health systems,” the authors said.
However, this increase can be avoided because stroke is highly preventable and treatable, they stressed. “These unsustainable trends in burden and costs of stroke underline the importance of identifying interventions to prevent and manage stroke more effectively.”
The Commission pointed out that population-wide primary prevention across the lifespan is extremely cost effective. It has been estimated that for every $1 spent on the prevention of stroke and cardiovascular disease, there is a more than $10 return on investment.
Additionally, primary prevention efforts directed at stroke would probably yield large gains because of the secondary effects of reducing the risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, and some types of cancer that share common risk factors, the authors noted.
“One of the most common problems in implementing stroke prevention and care recommendations is the lack of funding. Our commission recommends introducing legislative regulations and taxations of unhealthy products (such as salt, alcohol, sugary drinks, trans fats) by each and every government in the world,” Dr. Feigin said.
“Such taxation would not only reduce consumption of these products – and therefore lead to the reduction of burden from stroke and major other noncommunicable diseases – but also generate a large revenue sufficient to fund not only prevention programs and services for stroke and other major disorders, but also reduce poverty, inequality in health service provision, and improve wellbeing of the population,” he added.
Recommendations
The commission authors made the following recommendations for key priorities to reduce the burden of stroke:
Surveillance and prevention
- Incorporate stroke events and risk factor surveillance into national stroke action plans.
- Establish a system for population-wide primary and secondary stroke prevention, with emphasis on lifestyle modification for people at any level of risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease.
- Primary and secondary stroke prevention services should be freely accessible and supported by universal health coverage, with access to affordable drugs for management of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and clotting disorders.
- Governments must allocate a fixed proportion of their annual health care funding for prevention of stroke and related noncommunicable diseases. This funding could come from taxation of tobacco, salt, alcohol, and sugar.
- Raise public awareness and take action to encourage a healthy lifestyle and prevent stroke via population-wide deployment of digital technologies with simple, inexpensive screening for cardiovascular disease and modifiable risk factors.
- Establish protocol-based shifting of tasks from highly trained health care professionals to supervised paramedical health care workers, to facilitate population-wide primary stroke prevention interventions across rural and urban settings.
Acute care
- Prioritize effective planning of acute stroke care services; capacity building, training, and certification of a multidisciplinary workforce; provision of evidence-based equipment and affordable medicines; and adequate resource allocation at national and regional levels.
- Establish regional networks and protocol-driven services, including community-wide awareness campaigns for early recognition of a stroke, regionally coordinated prehospital services, telemedicine networks, and stroke centers that can triage and treat all cases of acute stroke, and facilitate timely access to reperfusion therapy.
- Integrate acute care networks into the four pillars of the stroke “quadrangle” of resources, including surveillance, prevention, and rehabilitation services, by involving all relevant stakeholders (that is, communities, policy makers, nongovernmental organizations, national and regional stroke organizations, and public and private health care providers) in the stroke care continuum.
Rehabilitation
- Establish multidisciplinary rehabilitation services and adapt evidence-based recommendations to the local context, including the training, support, and supervision of community health care workers and caregivers to assist in long-term care.
- Invest in research to generate innovative low-cost interventions, in public awareness to improve demand for rehabilitation services, and in advocacy to mobilize resources for multidisciplinary rehabilitation.
- Promote the training of stroke rehabilitation professionals. Use digital portals to improve training and to extend the use of assessment tools – such as the Modified Rankin Scale and the U.S. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale – and quality of life measures to assess functional impairment and monitor recovery.
The commission concluded that, “overall, if the recommendations of this Commission are implemented, the burden of stroke will be reduced substantially ... which will improve brain health and overall wellbeing worldwide.”
Dr. Martins said that the WSO is committed to supporting and accelerating the implementation of these recommendations globally through the WSO Implementation Task Force, with stroke experts to advise the establishment of stroke prevention and care and to contribute with educational programs, and through Global Stroke Alliance meetings facilitating the discussions between stroke experts and policy makers, giving technical support to governments to elaborate national plans for stroke and to include stroke care in universal health coverage packages.
The Commission received funding from the WSO, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Health Research Council of New Zealand, and National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia and was supported by the NIH.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET NEUROLOGY
New guidelines for determining brain death released
The consensus practice guideline on brain death, also known as death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), was developed by a panel of 20 experts from different specialties, institutions, and medical societies.
As with previous guidelines, the updated version stipulates that brain death should be declared when a patient with a known cause of catastrophic brain injury has permanent loss of function of the brain, including the brain stem, which results in coma, brain stem areflexia, and apnea in the setting of an adequate stimulus.
But the updated version also clarifies questions on neurological examinations and apnea testing and offers new guidance on pre-evaluation targets for blood pressure and body temperature and evaluating brain death in patients who are pregnant, are on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or have an injury to the base of the brain.
Also, for the first time, the guidance clarifies that clinicians don’t need to obtain consent before performing a brain death evaluation, unless institutional policy, state laws, or regulations stipulate otherwise.
“The 2023 guidelines will be considered the standard of care in the U.S.,” lead author David M. Greer, MD, chair and chief of neurology, Boston University, and chief of neurology, Boston Medical Center, said in an interview. “Each hospital in the U.S. is responsible for its own policy for BD/DNC determination, and our hope is that they will quickly revise their policies in accordance with this new national standard.”
The guidelines, which are accompanied by a three-page checklist and a free digital app, were published online in Neurology.
Four years in the making
Work on the 85 recommendations in the new report began more than 4 years ago as a collaborative effort by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Neurology Society, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
A lack of high-quality evidence on brain death determination led panelists to devise an evidence-informed formal consensus process to develop the guidelines, which involved three rounds of anonymous voting on each recommendation and the rationales behind them.
The strength of each recommendation was based on the level of consensus reached through voting, with Level A denoting a recommendation that “must” be followed, Level B one that “should” be followed, and Level C one that “may” be followed.
The majority of recommendations received an A or B rating. Only one recommendation, about whether a second clinical exam is needed in adults, garnered a C rating.
In children, the guidelines recommend that clinicians must perform two clinical examinations and two apnea tests 12 hours apart. In adults, only one exam is required. Both of those recommendations were rated Level A. A recommendation for a second exam in adults received the single Level C rating.
A uniform set of guidelines?
The new guidelines replace adult practice guidance published by AAN in 2010 and guideline for infants and children released in 2011 by AAP, CNS, and SCCM, and for the first time combine brain death guidelines for adult and pediatric patients into one document.
“It is important for clinicians to review the new guideline carefully and ensure their hospital brain death guidelines are updated to be consistent with the new guideline in order to prevent inaccurate determinations of death,” guidelines coauthor Ariane Lewis, MD, NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview.
The 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) is the legal foundation for the declaration of BD/DNC in the United States, but it only stipulates that brain death determination must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
There is no single national standard, and states and hospitals are free to adopt their own, which many have done. One goal of the new guidelines was to create a uniform set of guidelines that all institutions follow.
“This is a step toward having a set of guidelines that are accepted by most of the societies and clinical specialties involved in this sort of diagnosis,” that could lead to a national-level policy, Fernando Goldenberg, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuroscience critical care, University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview.
Dr. Goldenberg was not part of the panel that developed the updated guidelines, but was a coauthor of a consensus statement from the World Brain Death Project in 2020.
Developing a singular global guideline for brain death determination is unlikely, Dr. Goldenberg said. Policies vary widely across the world, and some countries don’t even recognize brain death.
“But this attempts to unify things at the U.S. level, which is very important,” he said.
Permanent vs. irreversible
Dr. Goldenberg said that combining adult and pediatric guidelines into one document will be very helpful for clinicians like him who treat patients from age 16 years and up.
The expanded guidance on apnea testing, recommendations on specific ancillary tests to use or avoid, and inclusion of language stipulating that prior consent is not needed to perform a brain death evaluation are also useful.
He also noted that the section on credentialing and training of clinicians who perform BD/DNC evaluations recognizes advanced practice providers, the first time he recalls seeing these professionals included in brain death guidelines.
However, the panel’s decision to use the term “permanent” to describe loss of brain function instead of “irreversible” gave Dr. Goldenberg pause.
The UDDA provides that an individual is declared legally dead when “circulatory and respiratory functions irreversibly stop; or all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, irreversibly stop.”
Earlier in October, the American College of Physicians released a position paper on cardiorespiratory death determination that called for a revision of the UDDA language.
The ACP suggested that “irreversibly” be replaced with “permanently” with regard to the cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, but that “irreversible” be kept in the description of brain death.
“Permanent means that there is damage that is potentially reversible and irreversible means that the damage is so profound, it cannot be reversed even if an attempt to do so is performed,” Dr. Goldenberg said.
Even though the World Brain Death Project, on which he worked, also used “permanent” to describe brain function loss, Dr. Goldenberg said he aligns with ACP’s position.
“The understanding of brain death is that the damage is so profound, it is irreversible, even if you were to try,” he said. “Therefore, I think that the most appropriate term for brain death should be irreversible as opposed to permanent.”
The report was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Greer has received travel funding from Boston University; serves as editor-in-chief for Seminars in Neurology; receives publishing royalties for 50 Studies Every Neurologist Should Know and Successful Leadership in Academic Medicine; has received honoraria from AAN; has received research funding from Becton, Dickinson, and Company; and has served as expert witness in legal proceedings. Dr. Lewis has received honoraria from AAN and Neurodiem, serves as Neurology deputy editor of disputes and debates, and serves as deputy editor of seminars in Neurology. Dr. Goldenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The consensus practice guideline on brain death, also known as death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), was developed by a panel of 20 experts from different specialties, institutions, and medical societies.
As with previous guidelines, the updated version stipulates that brain death should be declared when a patient with a known cause of catastrophic brain injury has permanent loss of function of the brain, including the brain stem, which results in coma, brain stem areflexia, and apnea in the setting of an adequate stimulus.
But the updated version also clarifies questions on neurological examinations and apnea testing and offers new guidance on pre-evaluation targets for blood pressure and body temperature and evaluating brain death in patients who are pregnant, are on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or have an injury to the base of the brain.
Also, for the first time, the guidance clarifies that clinicians don’t need to obtain consent before performing a brain death evaluation, unless institutional policy, state laws, or regulations stipulate otherwise.
“The 2023 guidelines will be considered the standard of care in the U.S.,” lead author David M. Greer, MD, chair and chief of neurology, Boston University, and chief of neurology, Boston Medical Center, said in an interview. “Each hospital in the U.S. is responsible for its own policy for BD/DNC determination, and our hope is that they will quickly revise their policies in accordance with this new national standard.”
The guidelines, which are accompanied by a three-page checklist and a free digital app, were published online in Neurology.
Four years in the making
Work on the 85 recommendations in the new report began more than 4 years ago as a collaborative effort by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Neurology Society, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
A lack of high-quality evidence on brain death determination led panelists to devise an evidence-informed formal consensus process to develop the guidelines, which involved three rounds of anonymous voting on each recommendation and the rationales behind them.
The strength of each recommendation was based on the level of consensus reached through voting, with Level A denoting a recommendation that “must” be followed, Level B one that “should” be followed, and Level C one that “may” be followed.
The majority of recommendations received an A or B rating. Only one recommendation, about whether a second clinical exam is needed in adults, garnered a C rating.
In children, the guidelines recommend that clinicians must perform two clinical examinations and two apnea tests 12 hours apart. In adults, only one exam is required. Both of those recommendations were rated Level A. A recommendation for a second exam in adults received the single Level C rating.
A uniform set of guidelines?
The new guidelines replace adult practice guidance published by AAN in 2010 and guideline for infants and children released in 2011 by AAP, CNS, and SCCM, and for the first time combine brain death guidelines for adult and pediatric patients into one document.
“It is important for clinicians to review the new guideline carefully and ensure their hospital brain death guidelines are updated to be consistent with the new guideline in order to prevent inaccurate determinations of death,” guidelines coauthor Ariane Lewis, MD, NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview.
The 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) is the legal foundation for the declaration of BD/DNC in the United States, but it only stipulates that brain death determination must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
There is no single national standard, and states and hospitals are free to adopt their own, which many have done. One goal of the new guidelines was to create a uniform set of guidelines that all institutions follow.
“This is a step toward having a set of guidelines that are accepted by most of the societies and clinical specialties involved in this sort of diagnosis,” that could lead to a national-level policy, Fernando Goldenberg, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuroscience critical care, University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview.
Dr. Goldenberg was not part of the panel that developed the updated guidelines, but was a coauthor of a consensus statement from the World Brain Death Project in 2020.
Developing a singular global guideline for brain death determination is unlikely, Dr. Goldenberg said. Policies vary widely across the world, and some countries don’t even recognize brain death.
“But this attempts to unify things at the U.S. level, which is very important,” he said.
Permanent vs. irreversible
Dr. Goldenberg said that combining adult and pediatric guidelines into one document will be very helpful for clinicians like him who treat patients from age 16 years and up.
The expanded guidance on apnea testing, recommendations on specific ancillary tests to use or avoid, and inclusion of language stipulating that prior consent is not needed to perform a brain death evaluation are also useful.
He also noted that the section on credentialing and training of clinicians who perform BD/DNC evaluations recognizes advanced practice providers, the first time he recalls seeing these professionals included in brain death guidelines.
However, the panel’s decision to use the term “permanent” to describe loss of brain function instead of “irreversible” gave Dr. Goldenberg pause.
The UDDA provides that an individual is declared legally dead when “circulatory and respiratory functions irreversibly stop; or all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, irreversibly stop.”
Earlier in October, the American College of Physicians released a position paper on cardiorespiratory death determination that called for a revision of the UDDA language.
The ACP suggested that “irreversibly” be replaced with “permanently” with regard to the cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, but that “irreversible” be kept in the description of brain death.
“Permanent means that there is damage that is potentially reversible and irreversible means that the damage is so profound, it cannot be reversed even if an attempt to do so is performed,” Dr. Goldenberg said.
Even though the World Brain Death Project, on which he worked, also used “permanent” to describe brain function loss, Dr. Goldenberg said he aligns with ACP’s position.
“The understanding of brain death is that the damage is so profound, it is irreversible, even if you were to try,” he said. “Therefore, I think that the most appropriate term for brain death should be irreversible as opposed to permanent.”
The report was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Greer has received travel funding from Boston University; serves as editor-in-chief for Seminars in Neurology; receives publishing royalties for 50 Studies Every Neurologist Should Know and Successful Leadership in Academic Medicine; has received honoraria from AAN; has received research funding from Becton, Dickinson, and Company; and has served as expert witness in legal proceedings. Dr. Lewis has received honoraria from AAN and Neurodiem, serves as Neurology deputy editor of disputes and debates, and serves as deputy editor of seminars in Neurology. Dr. Goldenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The consensus practice guideline on brain death, also known as death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), was developed by a panel of 20 experts from different specialties, institutions, and medical societies.
As with previous guidelines, the updated version stipulates that brain death should be declared when a patient with a known cause of catastrophic brain injury has permanent loss of function of the brain, including the brain stem, which results in coma, brain stem areflexia, and apnea in the setting of an adequate stimulus.
But the updated version also clarifies questions on neurological examinations and apnea testing and offers new guidance on pre-evaluation targets for blood pressure and body temperature and evaluating brain death in patients who are pregnant, are on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or have an injury to the base of the brain.
Also, for the first time, the guidance clarifies that clinicians don’t need to obtain consent before performing a brain death evaluation, unless institutional policy, state laws, or regulations stipulate otherwise.
“The 2023 guidelines will be considered the standard of care in the U.S.,” lead author David M. Greer, MD, chair and chief of neurology, Boston University, and chief of neurology, Boston Medical Center, said in an interview. “Each hospital in the U.S. is responsible for its own policy for BD/DNC determination, and our hope is that they will quickly revise their policies in accordance with this new national standard.”
The guidelines, which are accompanied by a three-page checklist and a free digital app, were published online in Neurology.
Four years in the making
Work on the 85 recommendations in the new report began more than 4 years ago as a collaborative effort by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Neurology Society, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
A lack of high-quality evidence on brain death determination led panelists to devise an evidence-informed formal consensus process to develop the guidelines, which involved three rounds of anonymous voting on each recommendation and the rationales behind them.
The strength of each recommendation was based on the level of consensus reached through voting, with Level A denoting a recommendation that “must” be followed, Level B one that “should” be followed, and Level C one that “may” be followed.
The majority of recommendations received an A or B rating. Only one recommendation, about whether a second clinical exam is needed in adults, garnered a C rating.
In children, the guidelines recommend that clinicians must perform two clinical examinations and two apnea tests 12 hours apart. In adults, only one exam is required. Both of those recommendations were rated Level A. A recommendation for a second exam in adults received the single Level C rating.
A uniform set of guidelines?
The new guidelines replace adult practice guidance published by AAN in 2010 and guideline for infants and children released in 2011 by AAP, CNS, and SCCM, and for the first time combine brain death guidelines for adult and pediatric patients into one document.
“It is important for clinicians to review the new guideline carefully and ensure their hospital brain death guidelines are updated to be consistent with the new guideline in order to prevent inaccurate determinations of death,” guidelines coauthor Ariane Lewis, MD, NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview.
The 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) is the legal foundation for the declaration of BD/DNC in the United States, but it only stipulates that brain death determination must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
There is no single national standard, and states and hospitals are free to adopt their own, which many have done. One goal of the new guidelines was to create a uniform set of guidelines that all institutions follow.
“This is a step toward having a set of guidelines that are accepted by most of the societies and clinical specialties involved in this sort of diagnosis,” that could lead to a national-level policy, Fernando Goldenberg, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuroscience critical care, University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview.
Dr. Goldenberg was not part of the panel that developed the updated guidelines, but was a coauthor of a consensus statement from the World Brain Death Project in 2020.
Developing a singular global guideline for brain death determination is unlikely, Dr. Goldenberg said. Policies vary widely across the world, and some countries don’t even recognize brain death.
“But this attempts to unify things at the U.S. level, which is very important,” he said.
Permanent vs. irreversible
Dr. Goldenberg said that combining adult and pediatric guidelines into one document will be very helpful for clinicians like him who treat patients from age 16 years and up.
The expanded guidance on apnea testing, recommendations on specific ancillary tests to use or avoid, and inclusion of language stipulating that prior consent is not needed to perform a brain death evaluation are also useful.
He also noted that the section on credentialing and training of clinicians who perform BD/DNC evaluations recognizes advanced practice providers, the first time he recalls seeing these professionals included in brain death guidelines.
However, the panel’s decision to use the term “permanent” to describe loss of brain function instead of “irreversible” gave Dr. Goldenberg pause.
The UDDA provides that an individual is declared legally dead when “circulatory and respiratory functions irreversibly stop; or all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, irreversibly stop.”
Earlier in October, the American College of Physicians released a position paper on cardiorespiratory death determination that called for a revision of the UDDA language.
The ACP suggested that “irreversibly” be replaced with “permanently” with regard to the cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, but that “irreversible” be kept in the description of brain death.
“Permanent means that there is damage that is potentially reversible and irreversible means that the damage is so profound, it cannot be reversed even if an attempt to do so is performed,” Dr. Goldenberg said.
Even though the World Brain Death Project, on which he worked, also used “permanent” to describe brain function loss, Dr. Goldenberg said he aligns with ACP’s position.
“The understanding of brain death is that the damage is so profound, it is irreversible, even if you were to try,” he said. “Therefore, I think that the most appropriate term for brain death should be irreversible as opposed to permanent.”
The report was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Greer has received travel funding from Boston University; serves as editor-in-chief for Seminars in Neurology; receives publishing royalties for 50 Studies Every Neurologist Should Know and Successful Leadership in Academic Medicine; has received honoraria from AAN; has received research funding from Becton, Dickinson, and Company; and has served as expert witness in legal proceedings. Dr. Lewis has received honoraria from AAN and Neurodiem, serves as Neurology deputy editor of disputes and debates, and serves as deputy editor of seminars in Neurology. Dr. Goldenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Proton pump inhibitors linked to increased dementia risk
TOPLINE:
and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
- The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
- Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
- Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
- Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”
SOURCE:
Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
- The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
- Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
- Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
- Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”
SOURCE:
Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
- The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
- Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
- Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
- Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”
SOURCE:
Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.