Neurology

Disordered sleep is associated with a significantly increased risk for stroke, new research shows.

Results of a large international study show stroke risk was more than three times higher in those who slept too little, more than twice as high in those who sleep too much, and two to three times higher in those with symptoms of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

The study also showed that the greater the number of sleep disorder symptoms, the greater the stroke risk. The 11% of study participants with five or more symptoms of disordered sleep had a fivefold increased risk for stroke.

Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

More symptoms, more risk

Previous research shows severe OSA doubles the risk of stroke and increases the chance of recurrent stroke. A 2019 study showed that people with insomnia had a small increased risk of stroke.

“Both snoring and extremes of sleep duration have been previously associated with an increased risk of stroke in observational research, but less is known about other symptoms of sleep impairment, with less consistent findings,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Prior studies have also generally come from a single geographic region, which Dr. McCarthy noted could limit their generalizability.

For this effort, investigators used data from 4,496 participants in INTERSTROKE, an international case-control study of risk factors for a first acute stroke. About half of the participants had a history of stroke.

Using information collected from a survey of sleep habits, researchers found an elevated stroke risk in those who received less than 5 hours of sleep per night (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-4.76) or more than 9 hours of sleep per night (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.89-3.78), compared with those who slept 7 hours a night.

Participants who took unplanned naps or naps lasting an hour or more (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.69-3.57) and participants who reported poor quality sleep (OR,1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75) were also at an increased risk for stroke.

Symptoms of OSA were also strongly associated with increased stroke risk, including snoring (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62-2.24), snorting (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.17-3.20), and breathing cessation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.28-2.60).

Stroke risk increased as the number of sleep disturbance symptoms rose, with the greatest risk in the 11% of participants who had five or more symptoms (OR, 5.38; 95% CI, 4.03-7.18).

“This study finds an association between a broad range of sleep impairment symptoms and stroke, and a graded association with increasing symptoms, in an international setting,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Researchers aren’t sure what’s driving the higher stroke risk among people with sleep disturbances. Although the study did control for potential confounders, it wasn’t designed to get at what’s driving the association.

“Sleep disturbance may also have a bi-directional relationship with many stroke risk factors; for example, sleep disturbance may be a symptom of disease and exacerbate disease,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Future interventional studies are required to determine the true direction of the relationship.”
 

A marker of stroke risk

Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said the findings provide additional evidence of the link between sleep and stroke risk.

“The results confirm sleep disorders as a potential marker and part of the risk profile,” he said.

Collecting information about sleep using a validated assessment tool is an important piece of clinical care, Dr. Lackland said, especially among patients with other stroke risk factors.

One limitation of the study was that data on sleep was collected only at one point, and participants were not followed over time to see if changes in sleep affected stroke risk.

“This is an important point and should be a focus for future studies, as it is critical in the design of interventions,” Dr. Lackland said.

The INTERSTROKE study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MERCK, Sharp and Dohme, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, U.K. Chest, and U.K. Heart and Stroke. Dr. McCarthy and Lackland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disordered sleep is associated with a significantly increased risk for stroke, new research shows.

Results of a large international study show stroke risk was more than three times higher in those who slept too little, more than twice as high in those who sleep too much, and two to three times higher in those with symptoms of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

The study also showed that the greater the number of sleep disorder symptoms, the greater the stroke risk. The 11% of study participants with five or more symptoms of disordered sleep had a fivefold increased risk for stroke.

Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

More symptoms, more risk

Previous research shows severe OSA doubles the risk of stroke and increases the chance of recurrent stroke. A 2019 study showed that people with insomnia had a small increased risk of stroke.

“Both snoring and extremes of sleep duration have been previously associated with an increased risk of stroke in observational research, but less is known about other symptoms of sleep impairment, with less consistent findings,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Prior studies have also generally come from a single geographic region, which Dr. McCarthy noted could limit their generalizability.

For this effort, investigators used data from 4,496 participants in INTERSTROKE, an international case-control study of risk factors for a first acute stroke. About half of the participants had a history of stroke.

Using information collected from a survey of sleep habits, researchers found an elevated stroke risk in those who received less than 5 hours of sleep per night (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-4.76) or more than 9 hours of sleep per night (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.89-3.78), compared with those who slept 7 hours a night.

Participants who took unplanned naps or naps lasting an hour or more (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.69-3.57) and participants who reported poor quality sleep (OR,1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75) were also at an increased risk for stroke.

Symptoms of OSA were also strongly associated with increased stroke risk, including snoring (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62-2.24), snorting (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.17-3.20), and breathing cessation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.28-2.60).

Stroke risk increased as the number of sleep disturbance symptoms rose, with the greatest risk in the 11% of participants who had five or more symptoms (OR, 5.38; 95% CI, 4.03-7.18).

“This study finds an association between a broad range of sleep impairment symptoms and stroke, and a graded association with increasing symptoms, in an international setting,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Researchers aren’t sure what’s driving the higher stroke risk among people with sleep disturbances. Although the study did control for potential confounders, it wasn’t designed to get at what’s driving the association.

“Sleep disturbance may also have a bi-directional relationship with many stroke risk factors; for example, sleep disturbance may be a symptom of disease and exacerbate disease,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Future interventional studies are required to determine the true direction of the relationship.”
 

A marker of stroke risk

Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said the findings provide additional evidence of the link between sleep and stroke risk.

“The results confirm sleep disorders as a potential marker and part of the risk profile,” he said.

Collecting information about sleep using a validated assessment tool is an important piece of clinical care, Dr. Lackland said, especially among patients with other stroke risk factors.

One limitation of the study was that data on sleep was collected only at one point, and participants were not followed over time to see if changes in sleep affected stroke risk.

“This is an important point and should be a focus for future studies, as it is critical in the design of interventions,” Dr. Lackland said.

The INTERSTROKE study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MERCK, Sharp and Dohme, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, U.K. Chest, and U.K. Heart and Stroke. Dr. McCarthy and Lackland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disordered sleep is associated with a significantly increased risk for stroke, new research shows.

Results of a large international study show stroke risk was more than three times higher in those who slept too little, more than twice as high in those who sleep too much, and two to three times higher in those with symptoms of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

The study also showed that the greater the number of sleep disorder symptoms, the greater the stroke risk. The 11% of study participants with five or more symptoms of disordered sleep had a fivefold increased risk for stroke.

Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

More symptoms, more risk

Previous research shows severe OSA doubles the risk of stroke and increases the chance of recurrent stroke. A 2019 study showed that people with insomnia had a small increased risk of stroke.

“Both snoring and extremes of sleep duration have been previously associated with an increased risk of stroke in observational research, but less is known about other symptoms of sleep impairment, with less consistent findings,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Prior studies have also generally come from a single geographic region, which Dr. McCarthy noted could limit their generalizability.

For this effort, investigators used data from 4,496 participants in INTERSTROKE, an international case-control study of risk factors for a first acute stroke. About half of the participants had a history of stroke.

Using information collected from a survey of sleep habits, researchers found an elevated stroke risk in those who received less than 5 hours of sleep per night (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-4.76) or more than 9 hours of sleep per night (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.89-3.78), compared with those who slept 7 hours a night.

Participants who took unplanned naps or naps lasting an hour or more (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.69-3.57) and participants who reported poor quality sleep (OR,1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75) were also at an increased risk for stroke.

Symptoms of OSA were also strongly associated with increased stroke risk, including snoring (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62-2.24), snorting (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.17-3.20), and breathing cessation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.28-2.60).

Stroke risk increased as the number of sleep disturbance symptoms rose, with the greatest risk in the 11% of participants who had five or more symptoms (OR, 5.38; 95% CI, 4.03-7.18).

“This study finds an association between a broad range of sleep impairment symptoms and stroke, and a graded association with increasing symptoms, in an international setting,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Researchers aren’t sure what’s driving the higher stroke risk among people with sleep disturbances. Although the study did control for potential confounders, it wasn’t designed to get at what’s driving the association.

“Sleep disturbance may also have a bi-directional relationship with many stroke risk factors; for example, sleep disturbance may be a symptom of disease and exacerbate disease,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Future interventional studies are required to determine the true direction of the relationship.”
 

A marker of stroke risk

Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said the findings provide additional evidence of the link between sleep and stroke risk.

“The results confirm sleep disorders as a potential marker and part of the risk profile,” he said.

Collecting information about sleep using a validated assessment tool is an important piece of clinical care, Dr. Lackland said, especially among patients with other stroke risk factors.

One limitation of the study was that data on sleep was collected only at one point, and participants were not followed over time to see if changes in sleep affected stroke risk.

“This is an important point and should be a focus for future studies, as it is critical in the design of interventions,” Dr. Lackland said.

The INTERSTROKE study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MERCK, Sharp and Dohme, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, U.K. Chest, and U.K. Heart and Stroke. Dr. McCarthy and Lackland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with better indicators of cardiovascular health at midlife saw reduced risk of later dementia, according to results of a study that was released early, ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Epidemiologist Pamela M. Rist, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues, used data from 13,720 women whose mean age was 54 when they enrolled in the Harvard-based Women’s Health Study between 1992 and 1995. Subjects in that study were followed up in 2004.

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Putting ‘Life’s Simple 7’ to the test

Dr. Rist and colleagues used the Harvard data to discern how well closely women conformed, during the initial study period and at 10-year follow up, to what the American Heart Association describes as “Life’s Simple 7,” a list of behavioral and biometric measures that indicate and predict cardiovascular health. The measures include four modifiable behaviors – not smoking, healthy weight, a healthy diet, and being physically active – along with three biometric measures of blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar (AHA has since added a sleep component).

Researchers assigned women one point for each desirable habit or measure on the list, with subjects’ average Simple 7 score at baseline 4.3, and 4.2 at 10 years’ follow-up.

The investigators then looked at Medicare data for the study subjects from 2011 to 2018 – approximately 20 years after their enrollment in the Women’s Health Study – seeking dementia diagnoses. Some 13% of the study cohort (n = 1,771) had gone on to develop dementia.

Each point on the Simple 7 score at baseline corresponded with a 6% reduction in later dementia risk, Dr. Rist and her colleagues found after adjusting for variables including age and education (odds ratio per one unit change in score, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98). This effect was similar for Simple 7 scores measured at 10 years of follow-up (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

“It can be empowering for people to know that by taking steps such as exercising for a half an hour a day or keeping their blood pressure under control, they can reduce their risk of dementia,” Dr. Rist said in a statement on the findings.
 

‘A simple take-home message’

Reached for comment, Andrew E. Budson, MD, chief of cognitive-behavioral neurology at the VA Boston Healthcare System, praised Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study as one that “builds on existing knowledge to provide a simple take-home message that empowers women to take control of their dementia risk.”

VA Boston Healthcare System

Each of the seven known risk factors – being active, eating better, maintaining a healthy weight, not smoking, maintaining a healthy blood pressure, controlling cholesterol, and having low blood sugar – “was associated with a 6% reduced risk of dementia,” Dr. Budson continued. “So, women who work to address all seven risk factors can reduce their risk of developing dementia by 42%: a huge amount. Moreover, although this study only looked at women, I am confident that if men follow this same advice they will also be able to reduce their risk of dementia, although we don’t know if the size of the effect will be the same.”

Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Budson has reported receiving past compensation as a speaker for Eli Lilly.

Women with better indicators of cardiovascular health at midlife saw reduced risk of later dementia, according to results of a study that was released early, ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Epidemiologist Pamela M. Rist, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues, used data from 13,720 women whose mean age was 54 when they enrolled in the Harvard-based Women’s Health Study between 1992 and 1995. Subjects in that study were followed up in 2004.

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Putting ‘Life’s Simple 7’ to the test

Dr. Rist and colleagues used the Harvard data to discern how well closely women conformed, during the initial study period and at 10-year follow up, to what the American Heart Association describes as “Life’s Simple 7,” a list of behavioral and biometric measures that indicate and predict cardiovascular health. The measures include four modifiable behaviors – not smoking, healthy weight, a healthy diet, and being physically active – along with three biometric measures of blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar (AHA has since added a sleep component).

Researchers assigned women one point for each desirable habit or measure on the list, with subjects’ average Simple 7 score at baseline 4.3, and 4.2 at 10 years’ follow-up.

The investigators then looked at Medicare data for the study subjects from 2011 to 2018 – approximately 20 years after their enrollment in the Women’s Health Study – seeking dementia diagnoses. Some 13% of the study cohort (n = 1,771) had gone on to develop dementia.

Each point on the Simple 7 score at baseline corresponded with a 6% reduction in later dementia risk, Dr. Rist and her colleagues found after adjusting for variables including age and education (odds ratio per one unit change in score, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98). This effect was similar for Simple 7 scores measured at 10 years of follow-up (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

“It can be empowering for people to know that by taking steps such as exercising for a half an hour a day or keeping their blood pressure under control, they can reduce their risk of dementia,” Dr. Rist said in a statement on the findings.
 

‘A simple take-home message’

Reached for comment, Andrew E. Budson, MD, chief of cognitive-behavioral neurology at the VA Boston Healthcare System, praised Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study as one that “builds on existing knowledge to provide a simple take-home message that empowers women to take control of their dementia risk.”

VA Boston Healthcare System

Each of the seven known risk factors – being active, eating better, maintaining a healthy weight, not smoking, maintaining a healthy blood pressure, controlling cholesterol, and having low blood sugar – “was associated with a 6% reduced risk of dementia,” Dr. Budson continued. “So, women who work to address all seven risk factors can reduce their risk of developing dementia by 42%: a huge amount. Moreover, although this study only looked at women, I am confident that if men follow this same advice they will also be able to reduce their risk of dementia, although we don’t know if the size of the effect will be the same.”

Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Budson has reported receiving past compensation as a speaker for Eli Lilly.

Women with better indicators of cardiovascular health at midlife saw reduced risk of later dementia, according to results of a study that was released early, ahead of its scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Epidemiologist Pamela M. Rist, ScD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues, used data from 13,720 women whose mean age was 54 when they enrolled in the Harvard-based Women’s Health Study between 1992 and 1995. Subjects in that study were followed up in 2004.

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Putting ‘Life’s Simple 7’ to the test

Dr. Rist and colleagues used the Harvard data to discern how well closely women conformed, during the initial study period and at 10-year follow up, to what the American Heart Association describes as “Life’s Simple 7,” a list of behavioral and biometric measures that indicate and predict cardiovascular health. The measures include four modifiable behaviors – not smoking, healthy weight, a healthy diet, and being physically active – along with three biometric measures of blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar (AHA has since added a sleep component).

Researchers assigned women one point for each desirable habit or measure on the list, with subjects’ average Simple 7 score at baseline 4.3, and 4.2 at 10 years’ follow-up.

The investigators then looked at Medicare data for the study subjects from 2011 to 2018 – approximately 20 years after their enrollment in the Women’s Health Study – seeking dementia diagnoses. Some 13% of the study cohort (n = 1,771) had gone on to develop dementia.

Each point on the Simple 7 score at baseline corresponded with a 6% reduction in later dementia risk, Dr. Rist and her colleagues found after adjusting for variables including age and education (odds ratio per one unit change in score, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98). This effect was similar for Simple 7 scores measured at 10 years of follow-up (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

“It can be empowering for people to know that by taking steps such as exercising for a half an hour a day or keeping their blood pressure under control, they can reduce their risk of dementia,” Dr. Rist said in a statement on the findings.
 

‘A simple take-home message’

Reached for comment, Andrew E. Budson, MD, chief of cognitive-behavioral neurology at the VA Boston Healthcare System, praised Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study as one that “builds on existing knowledge to provide a simple take-home message that empowers women to take control of their dementia risk.”

VA Boston Healthcare System

Each of the seven known risk factors – being active, eating better, maintaining a healthy weight, not smoking, maintaining a healthy blood pressure, controlling cholesterol, and having low blood sugar – “was associated with a 6% reduced risk of dementia,” Dr. Budson continued. “So, women who work to address all seven risk factors can reduce their risk of developing dementia by 42%: a huge amount. Moreover, although this study only looked at women, I am confident that if men follow this same advice they will also be able to reduce their risk of dementia, although we don’t know if the size of the effect will be the same.”

Dr. Rist and colleagues’ study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. None of the study authors reported conflicts of interest. Dr. Budson has reported receiving past compensation as a speaker for Eli Lilly.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an incurable neurodegenerative disorder that results in progressive deterioration of motor neurons in the ventral horn of the spinal cord, which results in loss of voluntary muscle movements.¹ Eventually, typical daily tasks become difficult to perform, and as the disease progresses, the ability to eat and breathe is impaired.² Reports from 2015 show the annual incidence of ALS is 5 cases per 100,000 people, with the total number of cases reported at more than 16,000 in the United States.³ In clinical practice, disease progression is routinely assessed by the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R). Typical decline is 1 point per month.⁴

Unfortunately, at this time, ALS care focuses on symptom management, including prevention of weight loss; implementation of communication strategies; and management of pain, constipation, excess secretions, cramping, and breathing. Despite copious research into treatment options, few exist. Riluzole is an oral medication administered twice daily and has been on the market since 1995.^5-7 Efficacy was demonstrated in a study showing statistically significant survival at 12 months compared with controls (74% vs 58%, respectively; P = .014).⁶ Since its approval, riluzole has become part of standard-of-care ALS management.

In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved edaravone, an IV medication that was found to slow the progression of ALS in some patients.^8-12 Oxidative stress caused by free radicals is hypothesized to increase the progression of ALS by motor neuron degradation.¹³ Edaravone works as a free radical and peroxynitrite scavenger and has been shown to eliminate lipid peroxides and hydroxyl radicals known to damage endothelial and neuronal cells.¹²

Given the mechanism of action of edaravone, it seemed to be a promising option to slow the progression of ALS. A 2019 systematic review analyzed 3 randomized studies with 367 patients and found a statistically significant difference in change in ALSFRS-R scores between patients treated with edaravone for 24 weeks compared with patients treated with the placebo (mean difference, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.26-3.00; P = .02).¹² Secondary endpoints evaluated included percent forced vital capacity (%FVC), grip strength, and pinch strength: All showing no significant difference when comparing IV edaravone with placebo.

A 2022 postmarketing study of 324 patients with ALS evaluated the safety and efficacy of long-term edaravone treatment. IV edaravone therapy for > 24 weeks was well tolerated, although it was not associated with any disease-modifying benefit when comparing ALSFRS-R scores with patients not receiving edaravone over a median 13.9 months (ALSFRS-R points/month, -0.91 vs -0.85; P = .37).¹³ A third ALS treatment medication, sodium phenylbutyrate/taurursodiol was approved in 2022 but not available during our study period and not included here.^14,15

Studies have shown an increased incidence of ALS in the veteran population. Veterans serving in the Gulf War were nearly twice as likely to develop ALS as those not serving in the Gulf.¹⁶ However, existing literature regarding the effectiveness of edaravone does not specifically examine the effect on this unique population. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of IV edaravone on ALS progression in veterans compared with veterans who received standard of care.

Methods

This study was conducted at a large, academic US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Patients with ALS are followed by a multidisciplinary clinic composed of a neurologist, pulmonologist, clinical pharmacist, social worker, speech therapist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, dietician, clinical psychologist, wheelchair clinic representative, and benefits representative. Patients are typically seen for a half-day appointment about every 3 months. During these visits, a comprehensive review of disease progression is performed. This review entails completion of the ALSFRS-R, physical examination, and pulmonary function testing. Speech intelligibility stage (SIS) is assessed by a speech therapist as well. SIS is scored from 1 (no detectable speech disorder) to 5 (no functional speech). All patients followed in this multidisciplinary ALS clinic receive standard-of-care treatment. This includes the discussion of treatment options that if appropriate are provided to help manage a wide range of complications associated with this disease (eg, pain, cramping, constipation, excessive secretions, weight loss, dysphagia). As a part of these personal discussions, treatment with riluzole is also offered as a standard-of-care pharmacologic option.

Study Design

This retrospective case-control study was conducted using electronic health record data to compare ALS progression in patients on IV edaravone therapy with standard of care. The Indiana University/Purdue University, Indianapolis Institutional Review Board and the VA Research and Development Committee approved the study. The control cohort received the standard of care. Patients in the case cohort received standard of care and edaravone 60 mg infusions daily for an initial cycle of 14 days on treatment, followed by 14 days off. All subsequent cycles were 10 of 14 days on treatment followed by 14 days off. The initial 2 doses were administered in the outpatient infusion clinic to monitor for a hypersensitivity reaction. Patients then had a peripherally inserted central catheter line placed and received doses on days 3 through 14 at home. A port was placed for subsequent cycles, which were also completed at home. Appropriateness of edaravone therapy was assessed by the neurologist at each follow-up appointment. Therapy was then discontinued if warranted based on disease progression or patient preference.

Study Population

Patients included were aged 18 to 75 years with diagnosed ALS. Patients with complications that might influence evaluation of medication efficacy (eg, Parkinson disease, schizophrenia, significant dementia, other major medical morbidity) were excluded. Patients were also excluded if they were on continuous bilevel positive airway pressure and/or had a total score of ≤ 3 points on ALSFRS-R items for dyspnea, orthopnea, or respiratory insufficiency. Due to our small sample size, patients were excluded if treatment was < 6 months, which is the gold standard of therapy duration established by clinical trials.^9,11,12

The standard-of-care cohort included patients enrolled in the multidisciplinary clinic September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2017. These patients were compared in a 2:1 ratio with patients who received IV edaravone. The edaravone cohort included patients who initiated treatment with IV edaravone between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020. This date range prior to the approval of edaravone was chosen to compare patients at similar stages of disease progression and to have the largest sample size possible.

Data Collection

Data were obtained for eligible patients using the VA Computerized Patient Record System. Demographic data gathered for each patient included age, sex, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), race, and riluzole use.

The primary endpoint was the change in ALSFRS-R score after 6 months of IV edaravone compared with standard-of-care ALS management. Secondary outcomes included change in ALSFRS-R scores 3, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, change in %FVC and SIS 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, duration of edaravone completed (months), time to death (months), and adverse events.

Statistical Analysis

Comparisons between the edaravone and control groups for differences in patient characteristics were made using χ² and 2-sample t tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Comparisons between the 2 groups for differences in study outcomes (ALSFRS-R scores, %FVC, SIS) at each time point were evaluated using 2-sample t tests. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions were compared between groups using χ² tests. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.

We estimated that a sample size of 21 subjects in the edaravone (case) group and 42 in the standard-of-care (control) group would be needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the 2 groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. This 80% power was calculated based on a 2-sample t test, and assuming a 2-sided 5% significance level and a within-group SD of 8.5.⁹ Statistical analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel.

Results

Of the 96 patients, 10 met exclusion criteria. From the remaining 86, 42 were randomly selected for the standard-of-care group. A total of 27 patients seen in multidisciplinary ALS clinic between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020, received at least 1 dose of IV edaravone. Of the 27 edaravone patients, 6 were excluded for not completing a total of 6 months of edaravone. Two of the 6 excluded developed a rash, which resolved within 1 week after discontinuing edaravone. The other 4 discontinued edaravone before 6 months because of disease progression.

Baseline Characteristics

Efficacy

Discussion

This 24-month, case-control retrospective study assessed efficacy and safety of IV edaravone for the management of ALS. Although the landmark edaravone study showed slowed progression of ALS at 6 and 12 months, the effectiveness of edaravone outside the clinical trial setting has been less compelling.^9-11,13 A later study showed no difference in change in ALSFRS-R score at 6 months compared with that of the placebo group.⁷ In our study, no statistically significant difference was found for change in ALSFRS-R scores at 6 months.

Our study was unique given we evaluated a veteran population. The link between the military and ALS is largely unknown, although studies have shown increased incidence of ALS in people with a military history compared with that of the general population.^16-18 Our study was also unique because it was single-centered in design and allowed for outcome assessments, including ALSFRS-R scores, SIS, and %FVC measurements, to all be conducted by the same practitioner to limit variability. Unfortunately, our sample size resulted in a cohort that was underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. In addition, there was a lack of data on chart review for SIS and %FVC measurements at 24 months. As ALS progresses toward end stage, SIS and %FVC measurements can become difficult and burdensome on the patient to obtain, and the ALS multidisciplinary team may decide not to gather these data points as ALS progresses. As a result, change in SIS and %FVC measurements were unable to be reported due to lack of gathering this information at the 24-month mark in the edaravone group. Due to the cost and administration burden associated with edaravone, it is important that assessment of disease progression is performed regularly to assess benefit and appropriateness of continued therapy. The oral formulation of edaravone was approved in 2022, shortly after the completion of data collection for this study.^19,20 Although our study did not analyze oral edaravone, the administration burden of treatment would be reduced with the oral formulation, and we hypothesize there will be increased patient interest in ALS management with oral vs IV edaravone. Evaluation of long-term treatment for efficacy and safety beyond 24 months has not been evaluated. Future studies should continue to evaluate edaravone use in a larger veteran population.

Limitations

One limitation for our study alluded to earlier in the discussion was sample size. Although this study met power at the 6-month mark, it was limited by the number of patients who received more than 6 months of edaravone (n = 21). As a result, statistical analyses between treatment groups were underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. Our study had 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. Previous studies detected a statistically significant difference in ALSFRS-R scores, with a difference in ALSFRS-R scores of 2.49 between groups.⁸ Future studies should evaluate a larger sample size of patients who are prescribed edaravone.

Another limitation was that the edaravone and standard-of-care group data were gathered from different time periods. Two different time frames were selected to increase sample size by gathering data over a longer period and to account for patients who may have qualified for IV edaravone but could not receive it as it was not yet available on the market. There were no known changes to the standard of care between the time periods that would affect results. As noted previously, the standard-of-care group had fewer patients taking riluzole compared with the edaravone group, which may have confounded our results. We concluded patients opting for edaravone were more likely to trial riluzole, taken by mouth twice daily, before starting edaravone, a once-daily IV infusion.

Conclusions

No difference in the rate of ALS progression was noted between patients who received IV edaravone vs standard of care at 6 months. In addition, no difference was noted in other objective measures of disease progression, including %FVC, SIS, and time to death. As a result, the decision to initiate and continue edaravone therapy should be made on an individualized basis according to a prescriber’s clinical judgment and a patient’s goals. Edaravone therapy should be discontinued when disease progression occurs or when medication administration becomes a burden.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at Veteran Health Indiana.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an incurable neurodegenerative disorder that results in progressive deterioration of motor neurons in the ventral horn of the spinal cord, which results in loss of voluntary muscle movements.¹ Eventually, typical daily tasks become difficult to perform, and as the disease progresses, the ability to eat and breathe is impaired.² Reports from 2015 show the annual incidence of ALS is 5 cases per 100,000 people, with the total number of cases reported at more than 16,000 in the United States.³ In clinical practice, disease progression is routinely assessed by the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R). Typical decline is 1 point per month.⁴

Unfortunately, at this time, ALS care focuses on symptom management, including prevention of weight loss; implementation of communication strategies; and management of pain, constipation, excess secretions, cramping, and breathing. Despite copious research into treatment options, few exist. Riluzole is an oral medication administered twice daily and has been on the market since 1995.^5-7 Efficacy was demonstrated in a study showing statistically significant survival at 12 months compared with controls (74% vs 58%, respectively; P = .014).⁶ Since its approval, riluzole has become part of standard-of-care ALS management.

In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved edaravone, an IV medication that was found to slow the progression of ALS in some patients.^8-12 Oxidative stress caused by free radicals is hypothesized to increase the progression of ALS by motor neuron degradation.¹³ Edaravone works as a free radical and peroxynitrite scavenger and has been shown to eliminate lipid peroxides and hydroxyl radicals known to damage endothelial and neuronal cells.¹²

Given the mechanism of action of edaravone, it seemed to be a promising option to slow the progression of ALS. A 2019 systematic review analyzed 3 randomized studies with 367 patients and found a statistically significant difference in change in ALSFRS-R scores between patients treated with edaravone for 24 weeks compared with patients treated with the placebo (mean difference, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.26-3.00; P = .02).¹² Secondary endpoints evaluated included percent forced vital capacity (%FVC), grip strength, and pinch strength: All showing no significant difference when comparing IV edaravone with placebo.

A 2022 postmarketing study of 324 patients with ALS evaluated the safety and efficacy of long-term edaravone treatment. IV edaravone therapy for > 24 weeks was well tolerated, although it was not associated with any disease-modifying benefit when comparing ALSFRS-R scores with patients not receiving edaravone over a median 13.9 months (ALSFRS-R points/month, -0.91 vs -0.85; P = .37).¹³ A third ALS treatment medication, sodium phenylbutyrate/taurursodiol was approved in 2022 but not available during our study period and not included here.^14,15

Studies have shown an increased incidence of ALS in the veteran population. Veterans serving in the Gulf War were nearly twice as likely to develop ALS as those not serving in the Gulf.¹⁶ However, existing literature regarding the effectiveness of edaravone does not specifically examine the effect on this unique population. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of IV edaravone on ALS progression in veterans compared with veterans who received standard of care.

Methods

This study was conducted at a large, academic US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Patients with ALS are followed by a multidisciplinary clinic composed of a neurologist, pulmonologist, clinical pharmacist, social worker, speech therapist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, dietician, clinical psychologist, wheelchair clinic representative, and benefits representative. Patients are typically seen for a half-day appointment about every 3 months. During these visits, a comprehensive review of disease progression is performed. This review entails completion of the ALSFRS-R, physical examination, and pulmonary function testing. Speech intelligibility stage (SIS) is assessed by a speech therapist as well. SIS is scored from 1 (no detectable speech disorder) to 5 (no functional speech). All patients followed in this multidisciplinary ALS clinic receive standard-of-care treatment. This includes the discussion of treatment options that if appropriate are provided to help manage a wide range of complications associated with this disease (eg, pain, cramping, constipation, excessive secretions, weight loss, dysphagia). As a part of these personal discussions, treatment with riluzole is also offered as a standard-of-care pharmacologic option.

Study Design

This retrospective case-control study was conducted using electronic health record data to compare ALS progression in patients on IV edaravone therapy with standard of care. The Indiana University/Purdue University, Indianapolis Institutional Review Board and the VA Research and Development Committee approved the study. The control cohort received the standard of care. Patients in the case cohort received standard of care and edaravone 60 mg infusions daily for an initial cycle of 14 days on treatment, followed by 14 days off. All subsequent cycles were 10 of 14 days on treatment followed by 14 days off. The initial 2 doses were administered in the outpatient infusion clinic to monitor for a hypersensitivity reaction. Patients then had a peripherally inserted central catheter line placed and received doses on days 3 through 14 at home. A port was placed for subsequent cycles, which were also completed at home. Appropriateness of edaravone therapy was assessed by the neurologist at each follow-up appointment. Therapy was then discontinued if warranted based on disease progression or patient preference.

Study Population

Patients included were aged 18 to 75 years with diagnosed ALS. Patients with complications that might influence evaluation of medication efficacy (eg, Parkinson disease, schizophrenia, significant dementia, other major medical morbidity) were excluded. Patients were also excluded if they were on continuous bilevel positive airway pressure and/or had a total score of ≤ 3 points on ALSFRS-R items for dyspnea, orthopnea, or respiratory insufficiency. Due to our small sample size, patients were excluded if treatment was < 6 months, which is the gold standard of therapy duration established by clinical trials.^9,11,12

The standard-of-care cohort included patients enrolled in the multidisciplinary clinic September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2017. These patients were compared in a 2:1 ratio with patients who received IV edaravone. The edaravone cohort included patients who initiated treatment with IV edaravone between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020. This date range prior to the approval of edaravone was chosen to compare patients at similar stages of disease progression and to have the largest sample size possible.

Data Collection

Data were obtained for eligible patients using the VA Computerized Patient Record System. Demographic data gathered for each patient included age, sex, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), race, and riluzole use.

The primary endpoint was the change in ALSFRS-R score after 6 months of IV edaravone compared with standard-of-care ALS management. Secondary outcomes included change in ALSFRS-R scores 3, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, change in %FVC and SIS 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, duration of edaravone completed (months), time to death (months), and adverse events.

Statistical Analysis

Comparisons between the edaravone and control groups for differences in patient characteristics were made using χ² and 2-sample t tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Comparisons between the 2 groups for differences in study outcomes (ALSFRS-R scores, %FVC, SIS) at each time point were evaluated using 2-sample t tests. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions were compared between groups using χ² tests. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.

We estimated that a sample size of 21 subjects in the edaravone (case) group and 42 in the standard-of-care (control) group would be needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the 2 groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. This 80% power was calculated based on a 2-sample t test, and assuming a 2-sided 5% significance level and a within-group SD of 8.5.⁹ Statistical analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel.

Results

Of the 96 patients, 10 met exclusion criteria. From the remaining 86, 42 were randomly selected for the standard-of-care group. A total of 27 patients seen in multidisciplinary ALS clinic between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020, received at least 1 dose of IV edaravone. Of the 27 edaravone patients, 6 were excluded for not completing a total of 6 months of edaravone. Two of the 6 excluded developed a rash, which resolved within 1 week after discontinuing edaravone. The other 4 discontinued edaravone before 6 months because of disease progression.

Baseline Characteristics

Efficacy

Discussion

This 24-month, case-control retrospective study assessed efficacy and safety of IV edaravone for the management of ALS. Although the landmark edaravone study showed slowed progression of ALS at 6 and 12 months, the effectiveness of edaravone outside the clinical trial setting has been less compelling.^9-11,13 A later study showed no difference in change in ALSFRS-R score at 6 months compared with that of the placebo group.⁷ In our study, no statistically significant difference was found for change in ALSFRS-R scores at 6 months.

Our study was unique given we evaluated a veteran population. The link between the military and ALS is largely unknown, although studies have shown increased incidence of ALS in people with a military history compared with that of the general population.^16-18 Our study was also unique because it was single-centered in design and allowed for outcome assessments, including ALSFRS-R scores, SIS, and %FVC measurements, to all be conducted by the same practitioner to limit variability. Unfortunately, our sample size resulted in a cohort that was underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. In addition, there was a lack of data on chart review for SIS and %FVC measurements at 24 months. As ALS progresses toward end stage, SIS and %FVC measurements can become difficult and burdensome on the patient to obtain, and the ALS multidisciplinary team may decide not to gather these data points as ALS progresses. As a result, change in SIS and %FVC measurements were unable to be reported due to lack of gathering this information at the 24-month mark in the edaravone group. Due to the cost and administration burden associated with edaravone, it is important that assessment of disease progression is performed regularly to assess benefit and appropriateness of continued therapy. The oral formulation of edaravone was approved in 2022, shortly after the completion of data collection for this study.^19,20 Although our study did not analyze oral edaravone, the administration burden of treatment would be reduced with the oral formulation, and we hypothesize there will be increased patient interest in ALS management with oral vs IV edaravone. Evaluation of long-term treatment for efficacy and safety beyond 24 months has not been evaluated. Future studies should continue to evaluate edaravone use in a larger veteran population.

Limitations

One limitation for our study alluded to earlier in the discussion was sample size. Although this study met power at the 6-month mark, it was limited by the number of patients who received more than 6 months of edaravone (n = 21). As a result, statistical analyses between treatment groups were underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. Our study had 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. Previous studies detected a statistically significant difference in ALSFRS-R scores, with a difference in ALSFRS-R scores of 2.49 between groups.⁸ Future studies should evaluate a larger sample size of patients who are prescribed edaravone.

Another limitation was that the edaravone and standard-of-care group data were gathered from different time periods. Two different time frames were selected to increase sample size by gathering data over a longer period and to account for patients who may have qualified for IV edaravone but could not receive it as it was not yet available on the market. There were no known changes to the standard of care between the time periods that would affect results. As noted previously, the standard-of-care group had fewer patients taking riluzole compared with the edaravone group, which may have confounded our results. We concluded patients opting for edaravone were more likely to trial riluzole, taken by mouth twice daily, before starting edaravone, a once-daily IV infusion.

Conclusions

No difference in the rate of ALS progression was noted between patients who received IV edaravone vs standard of care at 6 months. In addition, no difference was noted in other objective measures of disease progression, including %FVC, SIS, and time to death. As a result, the decision to initiate and continue edaravone therapy should be made on an individualized basis according to a prescriber’s clinical judgment and a patient’s goals. Edaravone therapy should be discontinued when disease progression occurs or when medication administration becomes a burden.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at Veteran Health Indiana.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an incurable neurodegenerative disorder that results in progressive deterioration of motor neurons in the ventral horn of the spinal cord, which results in loss of voluntary muscle movements.¹ Eventually, typical daily tasks become difficult to perform, and as the disease progresses, the ability to eat and breathe is impaired.² Reports from 2015 show the annual incidence of ALS is 5 cases per 100,000 people, with the total number of cases reported at more than 16,000 in the United States.³ In clinical practice, disease progression is routinely assessed by the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R). Typical decline is 1 point per month.⁴

Unfortunately, at this time, ALS care focuses on symptom management, including prevention of weight loss; implementation of communication strategies; and management of pain, constipation, excess secretions, cramping, and breathing. Despite copious research into treatment options, few exist. Riluzole is an oral medication administered twice daily and has been on the market since 1995.^5-7 Efficacy was demonstrated in a study showing statistically significant survival at 12 months compared with controls (74% vs 58%, respectively; P = .014).⁶ Since its approval, riluzole has become part of standard-of-care ALS management.

In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved edaravone, an IV medication that was found to slow the progression of ALS in some patients.^8-12 Oxidative stress caused by free radicals is hypothesized to increase the progression of ALS by motor neuron degradation.¹³ Edaravone works as a free radical and peroxynitrite scavenger and has been shown to eliminate lipid peroxides and hydroxyl radicals known to damage endothelial and neuronal cells.¹²

Given the mechanism of action of edaravone, it seemed to be a promising option to slow the progression of ALS. A 2019 systematic review analyzed 3 randomized studies with 367 patients and found a statistically significant difference in change in ALSFRS-R scores between patients treated with edaravone for 24 weeks compared with patients treated with the placebo (mean difference, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.26-3.00; P = .02).¹² Secondary endpoints evaluated included percent forced vital capacity (%FVC), grip strength, and pinch strength: All showing no significant difference when comparing IV edaravone with placebo.

A 2022 postmarketing study of 324 patients with ALS evaluated the safety and efficacy of long-term edaravone treatment. IV edaravone therapy for > 24 weeks was well tolerated, although it was not associated with any disease-modifying benefit when comparing ALSFRS-R scores with patients not receiving edaravone over a median 13.9 months (ALSFRS-R points/month, -0.91 vs -0.85; P = .37).¹³ A third ALS treatment medication, sodium phenylbutyrate/taurursodiol was approved in 2022 but not available during our study period and not included here.^14,15

Studies have shown an increased incidence of ALS in the veteran population. Veterans serving in the Gulf War were nearly twice as likely to develop ALS as those not serving in the Gulf.¹⁶ However, existing literature regarding the effectiveness of edaravone does not specifically examine the effect on this unique population. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of IV edaravone on ALS progression in veterans compared with veterans who received standard of care.

Methods

This study was conducted at a large, academic US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Patients with ALS are followed by a multidisciplinary clinic composed of a neurologist, pulmonologist, clinical pharmacist, social worker, speech therapist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, dietician, clinical psychologist, wheelchair clinic representative, and benefits representative. Patients are typically seen for a half-day appointment about every 3 months. During these visits, a comprehensive review of disease progression is performed. This review entails completion of the ALSFRS-R, physical examination, and pulmonary function testing. Speech intelligibility stage (SIS) is assessed by a speech therapist as well. SIS is scored from 1 (no detectable speech disorder) to 5 (no functional speech). All patients followed in this multidisciplinary ALS clinic receive standard-of-care treatment. This includes the discussion of treatment options that if appropriate are provided to help manage a wide range of complications associated with this disease (eg, pain, cramping, constipation, excessive secretions, weight loss, dysphagia). As a part of these personal discussions, treatment with riluzole is also offered as a standard-of-care pharmacologic option.

Study Design

This retrospective case-control study was conducted using electronic health record data to compare ALS progression in patients on IV edaravone therapy with standard of care. The Indiana University/Purdue University, Indianapolis Institutional Review Board and the VA Research and Development Committee approved the study. The control cohort received the standard of care. Patients in the case cohort received standard of care and edaravone 60 mg infusions daily for an initial cycle of 14 days on treatment, followed by 14 days off. All subsequent cycles were 10 of 14 days on treatment followed by 14 days off. The initial 2 doses were administered in the outpatient infusion clinic to monitor for a hypersensitivity reaction. Patients then had a peripherally inserted central catheter line placed and received doses on days 3 through 14 at home. A port was placed for subsequent cycles, which were also completed at home. Appropriateness of edaravone therapy was assessed by the neurologist at each follow-up appointment. Therapy was then discontinued if warranted based on disease progression or patient preference.

Study Population

Patients included were aged 18 to 75 years with diagnosed ALS. Patients with complications that might influence evaluation of medication efficacy (eg, Parkinson disease, schizophrenia, significant dementia, other major medical morbidity) were excluded. Patients were also excluded if they were on continuous bilevel positive airway pressure and/or had a total score of ≤ 3 points on ALSFRS-R items for dyspnea, orthopnea, or respiratory insufficiency. Due to our small sample size, patients were excluded if treatment was < 6 months, which is the gold standard of therapy duration established by clinical trials.^9,11,12

The standard-of-care cohort included patients enrolled in the multidisciplinary clinic September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2017. These patients were compared in a 2:1 ratio with patients who received IV edaravone. The edaravone cohort included patients who initiated treatment with IV edaravone between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020. This date range prior to the approval of edaravone was chosen to compare patients at similar stages of disease progression and to have the largest sample size possible.

Data Collection

Data were obtained for eligible patients using the VA Computerized Patient Record System. Demographic data gathered for each patient included age, sex, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), race, and riluzole use.

The primary endpoint was the change in ALSFRS-R score after 6 months of IV edaravone compared with standard-of-care ALS management. Secondary outcomes included change in ALSFRS-R scores 3, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, change in %FVC and SIS 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after therapy initiation, duration of edaravone completed (months), time to death (months), and adverse events.

Statistical Analysis

Comparisons between the edaravone and control groups for differences in patient characteristics were made using χ² and 2-sample t tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Comparisons between the 2 groups for differences in study outcomes (ALSFRS-R scores, %FVC, SIS) at each time point were evaluated using 2-sample t tests. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions were compared between groups using χ² tests. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.

We estimated that a sample size of 21 subjects in the edaravone (case) group and 42 in the standard-of-care (control) group would be needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the 2 groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. This 80% power was calculated based on a 2-sample t test, and assuming a 2-sided 5% significance level and a within-group SD of 8.5.⁹ Statistical analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel.

Results

Of the 96 patients, 10 met exclusion criteria. From the remaining 86, 42 were randomly selected for the standard-of-care group. A total of 27 patients seen in multidisciplinary ALS clinic between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020, received at least 1 dose of IV edaravone. Of the 27 edaravone patients, 6 were excluded for not completing a total of 6 months of edaravone. Two of the 6 excluded developed a rash, which resolved within 1 week after discontinuing edaravone. The other 4 discontinued edaravone before 6 months because of disease progression.

Baseline Characteristics

Efficacy

Discussion

This 24-month, case-control retrospective study assessed efficacy and safety of IV edaravone for the management of ALS. Although the landmark edaravone study showed slowed progression of ALS at 6 and 12 months, the effectiveness of edaravone outside the clinical trial setting has been less compelling.^9-11,13 A later study showed no difference in change in ALSFRS-R score at 6 months compared with that of the placebo group.⁷ In our study, no statistically significant difference was found for change in ALSFRS-R scores at 6 months.

Our study was unique given we evaluated a veteran population. The link between the military and ALS is largely unknown, although studies have shown increased incidence of ALS in people with a military history compared with that of the general population.^16-18 Our study was also unique because it was single-centered in design and allowed for outcome assessments, including ALSFRS-R scores, SIS, and %FVC measurements, to all be conducted by the same practitioner to limit variability. Unfortunately, our sample size resulted in a cohort that was underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. In addition, there was a lack of data on chart review for SIS and %FVC measurements at 24 months. As ALS progresses toward end stage, SIS and %FVC measurements can become difficult and burdensome on the patient to obtain, and the ALS multidisciplinary team may decide not to gather these data points as ALS progresses. As a result, change in SIS and %FVC measurements were unable to be reported due to lack of gathering this information at the 24-month mark in the edaravone group. Due to the cost and administration burden associated with edaravone, it is important that assessment of disease progression is performed regularly to assess benefit and appropriateness of continued therapy. The oral formulation of edaravone was approved in 2022, shortly after the completion of data collection for this study.^19,20 Although our study did not analyze oral edaravone, the administration burden of treatment would be reduced with the oral formulation, and we hypothesize there will be increased patient interest in ALS management with oral vs IV edaravone. Evaluation of long-term treatment for efficacy and safety beyond 24 months has not been evaluated. Future studies should continue to evaluate edaravone use in a larger veteran population.

Limitations

One limitation for our study alluded to earlier in the discussion was sample size. Although this study met power at the 6-month mark, it was limited by the number of patients who received more than 6 months of edaravone (n = 21). As a result, statistical analyses between treatment groups were underpowered at 12, 18, and 24 months. Our study had 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. Previous studies detected a statistically significant difference in ALSFRS-R scores, with a difference in ALSFRS-R scores of 2.49 between groups.⁸ Future studies should evaluate a larger sample size of patients who are prescribed edaravone.

Another limitation was that the edaravone and standard-of-care group data were gathered from different time periods. Two different time frames were selected to increase sample size by gathering data over a longer period and to account for patients who may have qualified for IV edaravone but could not receive it as it was not yet available on the market. There were no known changes to the standard of care between the time periods that would affect results. As noted previously, the standard-of-care group had fewer patients taking riluzole compared with the edaravone group, which may have confounded our results. We concluded patients opting for edaravone were more likely to trial riluzole, taken by mouth twice daily, before starting edaravone, a once-daily IV infusion.

Conclusions

No difference in the rate of ALS progression was noted between patients who received IV edaravone vs standard of care at 6 months. In addition, no difference was noted in other objective measures of disease progression, including %FVC, SIS, and time to death. As a result, the decision to initiate and continue edaravone therapy should be made on an individualized basis according to a prescriber’s clinical judgment and a patient’s goals. Edaravone therapy should be discontinued when disease progression occurs or when medication administration becomes a burden.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at Veteran Health Indiana.

Horner syndrome is a rare condition that has no sex or race predilection and is characterized by the clinical triad of a miosis, anhidrosis, and small, unilateral ptosis. The prompt diagnosis and determination of the etiology of Horner syndrome are of utmost importance, as the condition can result from many life-threatening systemic complications. Horner syndrome is often asymptomatic but can have distinct, easily identified characteristics seen with an ophthalmic examination. This report describes a patient who presented with Horner syndrome resulting from an internal carotid artery dissection.

Case Presentation

A 61-year-old woman presented with periorbital pain with onset 3 days prior. The patient described the pain as 7 of 10 that had been worsening and was localized around and behind the right eye. She reported new-onset headaches on the right side over the past week with associated intermittent vision blurriness in the right eye. She had a history of mobility issues and had fallen backward about 1 week before, hitting the back of her head on the floor without direct trauma to the eye. She was symptomatic for light sensitivity, syncope, and dizziness, with reports of a recent history of transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) of unknown etiology, which had occurred in the months preceding her examination. She reported no jaw claudication, scalp tenderness, and neck or shoulder pain. She was unaware of any changes in her perspiration pattern on the right side of her face but mentioned that she had noticed her right upper eyelid drooping while looking in the mirror.

This patient had a routine eye examination 2 months before, which was remarkable for stable, nonfoveal involving adult-onset vitelliform dystrophy in the left eye and nuclear sclerotic cataracts and mild refractive error in both eyes. No iris heterochromia was noted, and her pupils were equal, round, and reactive to light. Her history was remarkable for chest pain, obesity, bipolar disorder, vertigo, transient cerebral ischemia, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, alcohol use disorder, cocaine use disorder, and asthma. A carotid ultrasound had been performed 1 month before the onset of symptoms due to her history of TIAs, which showed no hemodynamically significant stenosis (> 50% stenosis) of either carotid artery. Her medications included oxybutynin chloride, amlodipine, acetaminophen, sertraline hydrochloride, lidocaine, albuterol, risperidone, hydroxyzine hydrochloride, lisinopril, omeprazole, once-daily baby aspirin, atorvastatin, and calcium.

At the time of presentation, an ophthalmic examination revealed no decrease in visual acuity with a best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20 in the right and left eyes. The patient’s pupil sizes were unequal, with a smaller, more miotic right pupil with a greater difference between the pupil sizes in dim illumination (Figure 1).

CTA revealed a focal linear filling defect in the right midinternal carotid artery, likely related to an internal carotid artery vascular flap. There was no evidence of proximal intracranial occlusive disease. MRI revealed a linear area of high-intensity signal projecting over the mid and distal right internal carotid artery lumen (Figure 2A).

Discussion

Anisocoria is defined as a difference in pupil sizes between the eyes.¹ This difference can be physiologic with no underlying pathology as an etiology of the condition. If underlying pathology causes anisocoria, it can result in dysfunction with mydriasis, leading to a more miotic pupil, or it can result from issues with miosis, leading to a more mydriatic pupil.¹

To determine whether anisocoria is physiologic or pathologic, one must assess the patient’s pupil sizes in dim and bright illumination. If the difference in the pupil size is the same in both room illuminations (ie, the anisocoria is 2 mm in both bright and dim illumination, pupillary constriction and dilation are functioning normally), then the patient has physiologic anisocoria.¹ If anisocoria is different in bright and dim illumination (ie, the anisocoria is 1 mm in bright and 3 mm in dim settings or 3 mm in bright and 1 mm in dim settings), the condition is related to pathology. To determine the underlying pathology of anisocoria in cases that are not physiologic, it is important to first determine whether the anisocoria is related to miotic or mydriatic dysfunction.¹

If the anisocoria is greater in dim illumination, this suggests mydriatic dysfunction and could be a result of damage to the sympathetic pupillary pathway.¹ The smaller or more miotic pupil in this instance is the pathologic pupil. If the anisocoria is greater in bright illumination, this suggests miotic dysfunction and could be a result of damage to the parasympathetic pathway.¹ The larger or more mydriatic pupil in this instance is the pathologic pupil. Congenital abnormalities, such as iris colobomas, aniridia, and ectopic pupils, can result in a wide range of pupil sizes and shapes, including miotic or mydriatic pupils.¹

Pathologic Mydriasis

Pathologic mydriatic pupils can result from dysfunction in the parasympathetic nervous system, which results in a pupil that is not sufficiently able to dilate with the removal of a light stimulus. Mydriatic pupils can be related to Adie tonic pupil, Argyll-Robertson pupil, third nerve palsy, trauma, surgeries, or pharmacologic mydriasis.² The conditions that cause mydriasis can be readily differentiated from one another based on clinical examination.

Adie tonic pupil results from damage to the ciliary ganglion.² While pupillary constriction in response to light will be absent or sluggish in an Adie pupil, the patient will have an intact but sluggish accommodative pupillary response; therefore, the pupil will still constrict with accommodation and convergence to focus on near objects, although slowly. This is known as light-near dissociation.²

Argyll-Robertson pupils are caused by damage to the Edinger-Westphal nucleus in the rostral midbrain.³ Lesions to this area of the brain are typically associated with neurosyphilis but also can be a result of Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, encephalitis, neurosarcoidosis, herpes zoster, diabetes mellitus, and chronic alcohol misuse.³ Argyll Robertson pupils can appear very similar to a tonic pupil in that this condition will also have a dilated pupil and light-near dissociation.³ These pupils will differ in that they also tend to have an irregular shape (dyscoria), and the pupils will constrict briskly when focusing on near objects and dilate briskly when focusing on distant objects, not sluggishly, as in Adie tonic pupil.³

Mydriasis due to a third nerve palsy will present with ptosis and extraocular muscle dysfunction (including deficits to the superior rectus, medial rectus, inferior oblique, and inferior rectus), with the classic presentation of a completed palsy with the eye positioned “down and out” or the patient’s inability to look medially and superiorly with the affected eye.²

As in cases of pathologic mydriasis, a thorough and in-depth history can help determine traumatic, surgical and pharmacologic etiologies of a mydriatic pupil. It should be determined whether the patient has had any previous trauma or surgeries to the eye or has been in contact with any of the following: acetylcholine receptor antagonists (atropine, scopolamine, homatropine, cyclopentolate, and tropicamide), motion sickness patches (scopolamine), nasal vasoconstrictors, glycopyrrolate deodorants, and/or various plants (Jimson weed or plants belonging to the digitalis family, such as foxglove).²

Pathologic Miosis

Pathologic miotic pupils can result from dysfunction in the sympathetic nervous system and can be related to blunt or penetrating trauma to the orbit, Horner syndrome, and pharmacologic miosis.² Horner syndrome will be accompanied by a slight ptosis and sometimes anhidrosis on the ipsilateral side of the face. To differentiate between traumatic and pharmacologic miosis, a detailed history should be obtained, paying close attention to injuries to the eyes or head and/or possible exposure to chemical or pharmaceutical agents, including prostaglandins, pilocarpine, organophosphates, and opiates.²

Horner Syndrome

Horner syndrome is a neurologic condition that results from damage to the oculosympathetic pathway.⁴ The oculosympathetic pathway is a 3-neuron pathway that begins in the hypothalamus and follows a circuitous route to ultimately innervate the facial sweat glands, the smooth muscles of the blood vessels in the orbit and face, the iris dilator muscle, and the Müller muscles of the superior and inferior eyelids.^1,5 Therefore, this pathway’s functions include vasoconstriction of facial blood vessels, facial diaphoresis (sweating), pupillary dilation, and maintaining an open position of the eyelids.¹

Oculosympathetic pathway anatomy. To understand the findings associated with Horner syndrome, it is necessary to understand the anatomy of this 3-neuron pathway.⁵ First-order neurons, or central neurons, arise in the posterolateral aspect of the hypothalamus, where they then descend through the midbrain, pons, medulla, and cervical spinal cord via the intermediolateral gray column.⁶ The fibers then synapse in the ciliospinal center of Budge at the level of cervical vertebra C8 to thoracic vertebra T2, which give rise to the preganglionic, or second-order neurons.⁶

Second-order neurons begin at the ciliospinal center of Budge and exit the spinal cord via the central roots, most at the level of thoracic vertebra T1, with the remainder leaving at the levels of cervical vertebra C8 and thoracic vertebra T2.⁷ After exiting the spinal cord, the second-order neurons loop around the subclavian artery, where they then ascend close to the apex of the lung to synapse with the cell bodies of the third-order neurons at the superior cervical ganglion near cervical vertebrae C2 and C3.⁷

After arising at the superior cervical ganglion, third-order neurons diverge to follow 2 different courses.⁷ A portion of the neurons travels along the external carotid artery to ultimately innervate the facial sweat glands, while the other portion of the neurons combines with the carotid plexus and travels within the walls of the internal carotid artery and through the cavernous sinus.⁷ The fibers then briefly join the abducens nerve before anastomosing with the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve.⁷ After coursing through the superior orbital fissure, the fibers innervate the iris dilator and Müller muscles via the long ciliary nerves.⁷

Symptoms and signs. Patients with Horner syndrome can present with a variety of symptoms and signs. Patients may be largely asymptomatic or they may complain of a droopy eyelid and blurry vision. The full Horner syndrome triad consists of ipsilateral miosis, anhidrosis of the face, and mild ptosis of the upper eyelid with reverse ptosis of the lower eyelid.⁸ The difference in pupil size is greatest 4 to 5 seconds after switching from bright to dim room illumination due to dilation lag in the miotic pupil from poor innervation.¹

Although the classical triad of ptosis, miosis, and anhidrosis is emphasized in the literature, the full triad may not always be present.⁴ This variation is due to the anatomy of the oculosympathetic pathway with branches of the nerve system separating at the superior cervical ganglion and following different pathways along the internal and external carotid arteries, resulting in anhidrosis only in Horner syndrome caused by lesions to the first- or second-order neurons.^4,5 Because of this deviation of the nerve fibers in the pathway, the presence of miosis and a slight ptosis in the absence of anhidrosis should still strongly suggest Horner syndrome.

In addition to the classic triad, Horner syndrome can present with other ophthalmic findings, including conjunctival injection, changes in accommodation, and a small decrease in intraocular pressure usually by no more than 1 to 2 mm Hg.⁴ Congenital Horner syndrome is unique in that it can result in iris heterochromia, with the lighter eye being the affected eye.⁴

Due to the long and circuitous nature of the oculosympathetic pathway, damage can occur due to a wide variety of conditions (Table) and can present with many neurologic findings.⁷

Localization of lesions. In Horner syndrome, 13% of lesions were present at first-order neurons, 44% at second-order neurons, and 43% at third-order neurons.⁷ While all these lesions have similar clinical presentations that can be difficult to differentiate, localization of the lesion within the oculosympathetic pathway is important to determine the underlying cause. This determination can be readily achieved in office with pharmacologic pupil testing (Figure 3).

In this patient’s case, an immediate neurologic evaluation was appropriate due to the acute and painful nature of her presentation. Ultimately, her Horner syndrome was determined to result from an internal carotid artery dissection. As indicated by Schievink, all acute Horner syndrome cases should be considered a result of a carotid artery dissection until proven otherwise, despite the presence or absence of any other signs or symptoms.¹¹ This consideration is not only because of the potentially life-threatening sequelae associated with carotid dissections, but also because dissections have been shown to be the most common cause of ischemic strokes in young and middle-aged patients, accounting for 10% to 25% of all ischemic strokes.^4,11

Carotid Artery Dissection

An artery dissection is typically the result of a tear of the tunica intima of the arterial wall, which leads to a leakage of blood into the potential space between the artery’s walls.^12,13 As the arterial blood pressure forces blood through the tear, an intramural hematoma, or false lumen, is formed within the layers of the tunica media.¹⁴ The hematoma can form as a subintimal dissection, which tends to result in arterial lumen stenosis, or a subadventitial dissection, leading to aneurysmal dilation resulting in partial or complete blockage of the affected artery.¹⁴ Additional complications resulting from carotid artery dissections can include complete vascular occlusion or thrombus formation, resulting in a cerebrovascular accident. Additionally, subarachnoid hemorrhages may result if the carotid artery ruptures due to compromised vessel wall integrity.¹¹

There are many causes of carotid artery dissections, such as structural defects of the arterial wall, fibromuscular dysplasia, cystic medial necrosis, and connective tissue disorders, including Ehlers-Danlos syndrome type IV, Marfan syndrome, autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease, and osteogenesis imperfecta type I.¹³ Many environmental factors also can induce a carotid artery dissection, such as a history of anesthesia use, resuscitation with classic cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques, head or neck trauma, chiropractic manipulation of the neck, and hyperextension or rotation of the neck, which can occur in activities such as yoga, painting a ceiling, coughing, vomiting, or sneezing.¹¹

Patients with an internal carotid artery dissection typically present with pain on one side of the neck, face, or head, which can be accompanied by a partial Horner syndrome that results from damage to the oculosympathetic neurons traveling with the carotid plexus in the internal carotid artery wall.^9,10 Unilateral facial or orbital pain has been noted to be present in half of patients and is typically accompanied by an ipsilateral headache.⁹ These symptoms are typically followed by cerebral or retinal ischemia within hours or days of onset and other ophthalmic conditions that can cause blindness, such as ischemic optic neuropathy or retinal artery occlusions, although these are rare.⁹

Conclusions

Due to the potential life-threatening complications that can arise from conditions resulting in Horner syndrome, it is imperative that clinicians have a thorough understanding of the condition and its appropriate treatment and management modalities. Understanding the need for immediate testing to determine the underlying etiology of Horner syndrome can help prevent a decrease in a patient’s vision or quality of life, and in some cases, prevent death.

Acknowledgments

The author recognizes and thanks Kyle Stuard for his invaluable assistance in the editing of this manuscript

Horner syndrome is a rare condition that has no sex or race predilection and is characterized by the clinical triad of a miosis, anhidrosis, and small, unilateral ptosis. The prompt diagnosis and determination of the etiology of Horner syndrome are of utmost importance, as the condition can result from many life-threatening systemic complications. Horner syndrome is often asymptomatic but can have distinct, easily identified characteristics seen with an ophthalmic examination. This report describes a patient who presented with Horner syndrome resulting from an internal carotid artery dissection.

Case Presentation

A 61-year-old woman presented with periorbital pain with onset 3 days prior. The patient described the pain as 7 of 10 that had been worsening and was localized around and behind the right eye. She reported new-onset headaches on the right side over the past week with associated intermittent vision blurriness in the right eye. She had a history of mobility issues and had fallen backward about 1 week before, hitting the back of her head on the floor without direct trauma to the eye. She was symptomatic for light sensitivity, syncope, and dizziness, with reports of a recent history of transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) of unknown etiology, which had occurred in the months preceding her examination. She reported no jaw claudication, scalp tenderness, and neck or shoulder pain. She was unaware of any changes in her perspiration pattern on the right side of her face but mentioned that she had noticed her right upper eyelid drooping while looking in the mirror.

This patient had a routine eye examination 2 months before, which was remarkable for stable, nonfoveal involving adult-onset vitelliform dystrophy in the left eye and nuclear sclerotic cataracts and mild refractive error in both eyes. No iris heterochromia was noted, and her pupils were equal, round, and reactive to light. Her history was remarkable for chest pain, obesity, bipolar disorder, vertigo, transient cerebral ischemia, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, alcohol use disorder, cocaine use disorder, and asthma. A carotid ultrasound had been performed 1 month before the onset of symptoms due to her history of TIAs, which showed no hemodynamically significant stenosis (> 50% stenosis) of either carotid artery. Her medications included oxybutynin chloride, amlodipine, acetaminophen, sertraline hydrochloride, lidocaine, albuterol, risperidone, hydroxyzine hydrochloride, lisinopril, omeprazole, once-daily baby aspirin, atorvastatin, and calcium.

At the time of presentation, an ophthalmic examination revealed no decrease in visual acuity with a best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20 in the right and left eyes. The patient’s pupil sizes were unequal, with a smaller, more miotic right pupil with a greater difference between the pupil sizes in dim illumination (Figure 1).

CTA revealed a focal linear filling defect in the right midinternal carotid artery, likely related to an internal carotid artery vascular flap. There was no evidence of proximal intracranial occlusive disease. MRI revealed a linear area of high-intensity signal projecting over the mid and distal right internal carotid artery lumen (Figure 2A).

Discussion

Anisocoria is defined as a difference in pupil sizes between the eyes.¹ This difference can be physiologic with no underlying pathology as an etiology of the condition. If underlying pathology causes anisocoria, it can result in dysfunction with mydriasis, leading to a more miotic pupil, or it can result from issues with miosis, leading to a more mydriatic pupil.¹

To determine whether anisocoria is physiologic or pathologic, one must assess the patient’s pupil sizes in dim and bright illumination. If the difference in the pupil size is the same in both room illuminations (ie, the anisocoria is 2 mm in both bright and dim illumination, pupillary constriction and dilation are functioning normally), then the patient has physiologic anisocoria.¹ If anisocoria is different in bright and dim illumination (ie, the anisocoria is 1 mm in bright and 3 mm in dim settings or 3 mm in bright and 1 mm in dim settings), the condition is related to pathology. To determine the underlying pathology of anisocoria in cases that are not physiologic, it is important to first determine whether the anisocoria is related to miotic or mydriatic dysfunction.¹

If the anisocoria is greater in dim illumination, this suggests mydriatic dysfunction and could be a result of damage to the sympathetic pupillary pathway.¹ The smaller or more miotic pupil in this instance is the pathologic pupil. If the anisocoria is greater in bright illumination, this suggests miotic dysfunction and could be a result of damage to the parasympathetic pathway.¹ The larger or more mydriatic pupil in this instance is the pathologic pupil. Congenital abnormalities, such as iris colobomas, aniridia, and ectopic pupils, can result in a wide range of pupil sizes and shapes, including miotic or mydriatic pupils.¹

Pathologic Mydriasis

Pathologic mydriatic pupils can result from dysfunction in the parasympathetic nervous system, which results in a pupil that is not sufficiently able to dilate with the removal of a light stimulus. Mydriatic pupils can be related to Adie tonic pupil, Argyll-Robertson pupil, third nerve palsy, trauma, surgeries, or pharmacologic mydriasis.² The conditions that cause mydriasis can be readily differentiated from one another based on clinical examination.

Adie tonic pupil results from damage to the ciliary ganglion.² While pupillary constriction in response to light will be absent or sluggish in an Adie pupil, the patient will have an intact but sluggish accommodative pupillary response; therefore, the pupil will still constrict with accommodation and convergence to focus on near objects, although slowly. This is known as light-near dissociation.²

Argyll-Robertson pupils are caused by damage to the Edinger-Westphal nucleus in the rostral midbrain.³ Lesions to this area of the brain are typically associated with neurosyphilis but also can be a result of Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, encephalitis, neurosarcoidosis, herpes zoster, diabetes mellitus, and chronic alcohol misuse.³ Argyll Robertson pupils can appear very similar to a tonic pupil in that this condition will also have a dilated pupil and light-near dissociation.³ These pupils will differ in that they also tend to have an irregular shape (dyscoria), and the pupils will constrict briskly when focusing on near objects and dilate briskly when focusing on distant objects, not sluggishly, as in Adie tonic pupil.³

Mydriasis due to a third nerve palsy will present with ptosis and extraocular muscle dysfunction (including deficits to the superior rectus, medial rectus, inferior oblique, and inferior rectus), with the classic presentation of a completed palsy with the eye positioned “down and out” or the patient’s inability to look medially and superiorly with the affected eye.²

As in cases of pathologic mydriasis, a thorough and in-depth history can help determine traumatic, surgical and pharmacologic etiologies of a mydriatic pupil. It should be determined whether the patient has had any previous trauma or surgeries to the eye or has been in contact with any of the following: acetylcholine receptor antagonists (atropine, scopolamine, homatropine, cyclopentolate, and tropicamide), motion sickness patches (scopolamine), nasal vasoconstrictors, glycopyrrolate deodorants, and/or various plants (Jimson weed or plants belonging to the digitalis family, such as foxglove).²

Pathologic Miosis

Pathologic miotic pupils can result from dysfunction in the sympathetic nervous system and can be related to blunt or penetrating trauma to the orbit, Horner syndrome, and pharmacologic miosis.² Horner syndrome will be accompanied by a slight ptosis and sometimes anhidrosis on the ipsilateral side of the face. To differentiate between traumatic and pharmacologic miosis, a detailed history should be obtained, paying close attention to injuries to the eyes or head and/or possible exposure to chemical or pharmaceutical agents, including prostaglandins, pilocarpine, organophosphates, and opiates.²

Horner Syndrome

Horner syndrome is a neurologic condition that results from damage to the oculosympathetic pathway.⁴ The oculosympathetic pathway is a 3-neuron pathway that begins in the hypothalamus and follows a circuitous route to ultimately innervate the facial sweat glands, the smooth muscles of the blood vessels in the orbit and face, the iris dilator muscle, and the Müller muscles of the superior and inferior eyelids.^1,5 Therefore, this pathway’s functions include vasoconstriction of facial blood vessels, facial diaphoresis (sweating), pupillary dilation, and maintaining an open position of the eyelids.¹

Oculosympathetic pathway anatomy. To understand the findings associated with Horner syndrome, it is necessary to understand the anatomy of this 3-neuron pathway.⁵ First-order neurons, or central neurons, arise in the posterolateral aspect of the hypothalamus, where they then descend through the midbrain, pons, medulla, and cervical spinal cord via the intermediolateral gray column.⁶ The fibers then synapse in the ciliospinal center of Budge at the level of cervical vertebra C8 to thoracic vertebra T2, which give rise to the preganglionic, or second-order neurons.⁶

Second-order neurons begin at the ciliospinal center of Budge and exit the spinal cord via the central roots, most at the level of thoracic vertebra T1, with the remainder leaving at the levels of cervical vertebra C8 and thoracic vertebra T2.⁷ After exiting the spinal cord, the second-order neurons loop around the subclavian artery, where they then ascend close to the apex of the lung to synapse with the cell bodies of the third-order neurons at the superior cervical ganglion near cervical vertebrae C2 and C3.⁷

After arising at the superior cervical ganglion, third-order neurons diverge to follow 2 different courses.⁷ A portion of the neurons travels along the external carotid artery to ultimately innervate the facial sweat glands, while the other portion of the neurons combines with the carotid plexus and travels within the walls of the internal carotid artery and through the cavernous sinus.⁷ The fibers then briefly join the abducens nerve before anastomosing with the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve.⁷ After coursing through the superior orbital fissure, the fibers innervate the iris dilator and Müller muscles via the long ciliary nerves.⁷

Symptoms and signs. Patients with Horner syndrome can present with a variety of symptoms and signs. Patients may be largely asymptomatic or they may complain of a droopy eyelid and blurry vision. The full Horner syndrome triad consists of ipsilateral miosis, anhidrosis of the face, and mild ptosis of the upper eyelid with reverse ptosis of the lower eyelid.⁸ The difference in pupil size is greatest 4 to 5 seconds after switching from bright to dim room illumination due to dilation lag in the miotic pupil from poor innervation.¹

Although the classical triad of ptosis, miosis, and anhidrosis is emphasized in the literature, the full triad may not always be present.⁴ This variation is due to the anatomy of the oculosympathetic pathway with branches of the nerve system separating at the superior cervical ganglion and following different pathways along the internal and external carotid arteries, resulting in anhidrosis only in Horner syndrome caused by lesions to the first- or second-order neurons.^4,5 Because of this deviation of the nerve fibers in the pathway, the presence of miosis and a slight ptosis in the absence of anhidrosis should still strongly suggest Horner syndrome.

In addition to the classic triad, Horner syndrome can present with other ophthalmic findings, including conjunctival injection, changes in accommodation, and a small decrease in intraocular pressure usually by no more than 1 to 2 mm Hg.⁴ Congenital Horner syndrome is unique in that it can result in iris heterochromia, with the lighter eye being the affected eye.⁴

Due to the long and circuitous nature of the oculosympathetic pathway, damage can occur due to a wide variety of conditions (Table) and can present with many neurologic findings.⁷

Localization of lesions. In Horner syndrome, 13% of lesions were present at first-order neurons, 44% at second-order neurons, and 43% at third-order neurons.⁷ While all these lesions have similar clinical presentations that can be difficult to differentiate, localization of the lesion within the oculosympathetic pathway is important to determine the underlying cause. This determination can be readily achieved in office with pharmacologic pupil testing (Figure 3).

In this patient’s case, an immediate neurologic evaluation was appropriate due to the acute and painful nature of her presentation. Ultimately, her Horner syndrome was determined to result from an internal carotid artery dissection. As indicated by Schievink, all acute Horner syndrome cases should be considered a result of a carotid artery dissection until proven otherwise, despite the presence or absence of any other signs or symptoms.¹¹ This consideration is not only because of the potentially life-threatening sequelae associated with carotid dissections, but also because dissections have been shown to be the most common cause of ischemic strokes in young and middle-aged patients, accounting for 10% to 25% of all ischemic strokes.^4,11

Carotid Artery Dissection

An artery dissection is typically the result of a tear of the tunica intima of the arterial wall, which leads to a leakage of blood into the potential space between the artery’s walls.^12,13 As the arterial blood pressure forces blood through the tear, an intramural hematoma, or false lumen, is formed within the layers of the tunica media.¹⁴ The hematoma can form as a subintimal dissection, which tends to result in arterial lumen stenosis, or a subadventitial dissection, leading to aneurysmal dilation resulting in partial or complete blockage of the affected artery.¹⁴ Additional complications resulting from carotid artery dissections can include complete vascular occlusion or thrombus formation, resulting in a cerebrovascular accident. Additionally, subarachnoid hemorrhages may result if the carotid artery ruptures due to compromised vessel wall integrity.¹¹

There are many causes of carotid artery dissections, such as structural defects of the arterial wall, fibromuscular dysplasia, cystic medial necrosis, and connective tissue disorders, including Ehlers-Danlos syndrome type IV, Marfan syndrome, autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease, and osteogenesis imperfecta type I.¹³ Many environmental factors also can induce a carotid artery dissection, such as a history of anesthesia use, resuscitation with classic cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques, head or neck trauma, chiropractic manipulation of the neck, and hyperextension or rotation of the neck, which can occur in activities such as yoga, painting a ceiling, coughing, vomiting, or sneezing.¹¹

Patients with an internal carotid artery dissection typically present with pain on one side of the neck, face, or head, which can be accompanied by a partial Horner syndrome that results from damage to the oculosympathetic neurons traveling with the carotid plexus in the internal carotid artery wall.^9,10 Unilateral facial or orbital pain has been noted to be present in half of patients and is typically accompanied by an ipsilateral headache.⁹ These symptoms are typically followed by cerebral or retinal ischemia within hours or days of onset and other ophthalmic conditions that can cause blindness, such as ischemic optic neuropathy or retinal artery occlusions, although these are rare.⁹

Conclusions

Due to the potential life-threatening complications that can arise from conditions resulting in Horner syndrome, it is imperative that clinicians have a thorough understanding of the condition and its appropriate treatment and management modalities. Understanding the need for immediate testing to determine the underlying etiology of Horner syndrome can help prevent a decrease in a patient’s vision or quality of life, and in some cases, prevent death.

Acknowledgments

The author recognizes and thanks Kyle Stuard for his invaluable assistance in the editing of this manuscript

Horner syndrome is a rare condition that has no sex or race predilection and is characterized by the clinical triad of a miosis, anhidrosis, and small, unilateral ptosis. The prompt diagnosis and determination of the etiology of Horner syndrome are of utmost importance, as the condition can result from many life-threatening systemic complications. Horner syndrome is often asymptomatic but can have distinct, easily identified characteristics seen with an ophthalmic examination. This report describes a patient who presented with Horner syndrome resulting from an internal carotid artery dissection.

Case Presentation

A 61-year-old woman presented with periorbital pain with onset 3 days prior. The patient described the pain as 7 of 10 that had been worsening and was localized around and behind the right eye. She reported new-onset headaches on the right side over the past week with associated intermittent vision blurriness in the right eye. She had a history of mobility issues and had fallen backward about 1 week before, hitting the back of her head on the floor without direct trauma to the eye. She was symptomatic for light sensitivity, syncope, and dizziness, with reports of a recent history of transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) of unknown etiology, which had occurred in the months preceding her examination. She reported no jaw claudication, scalp tenderness, and neck or shoulder pain. She was unaware of any changes in her perspiration pattern on the right side of her face but mentioned that she had noticed her right upper eyelid drooping while looking in the mirror.

This patient had a routine eye examination 2 months before, which was remarkable for stable, nonfoveal involving adult-onset vitelliform dystrophy in the left eye and nuclear sclerotic cataracts and mild refractive error in both eyes. No iris heterochromia was noted, and her pupils were equal, round, and reactive to light. Her history was remarkable for chest pain, obesity, bipolar disorder, vertigo, transient cerebral ischemia, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, alcohol use disorder, cocaine use disorder, and asthma. A carotid ultrasound had been performed 1 month before the onset of symptoms due to her history of TIAs, which showed no hemodynamically significant stenosis (> 50% stenosis) of either carotid artery. Her medications included oxybutynin chloride, amlodipine, acetaminophen, sertraline hydrochloride, lidocaine, albuterol, risperidone, hydroxyzine hydrochloride, lisinopril, omeprazole, once-daily baby aspirin, atorvastatin, and calcium.

At the time of presentation, an ophthalmic examination revealed no decrease in visual acuity with a best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20 in the right and left eyes. The patient’s pupil sizes were unequal, with a smaller, more miotic right pupil with a greater difference between the pupil sizes in dim illumination (Figure 1).

CTA revealed a focal linear filling defect in the right midinternal carotid artery, likely related to an internal carotid artery vascular flap. There was no evidence of proximal intracranial occlusive disease. MRI revealed a linear area of high-intensity signal projecting over the mid and distal right internal carotid artery lumen (Figure 2A).

Discussion

Anisocoria is defined as a difference in pupil sizes between the eyes.¹ This difference can be physiologic with no underlying pathology as an etiology of the condition. If underlying pathology causes anisocoria, it can result in dysfunction with mydriasis, leading to a more miotic pupil, or it can result from issues with miosis, leading to a more mydriatic pupil.¹

To determine whether anisocoria is physiologic or pathologic, one must assess the patient’s pupil sizes in dim and bright illumination. If the difference in the pupil size is the same in both room illuminations (ie, the anisocoria is 2 mm in both bright and dim illumination, pupillary constriction and dilation are functioning normally), then the patient has physiologic anisocoria.¹ If anisocoria is different in bright and dim illumination (ie, the anisocoria is 1 mm in bright and 3 mm in dim settings or 3 mm in bright and 1 mm in dim settings), the condition is related to pathology. To determine the underlying pathology of anisocoria in cases that are not physiologic, it is important to first determine whether the anisocoria is related to miotic or mydriatic dysfunction.¹

If the anisocoria is greater in dim illumination, this suggests mydriatic dysfunction and could be a result of damage to the sympathetic pupillary pathway.¹ The smaller or more miotic pupil in this instance is the pathologic pupil. If the anisocoria is greater in bright illumination, this suggests miotic dysfunction and could be a result of damage to the parasympathetic pathway.¹ The larger or more mydriatic pupil in this instance is the pathologic pupil. Congenital abnormalities, such as iris colobomas, aniridia, and ectopic pupils, can result in a wide range of pupil sizes and shapes, including miotic or mydriatic pupils.¹

Pathologic Mydriasis

Pathologic mydriatic pupils can result from dysfunction in the parasympathetic nervous system, which results in a pupil that is not sufficiently able to dilate with the removal of a light stimulus. Mydriatic pupils can be related to Adie tonic pupil, Argyll-Robertson pupil, third nerve palsy, trauma, surgeries, or pharmacologic mydriasis.² The conditions that cause mydriasis can be readily differentiated from one another based on clinical examination.

Adie tonic pupil results from damage to the ciliary ganglion.² While pupillary constriction in response to light will be absent or sluggish in an Adie pupil, the patient will have an intact but sluggish accommodative pupillary response; therefore, the pupil will still constrict with accommodation and convergence to focus on near objects, although slowly. This is known as light-near dissociation.²

Argyll-Robertson pupils are caused by damage to the Edinger-Westphal nucleus in the rostral midbrain.³ Lesions to this area of the brain are typically associated with neurosyphilis but also can be a result of Lyme disease, multiple sclerosis, encephalitis, neurosarcoidosis, herpes zoster, diabetes mellitus, and chronic alcohol misuse.³ Argyll Robertson pupils can appear very similar to a tonic pupil in that this condition will also have a dilated pupil and light-near dissociation.³ These pupils will differ in that they also tend to have an irregular shape (dyscoria), and the pupils will constrict briskly when focusing on near objects and dilate briskly when focusing on distant objects, not sluggishly, as in Adie tonic pupil.³

Mydriasis due to a third nerve palsy will present with ptosis and extraocular muscle dysfunction (including deficits to the superior rectus, medial rectus, inferior oblique, and inferior rectus), with the classic presentation of a completed palsy with the eye positioned “down and out” or the patient’s inability to look medially and superiorly with the affected eye.²

As in cases of pathologic mydriasis, a thorough and in-depth history can help determine traumatic, surgical and pharmacologic etiologies of a mydriatic pupil. It should be determined whether the patient has had any previous trauma or surgeries to the eye or has been in contact with any of the following: acetylcholine receptor antagonists (atropine, scopolamine, homatropine, cyclopentolate, and tropicamide), motion sickness patches (scopolamine), nasal vasoconstrictors, glycopyrrolate deodorants, and/or various plants (Jimson weed or plants belonging to the digitalis family, such as foxglove).²

Pathologic Miosis

Pathologic miotic pupils can result from dysfunction in the sympathetic nervous system and can be related to blunt or penetrating trauma to the orbit, Horner syndrome, and pharmacologic miosis.² Horner syndrome will be accompanied by a slight ptosis and sometimes anhidrosis on the ipsilateral side of the face. To differentiate between traumatic and pharmacologic miosis, a detailed history should be obtained, paying close attention to injuries to the eyes or head and/or possible exposure to chemical or pharmaceutical agents, including prostaglandins, pilocarpine, organophosphates, and opiates.²

Horner Syndrome

Horner syndrome is a neurologic condition that results from damage to the oculosympathetic pathway.⁴ The oculosympathetic pathway is a 3-neuron pathway that begins in the hypothalamus and follows a circuitous route to ultimately innervate the facial sweat glands, the smooth muscles of the blood vessels in the orbit and face, the iris dilator muscle, and the Müller muscles of the superior and inferior eyelids.^1,5 Therefore, this pathway’s functions include vasoconstriction of facial blood vessels, facial diaphoresis (sweating), pupillary dilation, and maintaining an open position of the eyelids.¹

Oculosympathetic pathway anatomy. To understand the findings associated with Horner syndrome, it is necessary to understand the anatomy of this 3-neuron pathway.⁵ First-order neurons, or central neurons, arise in the posterolateral aspect of the hypothalamus, where they then descend through the midbrain, pons, medulla, and cervical spinal cord via the intermediolateral gray column.⁶ The fibers then synapse in the ciliospinal center of Budge at the level of cervical vertebra C8 to thoracic vertebra T2, which give rise to the preganglionic, or second-order neurons.⁶

Second-order neurons begin at the ciliospinal center of Budge and exit the spinal cord via the central roots, most at the level of thoracic vertebra T1, with the remainder leaving at the levels of cervical vertebra C8 and thoracic vertebra T2.⁷ After exiting the spinal cord, the second-order neurons loop around the subclavian artery, where they then ascend close to the apex of the lung to synapse with the cell bodies of the third-order neurons at the superior cervical ganglion near cervical vertebrae C2 and C3.⁷

After arising at the superior cervical ganglion, third-order neurons diverge to follow 2 different courses.⁷ A portion of the neurons travels along the external carotid artery to ultimately innervate the facial sweat glands, while the other portion of the neurons combines with the carotid plexus and travels within the walls of the internal carotid artery and through the cavernous sinus.⁷ The fibers then briefly join the abducens nerve before anastomosing with the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve.⁷ After coursing through the superior orbital fissure, the fibers innervate the iris dilator and Müller muscles via the long ciliary nerves.⁷

Symptoms and signs. Patients with Horner syndrome can present with a variety of symptoms and signs. Patients may be largely asymptomatic or they may complain of a droopy eyelid and blurry vision. The full Horner syndrome triad consists of ipsilateral miosis, anhidrosis of the face, and mild ptosis of the upper eyelid with reverse ptosis of the lower eyelid.⁸ The difference in pupil size is greatest 4 to 5 seconds after switching from bright to dim room illumination due to dilation lag in the miotic pupil from poor innervation.¹

Although the classical triad of ptosis, miosis, and anhidrosis is emphasized in the literature, the full triad may not always be present.⁴ This variation is due to the anatomy of the oculosympathetic pathway with branches of the nerve system separating at the superior cervical ganglion and following different pathways along the internal and external carotid arteries, resulting in anhidrosis only in Horner syndrome caused by lesions to the first- or second-order neurons.^4,5 Because of this deviation of the nerve fibers in the pathway, the presence of miosis and a slight ptosis in the absence of anhidrosis should still strongly suggest Horner syndrome.

In addition to the classic triad, Horner syndrome can present with other ophthalmic findings, including conjunctival injection, changes in accommodation, and a small decrease in intraocular pressure usually by no more than 1 to 2 mm Hg.⁴ Congenital Horner syndrome is unique in that it can result in iris heterochromia, with the lighter eye being the affected eye.⁴

Due to the long and circuitous nature of the oculosympathetic pathway, damage can occur due to a wide variety of conditions (Table) and can present with many neurologic findings.⁷

Localization of lesions. In Horner syndrome, 13% of lesions were present at first-order neurons, 44% at second-order neurons, and 43% at third-order neurons.⁷ While all these lesions have similar clinical presentations that can be difficult to differentiate, localization of the lesion within the oculosympathetic pathway is important to determine the underlying cause. This determination can be readily achieved in office with pharmacologic pupil testing (Figure 3).

In this patient’s case, an immediate neurologic evaluation was appropriate due to the acute and painful nature of her presentation. Ultimately, her Horner syndrome was determined to result from an internal carotid artery dissection. As indicated by Schievink, all acute Horner syndrome cases should be considered a result of a carotid artery dissection until proven otherwise, despite the presence or absence of any other signs or symptoms.¹¹ This consideration is not only because of the potentially life-threatening sequelae associated with carotid dissections, but also because dissections have been shown to be the most common cause of ischemic strokes in young and middle-aged patients, accounting for 10% to 25% of all ischemic strokes.^4,11

Carotid Artery Dissection

An artery dissection is typically the result of a tear of the tunica intima of the arterial wall, which leads to a leakage of blood into the potential space between the artery’s walls.^12,13 As the arterial blood pressure forces blood through the tear, an intramural hematoma, or false lumen, is formed within the layers of the tunica media.¹⁴ The hematoma can form as a subintimal dissection, which tends to result in arterial lumen stenosis, or a subadventitial dissection, leading to aneurysmal dilation resulting in partial or complete blockage of the affected artery.¹⁴ Additional complications resulting from carotid artery dissections can include complete vascular occlusion or thrombus formation, resulting in a cerebrovascular accident. Additionally, subarachnoid hemorrhages may result if the carotid artery ruptures due to compromised vessel wall integrity.¹¹

There are many causes of carotid artery dissections, such as structural defects of the arterial wall, fibromuscular dysplasia, cystic medial necrosis, and connective tissue disorders, including Ehlers-Danlos syndrome type IV, Marfan syndrome, autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease, and osteogenesis imperfecta type I.¹³ Many environmental factors also can induce a carotid artery dissection, such as a history of anesthesia use, resuscitation with classic cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques, head or neck trauma, chiropractic manipulation of the neck, and hyperextension or rotation of the neck, which can occur in activities such as yoga, painting a ceiling, coughing, vomiting, or sneezing.¹¹

Patients with an internal carotid artery dissection typically present with pain on one side of the neck, face, or head, which can be accompanied by a partial Horner syndrome that results from damage to the oculosympathetic neurons traveling with the carotid plexus in the internal carotid artery wall.^9,10 Unilateral facial or orbital pain has been noted to be present in half of patients and is typically accompanied by an ipsilateral headache.⁹ These symptoms are typically followed by cerebral or retinal ischemia within hours or days of onset and other ophthalmic conditions that can cause blindness, such as ischemic optic neuropathy or retinal artery occlusions, although these are rare.⁹

Conclusions

Due to the potential life-threatening complications that can arise from conditions resulting in Horner syndrome, it is imperative that clinicians have a thorough understanding of the condition and its appropriate treatment and management modalities. Understanding the need for immediate testing to determine the underlying etiology of Horner syndrome can help prevent a decrease in a patient’s vision or quality of life, and in some cases, prevent death.

Acknowledgments

The author recognizes and thanks Kyle Stuard for his invaluable assistance in the editing of this manuscript

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

New clinical practice guidelines for cannabis in chronic pain management have been released.

Developed by a group of Canadian researchers, clinicians, and patients, the guidelines note that cannabinoid-based medicines (CBM) may help clinicians offer an effective, less addictive, alternative to opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain and comorbid conditions.

“We don’t recommend using CBM first line for anything pretty much because there are other alternatives that may be more effective and also offer fewer side effects,” lead guideline author Alan Bell, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

University of Toronto

Examining the evidence

A consistent criticism of CBM has been the lack of quality research supporting its therapeutic utility. To develop the current recommendations, the task force reviewed 47 pain management studies enrolling more than 11,000 patients. Almost half of the studies (n = 22) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 of the 19 included systematic reviews focused solely on RCTs.

Overall, 38 of the 47 included studies demonstrated that CBM provided at least moderate benefits for chronic pain, resulting in a “strong” recommendation – mostly as an adjunct or replacement treatment in individuals living with chronic pain.

Overall, the guidelines place a high value on improving chronic pain and functionality, and addressing co-occurring conditions such as insomnia, anxiety and depression, mobility, and inflammation. They also provide practical dosing and formulation tips to support the use of CBM in the clinical setting.

When it comes to chronic pain, CBM is not a panacea. However, prior research suggests cannabinoids and opioids share several pharmacologic properties, including independent but possibly related mechanisms for antinociception, making them an intriguing combination.

In the current guidelines, all of the four studies specifically addressing combined opioids and vaporized cannabis flower demonstrated further pain reduction, reinforcing the conclusion that the benefits of CBM for improving pain control in patients taking opioids outweigh the risk of nonserious adverse events (AEs), such as dry mouth, dizziness, increased appetite, sedation, and concentration difficulties.

The recommendations also highlighted evidence demonstrating that a majority of participants were able to reduce use of routine pain medications with concomitant CBM/opioid administration, while simultaneously offering secondary benefits such as improved sleep, anxiety, and mood, as well as prevention of opioid tolerance and dose escalation.

Importantly, the guidelines offer an evidence-based algorithm with a clear framework for tapering patients off opioids, especially those who are on > 50 mg MED, which places them with a twofold greater risk for fatal overdose.

An effective alternative

Commenting on the new guidelines, Mark Wallace, MD, who has extensive experience researching and treating pain patients with medical cannabis, said the genesis of his interest in medical cannabis mirrors the guidelines’ focus.

“What got me interested in medical cannabis was trying to get patients off of opioids,” said Dr. Wallace, professor of anesthesiology and chief of the division of pain medicine in the department of anesthesiology at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development study, said that he’s “titrated hundreds of patients off of opioids using cannabis.”

Dr. Wallace said he found the guidelines’ dosing recommendations helpful.

“If you stay within the 1- to 5-mg dosing range, the risks are so incredibly low, you’re not going to harm the patient.”

While there are patients who abuse cannabis and CBMs, Dr. Wallace noted that he has seen only one patient in the past 20 years who was overusing the medical cannabis. He added that his patient population does not use medical cannabis to get high and, in fact, wants to avoid doses that produce that effect at all costs.

Also commenting on the guidelines, Christopher Gilligan, MD, MBA, associate chief medical officer and a pain medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development, points to the risks.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

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

New clinical practice guidelines for cannabis in chronic pain management have been released.

Developed by a group of Canadian researchers, clinicians, and patients, the guidelines note that cannabinoid-based medicines (CBM) may help clinicians offer an effective, less addictive, alternative to opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain and comorbid conditions.

“We don’t recommend using CBM first line for anything pretty much because there are other alternatives that may be more effective and also offer fewer side effects,” lead guideline author Alan Bell, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

University of Toronto

Examining the evidence

A consistent criticism of CBM has been the lack of quality research supporting its therapeutic utility. To develop the current recommendations, the task force reviewed 47 pain management studies enrolling more than 11,000 patients. Almost half of the studies (n = 22) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 of the 19 included systematic reviews focused solely on RCTs.

Overall, 38 of the 47 included studies demonstrated that CBM provided at least moderate benefits for chronic pain, resulting in a “strong” recommendation – mostly as an adjunct or replacement treatment in individuals living with chronic pain.

Overall, the guidelines place a high value on improving chronic pain and functionality, and addressing co-occurring conditions such as insomnia, anxiety and depression, mobility, and inflammation. They also provide practical dosing and formulation tips to support the use of CBM in the clinical setting.

When it comes to chronic pain, CBM is not a panacea. However, prior research suggests cannabinoids and opioids share several pharmacologic properties, including independent but possibly related mechanisms for antinociception, making them an intriguing combination.

In the current guidelines, all of the four studies specifically addressing combined opioids and vaporized cannabis flower demonstrated further pain reduction, reinforcing the conclusion that the benefits of CBM for improving pain control in patients taking opioids outweigh the risk of nonserious adverse events (AEs), such as dry mouth, dizziness, increased appetite, sedation, and concentration difficulties.

The recommendations also highlighted evidence demonstrating that a majority of participants were able to reduce use of routine pain medications with concomitant CBM/opioid administration, while simultaneously offering secondary benefits such as improved sleep, anxiety, and mood, as well as prevention of opioid tolerance and dose escalation.

Importantly, the guidelines offer an evidence-based algorithm with a clear framework for tapering patients off opioids, especially those who are on > 50 mg MED, which places them with a twofold greater risk for fatal overdose.

An effective alternative

Commenting on the new guidelines, Mark Wallace, MD, who has extensive experience researching and treating pain patients with medical cannabis, said the genesis of his interest in medical cannabis mirrors the guidelines’ focus.

“What got me interested in medical cannabis was trying to get patients off of opioids,” said Dr. Wallace, professor of anesthesiology and chief of the division of pain medicine in the department of anesthesiology at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development study, said that he’s “titrated hundreds of patients off of opioids using cannabis.”

Dr. Wallace said he found the guidelines’ dosing recommendations helpful.

“If you stay within the 1- to 5-mg dosing range, the risks are so incredibly low, you’re not going to harm the patient.”

While there are patients who abuse cannabis and CBMs, Dr. Wallace noted that he has seen only one patient in the past 20 years who was overusing the medical cannabis. He added that his patient population does not use medical cannabis to get high and, in fact, wants to avoid doses that produce that effect at all costs.

Also commenting on the guidelines, Christopher Gilligan, MD, MBA, associate chief medical officer and a pain medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development, points to the risks.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

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

New clinical practice guidelines for cannabis in chronic pain management have been released.

Developed by a group of Canadian researchers, clinicians, and patients, the guidelines note that cannabinoid-based medicines (CBM) may help clinicians offer an effective, less addictive, alternative to opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain and comorbid conditions.

“We don’t recommend using CBM first line for anything pretty much because there are other alternatives that may be more effective and also offer fewer side effects,” lead guideline author Alan Bell, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

University of Toronto

Examining the evidence

A consistent criticism of CBM has been the lack of quality research supporting its therapeutic utility. To develop the current recommendations, the task force reviewed 47 pain management studies enrolling more than 11,000 patients. Almost half of the studies (n = 22) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 of the 19 included systematic reviews focused solely on RCTs.

Overall, 38 of the 47 included studies demonstrated that CBM provided at least moderate benefits for chronic pain, resulting in a “strong” recommendation – mostly as an adjunct or replacement treatment in individuals living with chronic pain.

Overall, the guidelines place a high value on improving chronic pain and functionality, and addressing co-occurring conditions such as insomnia, anxiety and depression, mobility, and inflammation. They also provide practical dosing and formulation tips to support the use of CBM in the clinical setting.

When it comes to chronic pain, CBM is not a panacea. However, prior research suggests cannabinoids and opioids share several pharmacologic properties, including independent but possibly related mechanisms for antinociception, making them an intriguing combination.

In the current guidelines, all of the four studies specifically addressing combined opioids and vaporized cannabis flower demonstrated further pain reduction, reinforcing the conclusion that the benefits of CBM for improving pain control in patients taking opioids outweigh the risk of nonserious adverse events (AEs), such as dry mouth, dizziness, increased appetite, sedation, and concentration difficulties.

The recommendations also highlighted evidence demonstrating that a majority of participants were able to reduce use of routine pain medications with concomitant CBM/opioid administration, while simultaneously offering secondary benefits such as improved sleep, anxiety, and mood, as well as prevention of opioid tolerance and dose escalation.

Importantly, the guidelines offer an evidence-based algorithm with a clear framework for tapering patients off opioids, especially those who are on > 50 mg MED, which places them with a twofold greater risk for fatal overdose.

An effective alternative

Commenting on the new guidelines, Mark Wallace, MD, who has extensive experience researching and treating pain patients with medical cannabis, said the genesis of his interest in medical cannabis mirrors the guidelines’ focus.

“What got me interested in medical cannabis was trying to get patients off of opioids,” said Dr. Wallace, professor of anesthesiology and chief of the division of pain medicine in the department of anesthesiology at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development study, said that he’s “titrated hundreds of patients off of opioids using cannabis.”

Dr. Wallace said he found the guidelines’ dosing recommendations helpful.

“If you stay within the 1- to 5-mg dosing range, the risks are so incredibly low, you’re not going to harm the patient.”

While there are patients who abuse cannabis and CBMs, Dr. Wallace noted that he has seen only one patient in the past 20 years who was overusing the medical cannabis. He added that his patient population does not use medical cannabis to get high and, in fact, wants to avoid doses that produce that effect at all costs.

Also commenting on the guidelines, Christopher Gilligan, MD, MBA, associate chief medical officer and a pain medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development, points to the risks.

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. We had a great discussion on Parkinson’s Disease for Primary Care with Dr. Albert Hung. Paul, this was something that really made me nervous. I didn’t have a lot of comfort with it. But he taught us a lot of tips about how to recognize Parkinson’s.

I hadn’t been as aware of the premotor symptoms: constipation, hyposmia (loss of sense of smell), and rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder. If patients have those early on and they aren’t explained by other things (especially the REM sleep behavior disorder), you should really key in because those patients are at risk of developing Parkinson’s years down the line. Those symptoms could present first, which just kind of blew my mind.

What tips do you have about how to recognize Parkinson’s? Do you want to talk about the physical exam?

Paul N. Williams, MD: You know I love the physical exam stuff, so I’m happy to talk about that.

Dr. Watto: He also told us about some red flags.

Dr. Williams: This was a really fascinating point because we typically think if a patient’s symptoms are related to a drug exposure – in this case, drug-induced parkinsonism – we can just stop the medication and the symptoms will disappear in a couple of days as the drug leaves the system. But as it turns out, it might take much longer. A mistake that Dr Hung often sees is that the clinician stops the possibly offending agent, but when they don’t see an immediate relief of symptoms, they assume the drug wasn’t causing them. You really have to give the patient a fair shot off the medication to experience recovery because those symptoms can last weeks or even months after the drug is discontinued.

Dr. Watto: Dr Hung looks at the patient’s problem list and asks whether is there any reason this patient might have been exposed to one of these medications?

We’re not going to get too much into specific Parkinson’s treatment, but I was glad to hear that exercise actually improves mobility and may even have some neuroprotective effects. He mentioned ongoing trials looking at that. We always love an excuse to tell patients that they should be moving around more and being physically active.

Dr. Williams: That was one of the more shocking things I learned, that exercise might actually be good for you. That will deeply inform my practice. Many of the treatments that we use for Parkinson’s only address symptoms. They don’t address progression or fix anything, but exercise can help with that.

Dr. Watto: Paul, the last question I wanted to ask you is about our role in primary care. Patients with Parkinson’s have autonomic symptoms. They have neurocognitive symptoms. What is our role in that as primary care physicians?

Dr. Williams: Myriad symptoms can accompany Parkinson’s, and we have experience with most of them. We should all feel fairly comfortable dealing with constipation, which can be a very bothersome symptom. And we can use our full arsenal for symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and even apathy – the anhedonia, which apparently can be the predominant feature. We do have the tools to address these problems.

This might be a situation where we might reach for bupropion or a tricyclic antidepressant, which might not be your initial choice for a patient with a possibly annoying mood disorder. But for someone with Parkinson’s disease, this actually may be very helpful. We know how to manage a lot of the symptoms that come along with Parkinson’s that are not just the motor symptoms, and we should take ownership of those things.

Dr. Watto: You can hear the rest of this podcast here. This has been another episode of The Curbsiders bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole. Until next time, I’ve been Dr Matthew Frank Watto.

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is a clinical assistant professor, department of medicine, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, at Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither Dr. Watto nor Dr. Williams reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. We had a great discussion on Parkinson’s Disease for Primary Care with Dr. Albert Hung. Paul, this was something that really made me nervous. I didn’t have a lot of comfort with it. But he taught us a lot of tips about how to recognize Parkinson’s.

I hadn’t been as aware of the premotor symptoms: constipation, hyposmia (loss of sense of smell), and rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder. If patients have those early on and they aren’t explained by other things (especially the REM sleep behavior disorder), you should really key in because those patients are at risk of developing Parkinson’s years down the line. Those symptoms could present first, which just kind of blew my mind.

What tips do you have about how to recognize Parkinson’s? Do you want to talk about the physical exam?

Paul N. Williams, MD: You know I love the physical exam stuff, so I’m happy to talk about that.

Dr. Watto: He also told us about some red flags.

Dr. Williams: This was a really fascinating point because we typically think if a patient’s symptoms are related to a drug exposure – in this case, drug-induced parkinsonism – we can just stop the medication and the symptoms will disappear in a couple of days as the drug leaves the system. But as it turns out, it might take much longer. A mistake that Dr Hung often sees is that the clinician stops the possibly offending agent, but when they don’t see an immediate relief of symptoms, they assume the drug wasn’t causing them. You really have to give the patient a fair shot off the medication to experience recovery because those symptoms can last weeks or even months after the drug is discontinued.

Dr. Watto: Dr Hung looks at the patient’s problem list and asks whether is there any reason this patient might have been exposed to one of these medications?

We’re not going to get too much into specific Parkinson’s treatment, but I was glad to hear that exercise actually improves mobility and may even have some neuroprotective effects. He mentioned ongoing trials looking at that. We always love an excuse to tell patients that they should be moving around more and being physically active.

Dr. Williams: That was one of the more shocking things I learned, that exercise might actually be good for you. That will deeply inform my practice. Many of the treatments that we use for Parkinson’s only address symptoms. They don’t address progression or fix anything, but exercise can help with that.

Dr. Watto: Paul, the last question I wanted to ask you is about our role in primary care. Patients with Parkinson’s have autonomic symptoms. They have neurocognitive symptoms. What is our role in that as primary care physicians?

Dr. Williams: Myriad symptoms can accompany Parkinson’s, and we have experience with most of them. We should all feel fairly comfortable dealing with constipation, which can be a very bothersome symptom. And we can use our full arsenal for symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and even apathy – the anhedonia, which apparently can be the predominant feature. We do have the tools to address these problems.

This might be a situation where we might reach for bupropion or a tricyclic antidepressant, which might not be your initial choice for a patient with a possibly annoying mood disorder. But for someone with Parkinson’s disease, this actually may be very helpful. We know how to manage a lot of the symptoms that come along with Parkinson’s that are not just the motor symptoms, and we should take ownership of those things.

Dr. Watto: You can hear the rest of this podcast here. This has been another episode of The Curbsiders bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole. Until next time, I’ve been Dr Matthew Frank Watto.

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is a clinical assistant professor, department of medicine, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, at Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither Dr. Watto nor Dr. Williams reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. We had a great discussion on Parkinson’s Disease for Primary Care with Dr. Albert Hung. Paul, this was something that really made me nervous. I didn’t have a lot of comfort with it. But he taught us a lot of tips about how to recognize Parkinson’s.

I hadn’t been as aware of the premotor symptoms: constipation, hyposmia (loss of sense of smell), and rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder. If patients have those early on and they aren’t explained by other things (especially the REM sleep behavior disorder), you should really key in because those patients are at risk of developing Parkinson’s years down the line. Those symptoms could present first, which just kind of blew my mind.

What tips do you have about how to recognize Parkinson’s? Do you want to talk about the physical exam?

Paul N. Williams, MD: You know I love the physical exam stuff, so I’m happy to talk about that.

Dr. Watto: He also told us about some red flags.

Dr. Williams: This was a really fascinating point because we typically think if a patient’s symptoms are related to a drug exposure – in this case, drug-induced parkinsonism – we can just stop the medication and the symptoms will disappear in a couple of days as the drug leaves the system. But as it turns out, it might take much longer. A mistake that Dr Hung often sees is that the clinician stops the possibly offending agent, but when they don’t see an immediate relief of symptoms, they assume the drug wasn’t causing them. You really have to give the patient a fair shot off the medication to experience recovery because those symptoms can last weeks or even months after the drug is discontinued.

Dr. Watto: Dr Hung looks at the patient’s problem list and asks whether is there any reason this patient might have been exposed to one of these medications?

We’re not going to get too much into specific Parkinson’s treatment, but I was glad to hear that exercise actually improves mobility and may even have some neuroprotective effects. He mentioned ongoing trials looking at that. We always love an excuse to tell patients that they should be moving around more and being physically active.

Dr. Williams: That was one of the more shocking things I learned, that exercise might actually be good for you. That will deeply inform my practice. Many of the treatments that we use for Parkinson’s only address symptoms. They don’t address progression or fix anything, but exercise can help with that.

Dr. Watto: Paul, the last question I wanted to ask you is about our role in primary care. Patients with Parkinson’s have autonomic symptoms. They have neurocognitive symptoms. What is our role in that as primary care physicians?

Dr. Williams: Myriad symptoms can accompany Parkinson’s, and we have experience with most of them. We should all feel fairly comfortable dealing with constipation, which can be a very bothersome symptom. And we can use our full arsenal for symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and even apathy – the anhedonia, which apparently can be the predominant feature. We do have the tools to address these problems.

This might be a situation where we might reach for bupropion or a tricyclic antidepressant, which might not be your initial choice for a patient with a possibly annoying mood disorder. But for someone with Parkinson’s disease, this actually may be very helpful. We know how to manage a lot of the symptoms that come along with Parkinson’s that are not just the motor symptoms, and we should take ownership of those things.

Dr. Watto: You can hear the rest of this podcast here. This has been another episode of The Curbsiders bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole. Until next time, I’ve been Dr Matthew Frank Watto.

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is a clinical assistant professor, department of medicine, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, at Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither Dr. Watto nor Dr. Williams reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

Anti–amyloid-beta drugs, which are used in the management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), have the potential to compromise long-term brain health by accelerating brain atrophy, a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI data from clinical trials suggests.

Depending on the anti–amyloid-beta drug class, these agents can accelerate loss of whole brain and hippocampal volume and increase ventricular volume. This has been shown for some of the beta-secretase inhibitors and with several of the antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies, researchers noted.

“These data warrant concern, but we can’t make any firm conclusions yet. It is possible that the finding is not detrimental, but the usual interpretation of this finding is that volume changes are a surrogate for disease progression,” study investigator Scott Ayton, PhD, of the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, said in an interview.

“These data should be factored into the decisions by clinicians when they consider prescribing antiamyloid therapies. Like any side effect, clinicians should inform patients regarding the risk of brain atrophy. Patients should be actively monitored for this side effect,” Dr. Ayton said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Earlier progression from MCI to AD?

Dr. Ayton and colleagues evaluated brain volume changes in 31 clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs that demonstrated a favorable change in at least one biomarker of pathological amyloid-beta and included detailed MRI data sufficient to assess the volumetric changes in at least one brain region.

A meta-analysis on the highest dose in each trial on the hippocampus, ventricles, and whole brain showed drug-induced acceleration of volume changes that varied by anti–amyloid-beta drug class.

Secretase inhibitors accelerated atrophy in the hippocampus (mean difference –37.1 mcL; –19.6% relative to change in placebo) and whole brain (mean difference –3.3 mL; –21.8% relative to change in placebo), but not ventricles.

Conversely, monoclonal antibodies caused accelerated ventricular enlargement (mean difference +1.3 mL; +23.8% relative to change in placebo), which was driven by the subset of monoclonal antibodies that induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) (+2.1 mL; +38.7% relative to change in placebo). There was a “striking correlation between ventricular volume and ARIA frequency,” the investigators reported.

The effect of ARIA-inducing monoclonal antibodies on whole brain volume varied, with accelerated whole brain volume loss caused by donanemab (mean difference –4.6 mL; +23% relative to change in placebo) and lecanemab (–5.2 mL; +36.4% relative to change in placebo). This was not observed with aducanumab and bapineuzumab.

Monoclonal antibodies did not cause accelerated volume loss to the hippocampus regardless of whether they caused ARIA.

The researchers also modeled the effect of anti–amyloid-beta drugs on brain volume changes. In this analysis, participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) treated with anti–amyloid-beta drugs were projected to have a “material regression” toward brain volumes typical of AD roughly 8 months earlier than untreated peers.

The data, they note, “permit robust conclusions regarding the effect of [anti–amyloid-beta] drug classes on different brain structures, but the lack of individual patient data (which has yet to be released) limits the interpretations of our findings.”

“Questions like which brain regions are impacted by [anti–amyloid-beta] drugs and whether the volume changes are related to ARIA, plaque loss, cognitive/noncognitive outcomes, or clinical factors such as age, sex, and apoE4 genotype can and should be addressed with available data,” said Dr. Ayton.

Dr. Ayton and colleagues called on data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for current clinical trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs to review volumetric data to determine if patient safety is at risk, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.

In addition, they noted ethics boards that approve trials for anti–amyloid-beta drugs “should request that volume changes be actively monitored. Long-term follow-up of brain volumes should be factored into the trial designs to determine if brain atrophy is progressive, particularly in patients who develop ARIA.”

Finally, they added that drug companies that have conducted trials of anti–amyloid-beta drugs should interrogate prior data on brain volume, report the findings, and release the data for researchers to investigate.

“I have been banging on about this for years,” said Dr. Ayton. “Unfortunately, my raising of this issue has not led to any response. The data are not available, and the basic questions haven’t been asked (publicly).”
 

Commendable research

In an accompanying editorial, Frederik Barkhof, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and David Knopman, MD, with Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Rochester, Minn., wrote that the investigators should be “commended” for their analysis. 

“The reality in 2023 is that the relevance of brain volume reductions in this therapeutic context remains uncertain,” they wrote.

“Longer periods of observation will be needed to know whether the brain volume losses continue at an accelerated rate or if they attenuate or disappear. Ultimately, it’s the clinical outcomes that matter, regardless of the MRI changes,” Barkhof and Knopman concluded.

The research was supported by funds from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council. Dr. Ayton reported being a consultant for Eisai in the past 3 years. Dr. Barkhof reported serving on the data and safety monitoring board for Prothena and the A45-AHEAD studies; being a steering committee member for Merck, Bayer, and Biogen; and being a consultant for IXICO, Roche, Celltrion, Rewind Therapeutics, and Combinostics. Dr. Knopman reported serving on the DSMB for the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Treatment Unit study; serving on a DSMB for a tau therapeutic for Biogen; being an investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Biogen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and the University of Southern California. He reported consulting with Roche, Samus Therapeutics, Magellan Health, BioVie, and Alzeca Biosciences.

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

Incubators save the lives of many babies, but new data suggest that the ambient noise associated with the incubator experience could put babies’ hearing and language development skills at risk.

Previous studies have shown that the neonatal intensive care unit is a noisy environment, but specific data on levels of sound inside and outside incubators are limited, wrote Christoph Reuter, MA, a musicology professor at the University of Vienna, and colleagues.

“By the age of 3 years, deficits in language acquisition are detectable in nearly 50% of very preterm infants,” and high levels of NICU noise have been cited as possible contributors to this increased risk, the researchers say.

In a study published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, the researchers aimed to compare real-life NICU noise with previously reported levels to describe the sound characteristics and to identify resonance characteristics inside an incubator.

The study was conducted at the Pediatric Simulation Center at the Medical University of Vienna. The researchers placed a simulation mannequin with an ear microphone inside an incubator. They also placed microphones outside the incubator to collect measures of outside noise and activity involved in NICU care.

Data regarding sound were collected for 11 environmental noises and 12 incubator handlings using weighted and unweighted decibel levels. Specific environmental noises included starting the incubator engine; environmental noise with incubator off; environmental noise with incubator on; normal conversation; light conversation; laughter; telephone sounds; the infusion pump alarm; the monitor alarm (anomaly); the monitor alarm (emergency); and blood pressure measurement.

The 12 incubator handling noises included those associated with water flap, water pouring into the incubator, incubator doors opening properly, incubators doors closing properly, incubator doors closing improperly, hatch closing, hatch opening, incubator drawer, neighbor incubator doors closing (1.82 m distance), taking a stethoscope from the incubator wall, putting a stethoscope on the incubator, and suctioning tube. Noise from six levels of respiratory support was also measured.

The researchers reported that the incubator tended to dampen most sounds but also that some sounds resonated inside the incubator, which raised the interior noise level by as much as 28 decibels.

Most of the measures using both A-weighted decibels (dBA) and sound pressure level decibels (dBSPL) were above the 45-decibel level for neonatal sound exposure recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The measurements (dBA) versus unweighted (dBSPL) are limited in that they are designed to measure low levels of sound and therefore might underestimate proportions of high and low frequencies at stronger levels, the researchers acknowledge.

Overall, most measures were clustered in the 55-75 decibel range, although some sound levels for incubator handling, while below levels previously reported in the literature, reached approximately 100 decibels.

The noise involved inside the incubator was not perceived as loud by those working with the incubator, the researchers note.

As for resonance inside the incubator, the researchers measured a low-frequency main resonance of 97 Hz, but they write that this resonance can be hard to capture in weighted measurements. However, the resonance means that “noises from the outside sound more tonal inside the incubator, booming and muffled as well as less rough or noisy,” and sounds inside the incubator are similarly affected, the researchers say.

“Most of the noise situations described in this manuscript far exceed not only the recommendation of the AAP but also international guidelines provided by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” which recommend, respectively, maximum dBA levels of 35 dBA and 45 dBA for daytime and 30 dBA and 35 dBA for night, the researchers indicate.

Potential long-term implications are that babies who spend time in the NICU are at risk for hearing impairment, which could lead to delays in language acquisition, they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variance among the incubators, which prevents generalizability, the researchers note. Other limitations include the use of a simulation room rather than everyday conditions, in which the environmental sounds would likely be even louder.

However, the results provide insights into the specifics of incubator and NICU noise and suggest that sound be a consideration in the development and promotion of incubators to help protect the hearing of the infants inside them, the researchers conclude.
 

A generalist’s take

“This is an interesting study looking at the level and character of the sound experienced by preterm infants inside an incubator and how it may compare to sounds experienced within the mother’s womb,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

In society at large, “there has been more focus lately on the general environment and its effect on health, and this study is a unique take on this concept,” he said. “Although in general the incubators work to dampen external sounds, low-frequency sounds may actually resonate more inside the incubators, and taps on the outside or inside of the incubator itself are amplified within the incubator,” he noted. “It is sad but not surprising that the decibel levels experienced by the infants in the incubators exceed the recommended levels recommended by AAP.”

As for additional research, “it would be interesting to see the results of trials looking at various short- or long-term outcomes experienced by infants exposed to a lower-level noise compared to the current levels,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.
 

A neonatologist’s perspective

“As the field of neonatology advances, we are caring for an ever-growing number of extremely preterm infants,” said Caitlin M. Drumm, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“These infants will spend the first few months of their lives within an incubator in the neonatal intensive care unit, so it is important to understand the potential long-term implications of environmental effects on these vulnerable patients,” she said.

“As in prior studies, it was not surprising that essentially every environmental, handling, or respiratory intervention led to noise levels higher than the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,” Dr. Drumm said. “What was surprising was just how high above the 45-dB recommended noise limit many environmental stimuli are. For example, the authors cite respiratory flow rates of 8 L/min or higher as risky for hearing health at 84.72 dBSPL, “ she said.

The key message for clinicians is to be aware of noise levels in the NICU, Dr. Drumm said. “Environmental stimuli as simple as putting a stethoscope on the incubator lead to noise levels well above the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The entire NICU care team has a role to play in minimizing environmental sound hazards for our most critically ill patients.”

Looking ahead, “future research should focus on providing more information correlating neonatal environmental sound exposure to long-term hearing and neurodevelopmental outcomes,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Joos serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Drumm has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incubators save the lives of many babies, but new data suggest that the ambient noise associated with the incubator experience could put babies’ hearing and language development skills at risk.

Previous studies have shown that the neonatal intensive care unit is a noisy environment, but specific data on levels of sound inside and outside incubators are limited, wrote Christoph Reuter, MA, a musicology professor at the University of Vienna, and colleagues.

“By the age of 3 years, deficits in language acquisition are detectable in nearly 50% of very preterm infants,” and high levels of NICU noise have been cited as possible contributors to this increased risk, the researchers say.

In a study published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, the researchers aimed to compare real-life NICU noise with previously reported levels to describe the sound characteristics and to identify resonance characteristics inside an incubator.

The study was conducted at the Pediatric Simulation Center at the Medical University of Vienna. The researchers placed a simulation mannequin with an ear microphone inside an incubator. They also placed microphones outside the incubator to collect measures of outside noise and activity involved in NICU care.

Data regarding sound were collected for 11 environmental noises and 12 incubator handlings using weighted and unweighted decibel levels. Specific environmental noises included starting the incubator engine; environmental noise with incubator off; environmental noise with incubator on; normal conversation; light conversation; laughter; telephone sounds; the infusion pump alarm; the monitor alarm (anomaly); the monitor alarm (emergency); and blood pressure measurement.

The 12 incubator handling noises included those associated with water flap, water pouring into the incubator, incubator doors opening properly, incubators doors closing properly, incubator doors closing improperly, hatch closing, hatch opening, incubator drawer, neighbor incubator doors closing (1.82 m distance), taking a stethoscope from the incubator wall, putting a stethoscope on the incubator, and suctioning tube. Noise from six levels of respiratory support was also measured.

The researchers reported that the incubator tended to dampen most sounds but also that some sounds resonated inside the incubator, which raised the interior noise level by as much as 28 decibels.

Most of the measures using both A-weighted decibels (dBA) and sound pressure level decibels (dBSPL) were above the 45-decibel level for neonatal sound exposure recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The measurements (dBA) versus unweighted (dBSPL) are limited in that they are designed to measure low levels of sound and therefore might underestimate proportions of high and low frequencies at stronger levels, the researchers acknowledge.

Overall, most measures were clustered in the 55-75 decibel range, although some sound levels for incubator handling, while below levels previously reported in the literature, reached approximately 100 decibels.

The noise involved inside the incubator was not perceived as loud by those working with the incubator, the researchers note.

As for resonance inside the incubator, the researchers measured a low-frequency main resonance of 97 Hz, but they write that this resonance can be hard to capture in weighted measurements. However, the resonance means that “noises from the outside sound more tonal inside the incubator, booming and muffled as well as less rough or noisy,” and sounds inside the incubator are similarly affected, the researchers say.

“Most of the noise situations described in this manuscript far exceed not only the recommendation of the AAP but also international guidelines provided by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” which recommend, respectively, maximum dBA levels of 35 dBA and 45 dBA for daytime and 30 dBA and 35 dBA for night, the researchers indicate.

Potential long-term implications are that babies who spend time in the NICU are at risk for hearing impairment, which could lead to delays in language acquisition, they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variance among the incubators, which prevents generalizability, the researchers note. Other limitations include the use of a simulation room rather than everyday conditions, in which the environmental sounds would likely be even louder.

However, the results provide insights into the specifics of incubator and NICU noise and suggest that sound be a consideration in the development and promotion of incubators to help protect the hearing of the infants inside them, the researchers conclude.
 

A generalist’s take

“This is an interesting study looking at the level and character of the sound experienced by preterm infants inside an incubator and how it may compare to sounds experienced within the mother’s womb,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

In society at large, “there has been more focus lately on the general environment and its effect on health, and this study is a unique take on this concept,” he said. “Although in general the incubators work to dampen external sounds, low-frequency sounds may actually resonate more inside the incubators, and taps on the outside or inside of the incubator itself are amplified within the incubator,” he noted. “It is sad but not surprising that the decibel levels experienced by the infants in the incubators exceed the recommended levels recommended by AAP.”

As for additional research, “it would be interesting to see the results of trials looking at various short- or long-term outcomes experienced by infants exposed to a lower-level noise compared to the current levels,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.
 

A neonatologist’s perspective

“As the field of neonatology advances, we are caring for an ever-growing number of extremely preterm infants,” said Caitlin M. Drumm, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“These infants will spend the first few months of their lives within an incubator in the neonatal intensive care unit, so it is important to understand the potential long-term implications of environmental effects on these vulnerable patients,” she said.

“As in prior studies, it was not surprising that essentially every environmental, handling, or respiratory intervention led to noise levels higher than the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,” Dr. Drumm said. “What was surprising was just how high above the 45-dB recommended noise limit many environmental stimuli are. For example, the authors cite respiratory flow rates of 8 L/min or higher as risky for hearing health at 84.72 dBSPL, “ she said.

The key message for clinicians is to be aware of noise levels in the NICU, Dr. Drumm said. “Environmental stimuli as simple as putting a stethoscope on the incubator lead to noise levels well above the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The entire NICU care team has a role to play in minimizing environmental sound hazards for our most critically ill patients.”

Looking ahead, “future research should focus on providing more information correlating neonatal environmental sound exposure to long-term hearing and neurodevelopmental outcomes,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Joos serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Drumm has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incubators save the lives of many babies, but new data suggest that the ambient noise associated with the incubator experience could put babies’ hearing and language development skills at risk.

Previous studies have shown that the neonatal intensive care unit is a noisy environment, but specific data on levels of sound inside and outside incubators are limited, wrote Christoph Reuter, MA, a musicology professor at the University of Vienna, and colleagues.

“By the age of 3 years, deficits in language acquisition are detectable in nearly 50% of very preterm infants,” and high levels of NICU noise have been cited as possible contributors to this increased risk, the researchers say.

In a study published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, the researchers aimed to compare real-life NICU noise with previously reported levels to describe the sound characteristics and to identify resonance characteristics inside an incubator.

The study was conducted at the Pediatric Simulation Center at the Medical University of Vienna. The researchers placed a simulation mannequin with an ear microphone inside an incubator. They also placed microphones outside the incubator to collect measures of outside noise and activity involved in NICU care.

Data regarding sound were collected for 11 environmental noises and 12 incubator handlings using weighted and unweighted decibel levels. Specific environmental noises included starting the incubator engine; environmental noise with incubator off; environmental noise with incubator on; normal conversation; light conversation; laughter; telephone sounds; the infusion pump alarm; the monitor alarm (anomaly); the monitor alarm (emergency); and blood pressure measurement.

The 12 incubator handling noises included those associated with water flap, water pouring into the incubator, incubator doors opening properly, incubators doors closing properly, incubator doors closing improperly, hatch closing, hatch opening, incubator drawer, neighbor incubator doors closing (1.82 m distance), taking a stethoscope from the incubator wall, putting a stethoscope on the incubator, and suctioning tube. Noise from six levels of respiratory support was also measured.

The researchers reported that the incubator tended to dampen most sounds but also that some sounds resonated inside the incubator, which raised the interior noise level by as much as 28 decibels.

Most of the measures using both A-weighted decibels (dBA) and sound pressure level decibels (dBSPL) were above the 45-decibel level for neonatal sound exposure recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The measurements (dBA) versus unweighted (dBSPL) are limited in that they are designed to measure low levels of sound and therefore might underestimate proportions of high and low frequencies at stronger levels, the researchers acknowledge.

Overall, most measures were clustered in the 55-75 decibel range, although some sound levels for incubator handling, while below levels previously reported in the literature, reached approximately 100 decibels.

The noise involved inside the incubator was not perceived as loud by those working with the incubator, the researchers note.

As for resonance inside the incubator, the researchers measured a low-frequency main resonance of 97 Hz, but they write that this resonance can be hard to capture in weighted measurements. However, the resonance means that “noises from the outside sound more tonal inside the incubator, booming and muffled as well as less rough or noisy,” and sounds inside the incubator are similarly affected, the researchers say.

“Most of the noise situations described in this manuscript far exceed not only the recommendation of the AAP but also international guidelines provided by the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” which recommend, respectively, maximum dBA levels of 35 dBA and 45 dBA for daytime and 30 dBA and 35 dBA for night, the researchers indicate.

Potential long-term implications are that babies who spend time in the NICU are at risk for hearing impairment, which could lead to delays in language acquisition, they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the variance among the incubators, which prevents generalizability, the researchers note. Other limitations include the use of a simulation room rather than everyday conditions, in which the environmental sounds would likely be even louder.

However, the results provide insights into the specifics of incubator and NICU noise and suggest that sound be a consideration in the development and promotion of incubators to help protect the hearing of the infants inside them, the researchers conclude.
 

A generalist’s take

“This is an interesting study looking at the level and character of the sound experienced by preterm infants inside an incubator and how it may compare to sounds experienced within the mother’s womb,” said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

In society at large, “there has been more focus lately on the general environment and its effect on health, and this study is a unique take on this concept,” he said. “Although in general the incubators work to dampen external sounds, low-frequency sounds may actually resonate more inside the incubators, and taps on the outside or inside of the incubator itself are amplified within the incubator,” he noted. “It is sad but not surprising that the decibel levels experienced by the infants in the incubators exceed the recommended levels recommended by AAP.”

As for additional research, “it would be interesting to see the results of trials looking at various short- or long-term outcomes experienced by infants exposed to a lower-level noise compared to the current levels,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.
 

A neonatologist’s perspective

“As the field of neonatology advances, we are caring for an ever-growing number of extremely preterm infants,” said Caitlin M. Drumm, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“These infants will spend the first few months of their lives within an incubator in the neonatal intensive care unit, so it is important to understand the potential long-term implications of environmental effects on these vulnerable patients,” she said.

“As in prior studies, it was not surprising that essentially every environmental, handling, or respiratory intervention led to noise levels higher than the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,” Dr. Drumm said. “What was surprising was just how high above the 45-dB recommended noise limit many environmental stimuli are. For example, the authors cite respiratory flow rates of 8 L/min or higher as risky for hearing health at 84.72 dBSPL, “ she said.

The key message for clinicians is to be aware of noise levels in the NICU, Dr. Drumm said. “Environmental stimuli as simple as putting a stethoscope on the incubator lead to noise levels well above the limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The entire NICU care team has a role to play in minimizing environmental sound hazards for our most critically ill patients.”

Looking ahead, “future research should focus on providing more information correlating neonatal environmental sound exposure to long-term hearing and neurodevelopmental outcomes,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Joos serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Drumm has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Investigators have identified four blood biomarkers that could potentially be used to predict, diagnose, and monitor treatment response for posttraumatic stress disorder.

“More accurate means of predicting or screening for PTSD could help to overcome the disorder by identifying individuals at high risk of developing PTSD and providing them with early intervention or prevention strategies,” said study investigator Stacy-Ann Miller, MS.

She also noted that the biomarkers could be used to monitor treatment for PTSD, identify subtypes of PTSD, and lead to a new understanding of the mechanisms underlying PTSD.

The findings were presented at Discover BMB, the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
 

Toward better clinical assessment

The findings originated from research conducted by the Department of Defense–initiated PTSD Systems Biology Consortium. The consortium’s goals include developing a reproducible panel of blood-based biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity for PTSD diagnosis and is made up of about 45 researchers, led by Marti Jett, PhD, Charles Marmar, MD, and Francis J. Doyle III, PhD.

The researchers analyzed blood samples from 1,000 active-duty Army personnel from the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky. Participants were assessed before and after deployment to Afghanistan in February 2014 and are referred to as the Fort Campbell Cohort (FCC). Participants’ age ranged from 25 to 30 and approximately 6% were female.

Investigators collected blood samples from the service members and looked for four biomarkers: glycolytic ratio, arginine, serotonin, and glutamate. The team then divided the participants into four groups – those with PTSD (PTSD Checklist score above 30), those who were subthreshold for PTSD (PTSD Checklist score 15-30), those who had high resilience, and those who had low levels of resilience.

The resilience groups were determined based on answers to the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Intensive Combat Exposure (DRRI-D), the number of deployments, whether they had moderate or severe traumatic brain injury, and scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.

Those who scored in the high range at current or prior time points or who were PTSD/subthreshold at prior time points were placed in the low resilience group.

Ms. Miller noted that those in the PTSD group had more severe symptoms than those in the PTSD subthreshold group based on the longitudinal clinical assessment at 3-6 months, 5 years, and longer post deployment. The low resilience group had a much higher rate of PTSD post deployment than the high resilience group.

Investigators found participants with PTSD or subthreshold PTSD had significantly higher glycolic ratios and lower arginine than those with high resilience. They also found that those with PTSD had significantly lower serotonin and higher glutamate levels versus those with high resilience. These associations were independent of factors such as sex, age, body mass index, smoking, and caffeine consumption.

Ms. Miller said that the study results require further validation by the consortium’s labs and third-party labs.

“We are also interested in determining the most appropriate time to screen soldiers for PTSD, as it has been noted that the time period where we see the most psychological issues is around 2-3 months post return from deployment and when the soldier is preparing for their next assignment, perhaps a next deployment,” she said.

She added that previous studies have identified several promising biomarkers of PTSD. “However, like much of the research data, the study sample was comprised mainly of combat-exposed males. With more women serving on the front lines, the military faces new challenges in how combat affects females in the military,” including sex-specific biomarkers that will improve clinical assessment for female soldiers.

Eventually, the team would also like to be able to apply their research to the civilian population experiencing PTSD.

“Our research is anticipated to be useful in helping the medical provider select appropriate therapeutic interventions,” Ms. Miller said.

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

Investigators have identified four blood biomarkers that could potentially be used to predict, diagnose, and monitor treatment response for posttraumatic stress disorder.

“More accurate means of predicting or screening for PTSD could help to overcome the disorder by identifying individuals at high risk of developing PTSD and providing them with early intervention or prevention strategies,” said study investigator Stacy-Ann Miller, MS.

She also noted that the biomarkers could be used to monitor treatment for PTSD, identify subtypes of PTSD, and lead to a new understanding of the mechanisms underlying PTSD.

The findings were presented at Discover BMB, the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
 

Toward better clinical assessment

The findings originated from research conducted by the Department of Defense–initiated PTSD Systems Biology Consortium. The consortium’s goals include developing a reproducible panel of blood-based biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity for PTSD diagnosis and is made up of about 45 researchers, led by Marti Jett, PhD, Charles Marmar, MD, and Francis J. Doyle III, PhD.

The researchers analyzed blood samples from 1,000 active-duty Army personnel from the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky. Participants were assessed before and after deployment to Afghanistan in February 2014 and are referred to as the Fort Campbell Cohort (FCC). Participants’ age ranged from 25 to 30 and approximately 6% were female.

Investigators collected blood samples from the service members and looked for four biomarkers: glycolytic ratio, arginine, serotonin, and glutamate. The team then divided the participants into four groups – those with PTSD (PTSD Checklist score above 30), those who were subthreshold for PTSD (PTSD Checklist score 15-30), those who had high resilience, and those who had low levels of resilience.

The resilience groups were determined based on answers to the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Intensive Combat Exposure (DRRI-D), the number of deployments, whether they had moderate or severe traumatic brain injury, and scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.

Those who scored in the high range at current or prior time points or who were PTSD/subthreshold at prior time points were placed in the low resilience group.

Ms. Miller noted that those in the PTSD group had more severe symptoms than those in the PTSD subthreshold group based on the longitudinal clinical assessment at 3-6 months, 5 years, and longer post deployment. The low resilience group had a much higher rate of PTSD post deployment than the high resilience group.

Investigators found participants with PTSD or subthreshold PTSD had significantly higher glycolic ratios and lower arginine than those with high resilience. They also found that those with PTSD had significantly lower serotonin and higher glutamate levels versus those with high resilience. These associations were independent of factors such as sex, age, body mass index, smoking, and caffeine consumption.

Ms. Miller said that the study results require further validation by the consortium’s labs and third-party labs.

“We are also interested in determining the most appropriate time to screen soldiers for PTSD, as it has been noted that the time period where we see the most psychological issues is around 2-3 months post return from deployment and when the soldier is preparing for their next assignment, perhaps a next deployment,” she said.

She added that previous studies have identified several promising biomarkers of PTSD. “However, like much of the research data, the study sample was comprised mainly of combat-exposed males. With more women serving on the front lines, the military faces new challenges in how combat affects females in the military,” including sex-specific biomarkers that will improve clinical assessment for female soldiers.

Eventually, the team would also like to be able to apply their research to the civilian population experiencing PTSD.

“Our research is anticipated to be useful in helping the medical provider select appropriate therapeutic interventions,” Ms. Miller said.

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

Investigators have identified four blood biomarkers that could potentially be used to predict, diagnose, and monitor treatment response for posttraumatic stress disorder.

“More accurate means of predicting or screening for PTSD could help to overcome the disorder by identifying individuals at high risk of developing PTSD and providing them with early intervention or prevention strategies,” said study investigator Stacy-Ann Miller, MS.

She also noted that the biomarkers could be used to monitor treatment for PTSD, identify subtypes of PTSD, and lead to a new understanding of the mechanisms underlying PTSD.

The findings were presented at Discover BMB, the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
 

Toward better clinical assessment

The findings originated from research conducted by the Department of Defense–initiated PTSD Systems Biology Consortium. The consortium’s goals include developing a reproducible panel of blood-based biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity for PTSD diagnosis and is made up of about 45 researchers, led by Marti Jett, PhD, Charles Marmar, MD, and Francis J. Doyle III, PhD.

The researchers analyzed blood samples from 1,000 active-duty Army personnel from the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky. Participants were assessed before and after deployment to Afghanistan in February 2014 and are referred to as the Fort Campbell Cohort (FCC). Participants’ age ranged from 25 to 30 and approximately 6% were female.

Investigators collected blood samples from the service members and looked for four biomarkers: glycolytic ratio, arginine, serotonin, and glutamate. The team then divided the participants into four groups – those with PTSD (PTSD Checklist score above 30), those who were subthreshold for PTSD (PTSD Checklist score 15-30), those who had high resilience, and those who had low levels of resilience.

The resilience groups were determined based on answers to the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Intensive Combat Exposure (DRRI-D), the number of deployments, whether they had moderate or severe traumatic brain injury, and scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.

Those who scored in the high range at current or prior time points or who were PTSD/subthreshold at prior time points were placed in the low resilience group.

Ms. Miller noted that those in the PTSD group had more severe symptoms than those in the PTSD subthreshold group based on the longitudinal clinical assessment at 3-6 months, 5 years, and longer post deployment. The low resilience group had a much higher rate of PTSD post deployment than the high resilience group.

Investigators found participants with PTSD or subthreshold PTSD had significantly higher glycolic ratios and lower arginine than those with high resilience. They also found that those with PTSD had significantly lower serotonin and higher glutamate levels versus those with high resilience. These associations were independent of factors such as sex, age, body mass index, smoking, and caffeine consumption.

Ms. Miller said that the study results require further validation by the consortium’s labs and third-party labs.

“We are also interested in determining the most appropriate time to screen soldiers for PTSD, as it has been noted that the time period where we see the most psychological issues is around 2-3 months post return from deployment and when the soldier is preparing for their next assignment, perhaps a next deployment,” she said.

She added that previous studies have identified several promising biomarkers of PTSD. “However, like much of the research data, the study sample was comprised mainly of combat-exposed males. With more women serving on the front lines, the military faces new challenges in how combat affects females in the military,” including sex-specific biomarkers that will improve clinical assessment for female soldiers.

Eventually, the team would also like to be able to apply their research to the civilian population experiencing PTSD.

“Our research is anticipated to be useful in helping the medical provider select appropriate therapeutic interventions,” Ms. Miller said.

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