Neurology

Weeks after Jeannie Volpe caught COVID-19 in November 2020, she could no longer do her job running sexual assault support groups in Anniston, Ala., because she kept forgetting the details that survivors had shared with her. “People were telling me they were having to revisit their traumatic memories, which isn’t fair to anybody,” the 47-year-old says.

Ms. Volpe has been diagnosed with long-COVID autonomic dysfunction, which includes severe muscle pain, depression, anxiety, and a loss of thinking skills. Some of her symptoms are more commonly known as brain fog, and they’re among the most frequent problems reported by people who have long-term issues after a bout of COVID-19.

Many experts and medical professionals say they haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of what impact this will have in years to come. 

“I’m very worried that we have an epidemic of neurologic dysfunction coming down the pike,” says Pamela Davis, MD, PhD, a research professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

In the 2 years Ms. Volpe has been living with long COVID, her executive function – the mental processes that enable people to focus attention, retain information, and multitask – has been so diminished that she had to relearn to drive. One of the various doctors assessing her has suggested speech therapy to help Ms. Volpe relearn how to form words. “I can see the words I want to say in my mind, but I can’t make them come out of my mouth,” she says in a sluggish voice that gives away her condition. 

All of those symptoms make it difficult for her to care for herself. Without a job and health insurance, Ms. Volpe says she’s researched assisted suicide in the states that allow it but has ultimately decided she wants to live. 

“People tell you things like you should be grateful you survived it, and you should; but you shouldn’t expect somebody to not grieve after losing their autonomy, their career, their finances.”

The findings of researchers studying the brain effects of COVID-19 reinforce what people with long COVID have been dealing with from the start. Their experiences aren’t imaginary; they’re consistent with neurological disorders – including myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS – which carry much more weight in the public imagination than the term brain fog, which can often be used dismissively.

Studies have found that COVID-19 is linked to conditions such as strokes; seizures; and mood, memory, and movement disorders. 

While there are still a lot of unanswered questions about exactly how COVID-19 affects the brain and what the long-term effects are, there’s enough reason to suggest people should be trying to avoid both infection and reinfection until researchers get more answers.

Worldwide, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has contributed to more than 40 million new cases of neurological disorders, says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. In his latest study of 14 million medical records of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the country’s largest integrated health care system, researchers found that regardless of age, gender, race, and lifestyle, people who have had COVID-19 are at a higher risk of getting a wide array of 44 neurological conditions after the first year of infection.

He noted that some of the conditions, such as headaches and mild decline in memory and sharpness, may improve and go away over time. But others that showed up, such as stroke, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and Guillain-Barré syndrome (a rare disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks the nerves), often lead to lasting damage. Dr. Al-Aly’s team found that neurological conditions were 7% more likely in those who had COVID-19 than in those who had never been infected. 

What’s more, researchers noticed that compared with control groups, the risk of post-COVID thinking problems was more pronounced in people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s – a group that usually would be very unlikely to have these problems. For those over the age of 60, the risks stood out less because at that stage of life, such thinking problems aren’t as rare.

Another study of the veterans system last year showed that COVID-19 survivors were at a 46% higher risk of considering suicide after 1 year.

“We need to be paying attention to this,” says Dr. Al-Aly.  “What we’ve seen is really the tip of the iceberg.” He worries that millions of people, including youths, will lose out on employment and education while dealing with long-term disabilities – and the economic and societal implications of such a fallout. “What we will all be left with is the aftermath of sheer devastation in some people’s lives,” he says.

Igor Koralnik, MD, chief of neuro-infectious disease and global neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, has been running a specialized long COVID clinic. His team published a paper in March 2021 detailing what they saw in their first 100 patients. “About half the population in the study missed at least 10 days of work. This is going to have persistent impact on the workforce,” Dr. Koralnik said in a podcast posted on the Northwestern website. “We have seen that not only [do] patients have symptoms, but they have decreased quality of life.”

For older people and their caregivers, the risk of potential neurodegenerative diseases that the virus has shown to accelerate, such as dementia, is also a big concern. Alzheimer’s is already the fifth leading cause of death for people 65 and older. 

In a recent study of more than 6 million people over the age of 65, Dr. Davis and her team at Case Western found the risk of Alzheimer’s in the year after COVID-19 increased by 50%-80%. The chances were especially high for women older than 85.

To date, there are no good treatments for Alzheimer’s, yet total health care costs for long-term care and hospice services for people with dementia topped $300 billion in 2020. That doesn’t even include the related costs to families.

“The downstream effect of having someone with Alzheimer’s being taken care of by a family member can be devastating on everyone,” she says. “Sometimes the caregivers don’t weather that very well.” 

When Dr. Davis’s own father got Alzheimer’s at age 86, her mother took care of him until she had a stroke one morning while making breakfast. Dr. Davis attributes the stroke to the stress of caregiving. That left Dr. Davis no choice but to seek housing where both her parents could get care. 

Looking at the broader picture, Dr. Davis believes widespread isolation, loneliness, and grief during the pandemic, and the disease of COVID-19 itself, will continue to have a profound impact on psychiatric diagnoses. This in turn could trigger a wave of new substance abuse as a result of unchecked mental health problems.

Still, not all brain experts are jumping to worst-case scenarios, with a lot yet to be understood before sounding the alarm. Joanna Hellmuth, MD, a neurologist and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, cautions against reading too much into early data, including any assumptions that COVID-19 causes neurodegeneration or irreversible damage in the brain. 

Even with before-and-after brain scans by University of Oxford, England, researchers that show structural changes to the brain after infection, she points out that they didn’t actually study the clinical symptoms of the people in the study, so it’s too soon to reach conclusions about associated cognitive problems.

“It’s an important piece of the puzzle, but we don’t know how that fits together with everything else,” says Dr. Hellmuth. “Some of my patients get better. … I haven’t seen a single person get worse since the pandemic started, and so I’m hopeful.”

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

Weeks after Jeannie Volpe caught COVID-19 in November 2020, she could no longer do her job running sexual assault support groups in Anniston, Ala., because she kept forgetting the details that survivors had shared with her. “People were telling me they were having to revisit their traumatic memories, which isn’t fair to anybody,” the 47-year-old says.

Ms. Volpe has been diagnosed with long-COVID autonomic dysfunction, which includes severe muscle pain, depression, anxiety, and a loss of thinking skills. Some of her symptoms are more commonly known as brain fog, and they’re among the most frequent problems reported by people who have long-term issues after a bout of COVID-19.

Many experts and medical professionals say they haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of what impact this will have in years to come. 

“I’m very worried that we have an epidemic of neurologic dysfunction coming down the pike,” says Pamela Davis, MD, PhD, a research professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

In the 2 years Ms. Volpe has been living with long COVID, her executive function – the mental processes that enable people to focus attention, retain information, and multitask – has been so diminished that she had to relearn to drive. One of the various doctors assessing her has suggested speech therapy to help Ms. Volpe relearn how to form words. “I can see the words I want to say in my mind, but I can’t make them come out of my mouth,” she says in a sluggish voice that gives away her condition. 

All of those symptoms make it difficult for her to care for herself. Without a job and health insurance, Ms. Volpe says she’s researched assisted suicide in the states that allow it but has ultimately decided she wants to live. 

“People tell you things like you should be grateful you survived it, and you should; but you shouldn’t expect somebody to not grieve after losing their autonomy, their career, their finances.”

The findings of researchers studying the brain effects of COVID-19 reinforce what people with long COVID have been dealing with from the start. Their experiences aren’t imaginary; they’re consistent with neurological disorders – including myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS – which carry much more weight in the public imagination than the term brain fog, which can often be used dismissively.

Studies have found that COVID-19 is linked to conditions such as strokes; seizures; and mood, memory, and movement disorders. 

While there are still a lot of unanswered questions about exactly how COVID-19 affects the brain and what the long-term effects are, there’s enough reason to suggest people should be trying to avoid both infection and reinfection until researchers get more answers.

Worldwide, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has contributed to more than 40 million new cases of neurological disorders, says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. In his latest study of 14 million medical records of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the country’s largest integrated health care system, researchers found that regardless of age, gender, race, and lifestyle, people who have had COVID-19 are at a higher risk of getting a wide array of 44 neurological conditions after the first year of infection.

He noted that some of the conditions, such as headaches and mild decline in memory and sharpness, may improve and go away over time. But others that showed up, such as stroke, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and Guillain-Barré syndrome (a rare disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks the nerves), often lead to lasting damage. Dr. Al-Aly’s team found that neurological conditions were 7% more likely in those who had COVID-19 than in those who had never been infected. 

What’s more, researchers noticed that compared with control groups, the risk of post-COVID thinking problems was more pronounced in people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s – a group that usually would be very unlikely to have these problems. For those over the age of 60, the risks stood out less because at that stage of life, such thinking problems aren’t as rare.

Another study of the veterans system last year showed that COVID-19 survivors were at a 46% higher risk of considering suicide after 1 year.

“We need to be paying attention to this,” says Dr. Al-Aly.  “What we’ve seen is really the tip of the iceberg.” He worries that millions of people, including youths, will lose out on employment and education while dealing with long-term disabilities – and the economic and societal implications of such a fallout. “What we will all be left with is the aftermath of sheer devastation in some people’s lives,” he says.

Igor Koralnik, MD, chief of neuro-infectious disease and global neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, has been running a specialized long COVID clinic. His team published a paper in March 2021 detailing what they saw in their first 100 patients. “About half the population in the study missed at least 10 days of work. This is going to have persistent impact on the workforce,” Dr. Koralnik said in a podcast posted on the Northwestern website. “We have seen that not only [do] patients have symptoms, but they have decreased quality of life.”

For older people and their caregivers, the risk of potential neurodegenerative diseases that the virus has shown to accelerate, such as dementia, is also a big concern. Alzheimer’s is already the fifth leading cause of death for people 65 and older. 

In a recent study of more than 6 million people over the age of 65, Dr. Davis and her team at Case Western found the risk of Alzheimer’s in the year after COVID-19 increased by 50%-80%. The chances were especially high for women older than 85.

To date, there are no good treatments for Alzheimer’s, yet total health care costs for long-term care and hospice services for people with dementia topped $300 billion in 2020. That doesn’t even include the related costs to families.

“The downstream effect of having someone with Alzheimer’s being taken care of by a family member can be devastating on everyone,” she says. “Sometimes the caregivers don’t weather that very well.” 

When Dr. Davis’s own father got Alzheimer’s at age 86, her mother took care of him until she had a stroke one morning while making breakfast. Dr. Davis attributes the stroke to the stress of caregiving. That left Dr. Davis no choice but to seek housing where both her parents could get care. 

Looking at the broader picture, Dr. Davis believes widespread isolation, loneliness, and grief during the pandemic, and the disease of COVID-19 itself, will continue to have a profound impact on psychiatric diagnoses. This in turn could trigger a wave of new substance abuse as a result of unchecked mental health problems.

Still, not all brain experts are jumping to worst-case scenarios, with a lot yet to be understood before sounding the alarm. Joanna Hellmuth, MD, a neurologist and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, cautions against reading too much into early data, including any assumptions that COVID-19 causes neurodegeneration or irreversible damage in the brain. 

Even with before-and-after brain scans by University of Oxford, England, researchers that show structural changes to the brain after infection, she points out that they didn’t actually study the clinical symptoms of the people in the study, so it’s too soon to reach conclusions about associated cognitive problems.

“It’s an important piece of the puzzle, but we don’t know how that fits together with everything else,” says Dr. Hellmuth. “Some of my patients get better. … I haven’t seen a single person get worse since the pandemic started, and so I’m hopeful.”

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

Weeks after Jeannie Volpe caught COVID-19 in November 2020, she could no longer do her job running sexual assault support groups in Anniston, Ala., because she kept forgetting the details that survivors had shared with her. “People were telling me they were having to revisit their traumatic memories, which isn’t fair to anybody,” the 47-year-old says.

Ms. Volpe has been diagnosed with long-COVID autonomic dysfunction, which includes severe muscle pain, depression, anxiety, and a loss of thinking skills. Some of her symptoms are more commonly known as brain fog, and they’re among the most frequent problems reported by people who have long-term issues after a bout of COVID-19.

Many experts and medical professionals say they haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of what impact this will have in years to come. 

“I’m very worried that we have an epidemic of neurologic dysfunction coming down the pike,” says Pamela Davis, MD, PhD, a research professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

In the 2 years Ms. Volpe has been living with long COVID, her executive function – the mental processes that enable people to focus attention, retain information, and multitask – has been so diminished that she had to relearn to drive. One of the various doctors assessing her has suggested speech therapy to help Ms. Volpe relearn how to form words. “I can see the words I want to say in my mind, but I can’t make them come out of my mouth,” she says in a sluggish voice that gives away her condition. 

All of those symptoms make it difficult for her to care for herself. Without a job and health insurance, Ms. Volpe says she’s researched assisted suicide in the states that allow it but has ultimately decided she wants to live. 

“People tell you things like you should be grateful you survived it, and you should; but you shouldn’t expect somebody to not grieve after losing their autonomy, their career, their finances.”

The findings of researchers studying the brain effects of COVID-19 reinforce what people with long COVID have been dealing with from the start. Their experiences aren’t imaginary; they’re consistent with neurological disorders – including myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS – which carry much more weight in the public imagination than the term brain fog, which can often be used dismissively.

Studies have found that COVID-19 is linked to conditions such as strokes; seizures; and mood, memory, and movement disorders. 

While there are still a lot of unanswered questions about exactly how COVID-19 affects the brain and what the long-term effects are, there’s enough reason to suggest people should be trying to avoid both infection and reinfection until researchers get more answers.

Worldwide, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has contributed to more than 40 million new cases of neurological disorders, says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. In his latest study of 14 million medical records of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the country’s largest integrated health care system, researchers found that regardless of age, gender, race, and lifestyle, people who have had COVID-19 are at a higher risk of getting a wide array of 44 neurological conditions after the first year of infection.

He noted that some of the conditions, such as headaches and mild decline in memory and sharpness, may improve and go away over time. But others that showed up, such as stroke, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and Guillain-Barré syndrome (a rare disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks the nerves), often lead to lasting damage. Dr. Al-Aly’s team found that neurological conditions were 7% more likely in those who had COVID-19 than in those who had never been infected. 

What’s more, researchers noticed that compared with control groups, the risk of post-COVID thinking problems was more pronounced in people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s – a group that usually would be very unlikely to have these problems. For those over the age of 60, the risks stood out less because at that stage of life, such thinking problems aren’t as rare.

Another study of the veterans system last year showed that COVID-19 survivors were at a 46% higher risk of considering suicide after 1 year.

“We need to be paying attention to this,” says Dr. Al-Aly.  “What we’ve seen is really the tip of the iceberg.” He worries that millions of people, including youths, will lose out on employment and education while dealing with long-term disabilities – and the economic and societal implications of such a fallout. “What we will all be left with is the aftermath of sheer devastation in some people’s lives,” he says.

Igor Koralnik, MD, chief of neuro-infectious disease and global neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, has been running a specialized long COVID clinic. His team published a paper in March 2021 detailing what they saw in their first 100 patients. “About half the population in the study missed at least 10 days of work. This is going to have persistent impact on the workforce,” Dr. Koralnik said in a podcast posted on the Northwestern website. “We have seen that not only [do] patients have symptoms, but they have decreased quality of life.”

For older people and their caregivers, the risk of potential neurodegenerative diseases that the virus has shown to accelerate, such as dementia, is also a big concern. Alzheimer’s is already the fifth leading cause of death for people 65 and older. 

In a recent study of more than 6 million people over the age of 65, Dr. Davis and her team at Case Western found the risk of Alzheimer’s in the year after COVID-19 increased by 50%-80%. The chances were especially high for women older than 85.

To date, there are no good treatments for Alzheimer’s, yet total health care costs for long-term care and hospice services for people with dementia topped $300 billion in 2020. That doesn’t even include the related costs to families.

“The downstream effect of having someone with Alzheimer’s being taken care of by a family member can be devastating on everyone,” she says. “Sometimes the caregivers don’t weather that very well.” 

When Dr. Davis’s own father got Alzheimer’s at age 86, her mother took care of him until she had a stroke one morning while making breakfast. Dr. Davis attributes the stroke to the stress of caregiving. That left Dr. Davis no choice but to seek housing where both her parents could get care. 

Looking at the broader picture, Dr. Davis believes widespread isolation, loneliness, and grief during the pandemic, and the disease of COVID-19 itself, will continue to have a profound impact on psychiatric diagnoses. This in turn could trigger a wave of new substance abuse as a result of unchecked mental health problems.

Still, not all brain experts are jumping to worst-case scenarios, with a lot yet to be understood before sounding the alarm. Joanna Hellmuth, MD, a neurologist and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, cautions against reading too much into early data, including any assumptions that COVID-19 causes neurodegeneration or irreversible damage in the brain. 

Even with before-and-after brain scans by University of Oxford, England, researchers that show structural changes to the brain after infection, she points out that they didn’t actually study the clinical symptoms of the people in the study, so it’s too soon to reach conclusions about associated cognitive problems.

“It’s an important piece of the puzzle, but we don’t know how that fits together with everything else,” says Dr. Hellmuth. “Some of my patients get better. … I haven’t seen a single person get worse since the pandemic started, and so I’m hopeful.”

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

Small-molecule drugs such as aspirin, albuterol, atorvastatin, and lisinopril are the backbone of disease management in family medicine.¹ However, large-molecule biological drugs such as monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are increasingly prescribed to treat common conditions. In the past decade, MAbs comprised 20% of all drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and today they represent more than half of drugs currently in development.² Fifteen MAbs have been approved by the FDA over the past decade for asthma, atopic dermatitis (AD), hyperlipidemia, osteoporosis, and migraine prevention.³ This review details what makes MAbs unique and what you should know about them.

The uniqueness of monoclonal antibodies

MAbs are biologics, but not all biologics are MAbs—eg, adalimumab (Humira) is a MAb, but etanercept (Enbrel) is not. MAbs are therapeutic proteins made possible by hybridoma technology used to create an antibody with single specificity.^4-6 Monoclonal antibodies differ from small-molecule drugs in structure, dosing, route of administration, manufacturing, metabolism, drug interactions, and elimination (TABLE 1^7-9).

MAbs can be classified as naked, “without any drug or radioactive material attached to them,” or conjugated, “joined to a chemotherapy drug, radioactive isotope, or toxin.”¹⁰ MAbs work in several ways, including competitively inhibiting ligand-­receptor binding, receptor blockade, or cell elimination from indirect immune system activities such as antibody-dependent cell-­mediated cytotoxicity.^11,12

Monoclonal antibody uses in family medicine

Asthma

Several MAbs have been approved for use in severe asthma, including but not limited to: omalizumab (Xolair),¹³ mepolizumab (Nucala),^9,14 and dupilumab (Dupixent).¹⁵All 3 agents can be self-administered subcutaneously (SC), depending on the clinician’s assessment. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines recommend that, prior to considering MAb therapy for a patient who has asthma, clinicians should assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, and modify triggering factors such as smoking or allergen exposure.¹⁶ In patients with severe asthma still uncontrolled after receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or the lowest possible dose of oral corticosteroid (OCS), GINA recommends assessing for type 2 airway inflammation: blood eosinophils ≥ 150/μL, sputum eosinophils ≥ 2%, or evidence of allergen stimulation.¹⁶ If these factors are present, consider prescribing anti-immunoglobulin E (anti-IgE) (omalizumab), anti-interleukin-5 (anti-IL-5) (mepolizumab), or anti-IL-4/anti-IL-13 (dupilumab).¹⁶

Omalizumab is a humanized MAb that prevents IgE antibodies from binding to mast cells and basophils, thereby reducing inflammatory mediators.¹³ A systematic review found that, compared with placebo, omalizumab used in patients with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma led to significantly fewer asthma exacerbations (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 16% vs 26%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.60; number needed to treat [NNT] = 10) and fewer hospitalizations (ARR, 0.5% vs 3%; OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.42; NNT = 40).¹³

Significantly more patients in the omalizumab group were able to withdraw from, or reduce, the dose of ICS. GINA recommends omalizumab for patients with positive skin sensitization, total serum IgE ≥ 30 IU/mL, weight within 30 kg to 150 kg, history of childhood asthma and recent exacerbations, and blood eosinophils ≥ 260/mcL.¹⁶ Omalizumab is also approved for use in chronic spontaneous urticaria and nasal polyps.

Mepolizumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-5, effectively blocking the growth, differentiation, recruitment, activation, and survival of eosinophils.¹⁴ Mepolizumab was studied in patients with frequent exacerbations while already taking high-dose ICSs. The mean rate of clinically consequential exacerbations was significantly reduced with mepolizumab compared with placebo (0.83 vs 1.74; P < .001).¹⁷ This translates to about 1 less moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation per year per person.

Continue to: Another trial found that...

Before considering a monoclonal antibody for asthma, assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities, and modify triggering factors.

Another trial found that mepolizumab reduced total OCS doses in patients with severe asthma by 50% without increasing exacerbations or worsening asthma control.¹⁸ All 3 anti-IL-5 drugs—including not only mepolizumab, but also benralizumab (Fasenra) and reslizumab (Cinqair)—appear to yield similar improvements. A 2017 systematic review found all anti-IL-5 treatments reduced rates of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (treatment with OCS for ≥ 3 days) by roughly 50% in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of ≥ 2 exacerbations in the past year.¹⁴ Mepolizumab, according to GINA, is preferred for patients with blood eosinophils ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, nasal polyposis, adult-onset asthma, and maintenance OCS at baseline.¹⁶ Mepolizumab is also approved for use in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Dupilumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13, which influence multiple cell types involved in inflammation (eg, mast cells, eosinophils) and inflammatory mediators (histamine, leukotrienes, cytokines).¹⁵ In a recent study of patients with uncontrolled asthma, dupilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks compared with placebo showed a modest reduction in the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations (0.46 exacerbations vs 0.87, respectively). Dupilumab was effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 150/μL but was ineffective in patients with eosinophil counts < 150/μL.¹⁵

For patients ≥ 12 years old with severe eosinophilic asthma, GINA recommends using dupilumab as add-on therapy for an initial trial of 4 months at doses of 200 or 300 mg SC every 2 weeks, with preference for 300 mg SC every 2 weeks for OCS-dependent asthma. Dupilumab is approved for use in AD and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. If a biologic agent is not successful after a 4-month trial, consider a 6- to 12-month trial. If efficacy is still minimal, consider switching to an alternative biologic therapy approved for asthma.¹⁶

  ❯ Asthma: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 19-year-old man presents to your clinic. He has a history of nasal polyps and allergic asthma. At age 18, he was given a diagnosis of severe persistent asthma. He has shortness of breath during waking hours 4 times per week, and treats each of these episodes with albuterol. He also wakes up about twice a week with shortness of breath and has some limitations in normal activities. He reports missing his prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid, only once each month. In the last year, he has had 2 exacerbations requiring oral steroids.

Medications: Albuterol 90 μg, 1-2 inhalations, q6h prn; fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid; tiotropium 1.25 μg, 2 puffs/d; montelukast 10 mg every morning; prednisone 10 mg/d.

Continue to: Objective data

Objective data: Patient is in no apparent distress and afebrile, and oxygen saturation on room air is 97%. Ht, 70 inches; wt, 75 kg. Labs: IgE, 15 IU/mL; serum eosinophils, 315/μL.

Which MAb would be appropriate for this patient? Given that the patient has a blood eosinophil level ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, adult-onset asthma, nasal polyposis, and maintenance OCS at baseline, it would be reasonable to initiate mepolizumab 100 mg SC every 4 weeks, or dupilumab 600 mg once, then 300 mg SC every 2 weeks. Both agents can be self-administered.

Atopic dermatitis

Two MAbs—dupilumab and tralokinumab (Adbry; inhibits IL-13)—are approved for treatment of AD in adults that is uncontrolled with conventional therapy.^15,19 Dupilumab is also approved for children ≥ 6 months old.²⁰ Both MAbs are dosed at 600 mg SC, followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks. Dupilumab was compared with placebo in adult patients who had moderate-to-severe AD inadequately controlled on topical corticosteroids (TCSs), to determine the proportion of patients in each group achieving improvement of either 0 or 1 points or ≥ 2 points in the 5-point Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline to 16 weeks.²¹ Thirty-seven percent of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC weekly and 38% of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC every 2 weeks achieved the primary outcome, compared with 10% of those receiving placebo (P < .001).²¹ Similar IGA scores were reported when dupilumab was combined with TCS, compared with placebo.²²

In atopic dermatitis, MAbs, unlike other systemic agents, do not require frequent monitoring of factors such as blood pressure and kidney or liver function.

It would be reasonable to consider dupilumab or tralokinumab in patients with: cutaneous atrophy or ­hypothalamic-­pituitary-adrenal axis suppression with TCS, concerns of malignancy with topical calcineurin inhibitors, or problems with the alternative systemic therapies (cyclosporine-induced hypertension, nephrotoxicity, or immunosuppression; azathioprine-induced malignancy; or methotrexate-induced bone marrow suppression, renal impairment, hepatotoxicity, pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal toxicity).²³

A distinct advantage of MAbs over other systemic agents in the management of AD is that MAbs do not require frequent monitoring of blood pressure, renal or liver function, complete blood count with differential, electrolytes, or uric acid. Additionally, MAbs have fewer black box warnings and adverse reactions when compared with other systemic agents. For dupilumab, the main adverse reactions (that occurred with > 10% frequency in trials) were injection site reactions and upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁵ Antidrug antibody development occurred in 4.2%.¹⁵ Tralokinumab had > 20% incidence of upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁹

Continue to: Hyperlipidemia

Hyperlipidemia

Three MAbs are approved for use in hyperlipidemia: the angiopoietin-like protein 3 ­(ANGPTL3) inhibitor evinacumab (Evkeeza)²⁴ and 2 proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, evolocumab (Repatha)²⁵ and alirocumab (Praluent).²⁶

ANGPTL3 inhibitors block ­ANGPTL3 and reduce endothelial lipase and lipoprotein lipase activity, which in turn decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ­(HDL-C), and triglyceride formation. PCSK9 inhibitors prevent PCSK9 from binding to LDL receptors, thereby maintaining the number of active LDL receptors and increasing LDL-C removal.

Evinacumab is indicated for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and is administered intravenously every 4 weeks. Evinacumab has not been evaluated for effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Evolocumab 140 mg SC every 2 weeks or 420 mg SC monthly has been studied in patients on statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients on evolocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization compared with placebo (9.8% vs 11.3%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; NNT = 67.²⁷

Alirocumab 75 mg SC every 2 weeks has also been studied in patients receiving statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients taking alirocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina compared with placebo (9.5% vs 11.1%; HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; NNT = 63).²⁸

Continue to: According to the 2018...

According to the 2018 AHA Cholesterol Guidelines, PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated for patients receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe) with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL, if they have had multiple atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events or 1 major ASCVD event with multiple high-risk conditions (eg, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention, hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73m²).²⁹ For patients without prior ASCVD events or high-risk conditions who are receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe), PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated if the LDL-C remains ≥ 100 mg/dL.

Osteoporosis

The 2 MAbs approved for use in osteoporosis are the receptor activator of nuclear factor kB ligand (RANKL) inhibitor denosumab (Prolia)³⁰ and the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab (Evenity).³¹

Denosumab prevents RANKL from binding to the RANK receptor, thereby inhibiting osteoclast formation and decreasing bone resorption. Denosumab is approved for use in women and men who are at high risk of osteoporotic fracture, including those taking OCSs, men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer, and women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

In a 3-year randomized trial, denosumab 60 mg SC every 6 months was compared with placebo in postmenopausal women with T-scores < –2.5, but not < –4.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip. Denosumab significantly reduced new radiographic vertebral fractures (2.3% vs 7.2%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.26-0.41; NNT = 21), hip fracture (0.7% vs 1.2%), and nonvertebral fracture (6.5% vs 8.0%).³² Denosumab carries an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures following discontinuation, skin infections, dermatologic reactions, and severe bone, joint, and muscle pain.

Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin, thereby increasing bone formation and, to a lesser degree, decreasing bone resorption. Romosozumab is approved for use in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture (ie, those with a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors for fracture) or in patients who have not benefited from or are intolerant of other therapies. In one study, postmenopausal women with a T-score of –2.5 to –3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck were randomly assigned to receive either romosozumab 210 mg SC or placebo for 12 months, then each group was switched to denosumab 60 mg SC for 12 months. After the first year, prior to initiating denosumab, patients taking romosozumab experienced significantly fewer new vertebral fractures than patients taking placebo (0.5% vs 1.8%; RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.47; NNT = 77); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with nonvertebral fractures (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.53-1.05).³³

Continue to: In another study...

In another study, romosozumab 210 mg SC was compared with alendronate 70 mg weekly, followed by alendronate 70 mg weekly in both groups. Over the first 12 months, patients treated with romosozumab saw a significant reduction in the incidence of new vertebral fractures (4% vs 6.3%; RR = 0.63, P < .003; NNT = 44). Patients treated with romosozumab with alendronate added for another 12 months also saw a significant reduction in new incidence of vertebral fractures (6.2% vs 11.9%; RR = 0.52; P < .001; NNT = 18).³⁴ There was a higher risk of cardiovascular events among patients receiving romosozumab compared with those treated with alendronate, so romosozumab should not be used in individuals who have had an MI or stroke within the previous year.³⁴ Denosumab and romosozumab offer an advantage over some bisphosphonates in that they require less frequent dosing and can be used in patients with renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 35 mL/min, in which zoledronic acid is contraindicated and alendronate is not recommended; < 30 mL/min, in which risedronate and ibandronate are not recommended).

Migraine prevention

Four calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists have been approved for migraine prevention: erenumab (Aimovig),³⁵ eptinezumab (Vyepti),³⁶ fremanezumab (Ajovy),³⁷ and galcanezumab (Emgality).³⁸ CGRP is released at areas in and around the brain, causing vasodilation and inflammation that is thought to be the major causative factor for migraine headaches.³⁹

Erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab are all available in subcutaneous autoinjectors (or syringe with fremanezumab). Eptinezumab is an intravenous (IV) infusion given every 3 months.

Erenumab is available in both 70-mg and 140-mg dosing options. Fremanezumab can be given as 225 mg monthly or 675 mg quarterly. Galcanezumab has an initial loading dose of 240 mg followed by 120 mg given monthly. Erenumab targets the CGRP receptor; the others target the CGRP ligand. Eptinezumab has 100% bioavailability and reaches maximum serum concentration sooner than the other antagonists (due to its route of administration), but it must be given in an infusion center. Few insurers approve the use of eptinezumab unless a trial of least 1 of the monthly injectables has failed.

There are no head-to-head studies of the medications in this class. Additionally, differing study designs, definitions, statistical analyses, endpoints, and responder-rate calculations make it challenging to compare them directly against one another. At the very least, all of the CGRP MAbs have efficacy comparable to conventional preventive migraine medications such as propranolol, amitriptyline, and topiramate.⁴⁰

Continue to: The most commonly reported adverse...

The most commonly reported adverse effect for all 4 CGRPs is injection site reaction, which was highest with the quarterly fremanezumab dose (45%).³⁷ Constipation was most notable with the 140-mg dose of erenumab (3%)³⁵; with the other CGRP MAbs it is comparable to that seen with placebo (< 1%).

Erenumab-induced hypertension has been identified in 61 cases reported through the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) as of 2021.⁴¹ This was not reported during MAb development programs, nor was it noted during clinical trials. Blood pressure elevation was seen within 1 week of injection in nearly 50% of the cases, and nearly one-third had pre-existing hypertension.⁴¹ Due to these findings, the erenumab prescribing information was updated to include hypertension in its warnings and precautions. It is possible that hypertension could be a class effect, although trial data and posthoc studies have yet to bear that out. Since erenumab was the first CGRP antagonist brought to market (May 2018 vs September 2018 for fremanezumab and galcanezumab), it may have accumulated more FAERS reports. Nearly all studies exclude patients with older age, uncontrolled hypertension, and unstable cardiovascular disease, which could impact data.⁴¹

Overall, this class of medications is very well tolerated, easy to use (again, excluding eptinezumab), and maintains a low adverse effect profile, giving added value compared with conventional preventive migraine medications.

The American Headache Society recommends a preventive oral therapy for at least 3 months before trying an alternative medication. After treatment failure with at least 2 oral agents, CGRP MAbs are recommended.⁴² CGRP antagonists offer convenient dosing, bypass gastrointestinal metabolism (which is useful in patients with nausea/vomiting), and have fewer adverse effects than traditional oral medications.

Worth noting. Several newer oral agents have been recently approved for migraine prevention, including atogepant (Qulipta) and rimegepant (Nurtec), which are also CGRP antagonists. Rimegepant is approved for both acute migraine treatment and prevention.

Continue to: Migraine

❯ Migraine: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 25-year-old woman presents to your clinic for management of episodic migraines with aura. Her baseline average migraine frequency is 9 headache days/month. Her migraines are becoming more frequent despite treatment. She fears IV medication use and avoids hospitals.

History: Hypertension, irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C), and depression. The patient is not pregnant or trying to get pregnant.

Medications: Current medications (for previous 4 months) include propranolol 40 mg at bedtime, linaclotide 145 μg/d, citalopram 20 mg/d, and sumatriptan 50 mg prn. Past medications include venlafaxine 150 mg po bid for 5 months.

What would be appropriate for this patient? This patient meets the criteria for using a CGRP antagonist because she has tried 2 preventive treatments for more than 60 to 90 days. Erenumab is not the best option, given the patient’s history of hypertension and IBS-C. The patient fears hospitals and IV medications, making eptinezumab a less-than-ideal choice. Depending on her insurance, fremanezumab or galcanezumab would be good options at this time.

CGRP antagonists have not been studied or evaluated in pregnancy, but if this patient becomes pregnant, a first-line agent for prevention would be propranolol, and a second-line agent would be a tricyclic antidepressant, memantine, or verapamil. Avoid ergotamines and antiepileptics (topiramate or valproate) in pregnancy.^43,44

Continue to: The challenges associated with MAbs

MAbs can be expensive (TABLE 2),⁴⁵ some prohibitively so. On a population scale, biologics account for around 40% of prescription drug spending and may cost 22 times more than small-molecule drugs.⁴⁶ Estimates in 2016 showed that MAbs comprise $90.2 billion (43%) of the biologic market.⁴⁶

MAbs also require prior authorization forms to be submitted. Prior authorization criteria vary by state and by insurance plan. In my (ES) experience, submitting letters of medical necessity justifying the need for therapy or expertise in the disease states for which the MAb is being prescribed help your patient get the medication they need.

Expect to see additional MAbs approved in the future. If the costs come down, adoption of these agents into practice will likely increase.

CORRESPONDENCE
Evelyn Sbar, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 1400 South Coulter Street, Suite 5100, Amarillo, TX 79106; [email protected]

Small-molecule drugs such as aspirin, albuterol, atorvastatin, and lisinopril are the backbone of disease management in family medicine.¹ However, large-molecule biological drugs such as monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are increasingly prescribed to treat common conditions. In the past decade, MAbs comprised 20% of all drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and today they represent more than half of drugs currently in development.² Fifteen MAbs have been approved by the FDA over the past decade for asthma, atopic dermatitis (AD), hyperlipidemia, osteoporosis, and migraine prevention.³ This review details what makes MAbs unique and what you should know about them.

The uniqueness of monoclonal antibodies

MAbs are biologics, but not all biologics are MAbs—eg, adalimumab (Humira) is a MAb, but etanercept (Enbrel) is not. MAbs are therapeutic proteins made possible by hybridoma technology used to create an antibody with single specificity.^4-6 Monoclonal antibodies differ from small-molecule drugs in structure, dosing, route of administration, manufacturing, metabolism, drug interactions, and elimination (TABLE 1^7-9).

MAbs can be classified as naked, “without any drug or radioactive material attached to them,” or conjugated, “joined to a chemotherapy drug, radioactive isotope, or toxin.”¹⁰ MAbs work in several ways, including competitively inhibiting ligand-­receptor binding, receptor blockade, or cell elimination from indirect immune system activities such as antibody-dependent cell-­mediated cytotoxicity.^11,12

Monoclonal antibody uses in family medicine

Asthma

Several MAbs have been approved for use in severe asthma, including but not limited to: omalizumab (Xolair),¹³ mepolizumab (Nucala),^9,14 and dupilumab (Dupixent).¹⁵All 3 agents can be self-administered subcutaneously (SC), depending on the clinician’s assessment. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines recommend that, prior to considering MAb therapy for a patient who has asthma, clinicians should assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, and modify triggering factors such as smoking or allergen exposure.¹⁶ In patients with severe asthma still uncontrolled after receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or the lowest possible dose of oral corticosteroid (OCS), GINA recommends assessing for type 2 airway inflammation: blood eosinophils ≥ 150/μL, sputum eosinophils ≥ 2%, or evidence of allergen stimulation.¹⁶ If these factors are present, consider prescribing anti-immunoglobulin E (anti-IgE) (omalizumab), anti-interleukin-5 (anti-IL-5) (mepolizumab), or anti-IL-4/anti-IL-13 (dupilumab).¹⁶

Omalizumab is a humanized MAb that prevents IgE antibodies from binding to mast cells and basophils, thereby reducing inflammatory mediators.¹³ A systematic review found that, compared with placebo, omalizumab used in patients with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma led to significantly fewer asthma exacerbations (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 16% vs 26%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.60; number needed to treat [NNT] = 10) and fewer hospitalizations (ARR, 0.5% vs 3%; OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.42; NNT = 40).¹³

Significantly more patients in the omalizumab group were able to withdraw from, or reduce, the dose of ICS. GINA recommends omalizumab for patients with positive skin sensitization, total serum IgE ≥ 30 IU/mL, weight within 30 kg to 150 kg, history of childhood asthma and recent exacerbations, and blood eosinophils ≥ 260/mcL.¹⁶ Omalizumab is also approved for use in chronic spontaneous urticaria and nasal polyps.

Mepolizumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-5, effectively blocking the growth, differentiation, recruitment, activation, and survival of eosinophils.¹⁴ Mepolizumab was studied in patients with frequent exacerbations while already taking high-dose ICSs. The mean rate of clinically consequential exacerbations was significantly reduced with mepolizumab compared with placebo (0.83 vs 1.74; P < .001).¹⁷ This translates to about 1 less moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation per year per person.

Continue to: Another trial found that...

Before considering a monoclonal antibody for asthma, assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities, and modify triggering factors.

Another trial found that mepolizumab reduced total OCS doses in patients with severe asthma by 50% without increasing exacerbations or worsening asthma control.¹⁸ All 3 anti-IL-5 drugs—including not only mepolizumab, but also benralizumab (Fasenra) and reslizumab (Cinqair)—appear to yield similar improvements. A 2017 systematic review found all anti-IL-5 treatments reduced rates of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (treatment with OCS for ≥ 3 days) by roughly 50% in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of ≥ 2 exacerbations in the past year.¹⁴ Mepolizumab, according to GINA, is preferred for patients with blood eosinophils ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, nasal polyposis, adult-onset asthma, and maintenance OCS at baseline.¹⁶ Mepolizumab is also approved for use in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Dupilumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13, which influence multiple cell types involved in inflammation (eg, mast cells, eosinophils) and inflammatory mediators (histamine, leukotrienes, cytokines).¹⁵ In a recent study of patients with uncontrolled asthma, dupilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks compared with placebo showed a modest reduction in the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations (0.46 exacerbations vs 0.87, respectively). Dupilumab was effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 150/μL but was ineffective in patients with eosinophil counts < 150/μL.¹⁵

For patients ≥ 12 years old with severe eosinophilic asthma, GINA recommends using dupilumab as add-on therapy for an initial trial of 4 months at doses of 200 or 300 mg SC every 2 weeks, with preference for 300 mg SC every 2 weeks for OCS-dependent asthma. Dupilumab is approved for use in AD and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. If a biologic agent is not successful after a 4-month trial, consider a 6- to 12-month trial. If efficacy is still minimal, consider switching to an alternative biologic therapy approved for asthma.¹⁶

  ❯ Asthma: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 19-year-old man presents to your clinic. He has a history of nasal polyps and allergic asthma. At age 18, he was given a diagnosis of severe persistent asthma. He has shortness of breath during waking hours 4 times per week, and treats each of these episodes with albuterol. He also wakes up about twice a week with shortness of breath and has some limitations in normal activities. He reports missing his prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid, only once each month. In the last year, he has had 2 exacerbations requiring oral steroids.

Medications: Albuterol 90 μg, 1-2 inhalations, q6h prn; fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid; tiotropium 1.25 μg, 2 puffs/d; montelukast 10 mg every morning; prednisone 10 mg/d.

Continue to: Objective data

Objective data: Patient is in no apparent distress and afebrile, and oxygen saturation on room air is 97%. Ht, 70 inches; wt, 75 kg. Labs: IgE, 15 IU/mL; serum eosinophils, 315/μL.

Which MAb would be appropriate for this patient? Given that the patient has a blood eosinophil level ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, adult-onset asthma, nasal polyposis, and maintenance OCS at baseline, it would be reasonable to initiate mepolizumab 100 mg SC every 4 weeks, or dupilumab 600 mg once, then 300 mg SC every 2 weeks. Both agents can be self-administered.

Atopic dermatitis

Two MAbs—dupilumab and tralokinumab (Adbry; inhibits IL-13)—are approved for treatment of AD in adults that is uncontrolled with conventional therapy.^15,19 Dupilumab is also approved for children ≥ 6 months old.²⁰ Both MAbs are dosed at 600 mg SC, followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks. Dupilumab was compared with placebo in adult patients who had moderate-to-severe AD inadequately controlled on topical corticosteroids (TCSs), to determine the proportion of patients in each group achieving improvement of either 0 or 1 points or ≥ 2 points in the 5-point Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline to 16 weeks.²¹ Thirty-seven percent of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC weekly and 38% of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC every 2 weeks achieved the primary outcome, compared with 10% of those receiving placebo (P < .001).²¹ Similar IGA scores were reported when dupilumab was combined with TCS, compared with placebo.²²

In atopic dermatitis, MAbs, unlike other systemic agents, do not require frequent monitoring of factors such as blood pressure and kidney or liver function.

It would be reasonable to consider dupilumab or tralokinumab in patients with: cutaneous atrophy or ­hypothalamic-­pituitary-adrenal axis suppression with TCS, concerns of malignancy with topical calcineurin inhibitors, or problems with the alternative systemic therapies (cyclosporine-induced hypertension, nephrotoxicity, or immunosuppression; azathioprine-induced malignancy; or methotrexate-induced bone marrow suppression, renal impairment, hepatotoxicity, pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal toxicity).²³

A distinct advantage of MAbs over other systemic agents in the management of AD is that MAbs do not require frequent monitoring of blood pressure, renal or liver function, complete blood count with differential, electrolytes, or uric acid. Additionally, MAbs have fewer black box warnings and adverse reactions when compared with other systemic agents. For dupilumab, the main adverse reactions (that occurred with > 10% frequency in trials) were injection site reactions and upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁵ Antidrug antibody development occurred in 4.2%.¹⁵ Tralokinumab had > 20% incidence of upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁹

Continue to: Hyperlipidemia

Hyperlipidemia

Three MAbs are approved for use in hyperlipidemia: the angiopoietin-like protein 3 ­(ANGPTL3) inhibitor evinacumab (Evkeeza)²⁴ and 2 proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, evolocumab (Repatha)²⁵ and alirocumab (Praluent).²⁶

ANGPTL3 inhibitors block ­ANGPTL3 and reduce endothelial lipase and lipoprotein lipase activity, which in turn decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ­(HDL-C), and triglyceride formation. PCSK9 inhibitors prevent PCSK9 from binding to LDL receptors, thereby maintaining the number of active LDL receptors and increasing LDL-C removal.

Evinacumab is indicated for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and is administered intravenously every 4 weeks. Evinacumab has not been evaluated for effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Evolocumab 140 mg SC every 2 weeks or 420 mg SC monthly has been studied in patients on statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients on evolocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization compared with placebo (9.8% vs 11.3%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; NNT = 67.²⁷

Alirocumab 75 mg SC every 2 weeks has also been studied in patients receiving statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients taking alirocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina compared with placebo (9.5% vs 11.1%; HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; NNT = 63).²⁸

Continue to: According to the 2018...

According to the 2018 AHA Cholesterol Guidelines, PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated for patients receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe) with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL, if they have had multiple atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events or 1 major ASCVD event with multiple high-risk conditions (eg, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention, hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73m²).²⁹ For patients without prior ASCVD events or high-risk conditions who are receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe), PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated if the LDL-C remains ≥ 100 mg/dL.

Osteoporosis

The 2 MAbs approved for use in osteoporosis are the receptor activator of nuclear factor kB ligand (RANKL) inhibitor denosumab (Prolia)³⁰ and the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab (Evenity).³¹

Denosumab prevents RANKL from binding to the RANK receptor, thereby inhibiting osteoclast formation and decreasing bone resorption. Denosumab is approved for use in women and men who are at high risk of osteoporotic fracture, including those taking OCSs, men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer, and women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

In a 3-year randomized trial, denosumab 60 mg SC every 6 months was compared with placebo in postmenopausal women with T-scores < –2.5, but not < –4.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip. Denosumab significantly reduced new radiographic vertebral fractures (2.3% vs 7.2%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.26-0.41; NNT = 21), hip fracture (0.7% vs 1.2%), and nonvertebral fracture (6.5% vs 8.0%).³² Denosumab carries an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures following discontinuation, skin infections, dermatologic reactions, and severe bone, joint, and muscle pain.

Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin, thereby increasing bone formation and, to a lesser degree, decreasing bone resorption. Romosozumab is approved for use in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture (ie, those with a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors for fracture) or in patients who have not benefited from or are intolerant of other therapies. In one study, postmenopausal women with a T-score of –2.5 to –3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck were randomly assigned to receive either romosozumab 210 mg SC or placebo for 12 months, then each group was switched to denosumab 60 mg SC for 12 months. After the first year, prior to initiating denosumab, patients taking romosozumab experienced significantly fewer new vertebral fractures than patients taking placebo (0.5% vs 1.8%; RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.47; NNT = 77); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with nonvertebral fractures (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.53-1.05).³³

Continue to: In another study...

In another study, romosozumab 210 mg SC was compared with alendronate 70 mg weekly, followed by alendronate 70 mg weekly in both groups. Over the first 12 months, patients treated with romosozumab saw a significant reduction in the incidence of new vertebral fractures (4% vs 6.3%; RR = 0.63, P < .003; NNT = 44). Patients treated with romosozumab with alendronate added for another 12 months also saw a significant reduction in new incidence of vertebral fractures (6.2% vs 11.9%; RR = 0.52; P < .001; NNT = 18).³⁴ There was a higher risk of cardiovascular events among patients receiving romosozumab compared with those treated with alendronate, so romosozumab should not be used in individuals who have had an MI or stroke within the previous year.³⁴ Denosumab and romosozumab offer an advantage over some bisphosphonates in that they require less frequent dosing and can be used in patients with renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 35 mL/min, in which zoledronic acid is contraindicated and alendronate is not recommended; < 30 mL/min, in which risedronate and ibandronate are not recommended).

Migraine prevention

Four calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists have been approved for migraine prevention: erenumab (Aimovig),³⁵ eptinezumab (Vyepti),³⁶ fremanezumab (Ajovy),³⁷ and galcanezumab (Emgality).³⁸ CGRP is released at areas in and around the brain, causing vasodilation and inflammation that is thought to be the major causative factor for migraine headaches.³⁹

Erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab are all available in subcutaneous autoinjectors (or syringe with fremanezumab). Eptinezumab is an intravenous (IV) infusion given every 3 months.

Erenumab is available in both 70-mg and 140-mg dosing options. Fremanezumab can be given as 225 mg monthly or 675 mg quarterly. Galcanezumab has an initial loading dose of 240 mg followed by 120 mg given monthly. Erenumab targets the CGRP receptor; the others target the CGRP ligand. Eptinezumab has 100% bioavailability and reaches maximum serum concentration sooner than the other antagonists (due to its route of administration), but it must be given in an infusion center. Few insurers approve the use of eptinezumab unless a trial of least 1 of the monthly injectables has failed.

There are no head-to-head studies of the medications in this class. Additionally, differing study designs, definitions, statistical analyses, endpoints, and responder-rate calculations make it challenging to compare them directly against one another. At the very least, all of the CGRP MAbs have efficacy comparable to conventional preventive migraine medications such as propranolol, amitriptyline, and topiramate.⁴⁰

Continue to: The most commonly reported adverse...

The most commonly reported adverse effect for all 4 CGRPs is injection site reaction, which was highest with the quarterly fremanezumab dose (45%).³⁷ Constipation was most notable with the 140-mg dose of erenumab (3%)³⁵; with the other CGRP MAbs it is comparable to that seen with placebo (< 1%).

Erenumab-induced hypertension has been identified in 61 cases reported through the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) as of 2021.⁴¹ This was not reported during MAb development programs, nor was it noted during clinical trials. Blood pressure elevation was seen within 1 week of injection in nearly 50% of the cases, and nearly one-third had pre-existing hypertension.⁴¹ Due to these findings, the erenumab prescribing information was updated to include hypertension in its warnings and precautions. It is possible that hypertension could be a class effect, although trial data and posthoc studies have yet to bear that out. Since erenumab was the first CGRP antagonist brought to market (May 2018 vs September 2018 for fremanezumab and galcanezumab), it may have accumulated more FAERS reports. Nearly all studies exclude patients with older age, uncontrolled hypertension, and unstable cardiovascular disease, which could impact data.⁴¹

Overall, this class of medications is very well tolerated, easy to use (again, excluding eptinezumab), and maintains a low adverse effect profile, giving added value compared with conventional preventive migraine medications.

The American Headache Society recommends a preventive oral therapy for at least 3 months before trying an alternative medication. After treatment failure with at least 2 oral agents, CGRP MAbs are recommended.⁴² CGRP antagonists offer convenient dosing, bypass gastrointestinal metabolism (which is useful in patients with nausea/vomiting), and have fewer adverse effects than traditional oral medications.

Worth noting. Several newer oral agents have been recently approved for migraine prevention, including atogepant (Qulipta) and rimegepant (Nurtec), which are also CGRP antagonists. Rimegepant is approved for both acute migraine treatment and prevention.

Continue to: Migraine

❯ Migraine: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 25-year-old woman presents to your clinic for management of episodic migraines with aura. Her baseline average migraine frequency is 9 headache days/month. Her migraines are becoming more frequent despite treatment. She fears IV medication use and avoids hospitals.

History: Hypertension, irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C), and depression. The patient is not pregnant or trying to get pregnant.

Medications: Current medications (for previous 4 months) include propranolol 40 mg at bedtime, linaclotide 145 μg/d, citalopram 20 mg/d, and sumatriptan 50 mg prn. Past medications include venlafaxine 150 mg po bid for 5 months.

What would be appropriate for this patient? This patient meets the criteria for using a CGRP antagonist because she has tried 2 preventive treatments for more than 60 to 90 days. Erenumab is not the best option, given the patient’s history of hypertension and IBS-C. The patient fears hospitals and IV medications, making eptinezumab a less-than-ideal choice. Depending on her insurance, fremanezumab or galcanezumab would be good options at this time.

CGRP antagonists have not been studied or evaluated in pregnancy, but if this patient becomes pregnant, a first-line agent for prevention would be propranolol, and a second-line agent would be a tricyclic antidepressant, memantine, or verapamil. Avoid ergotamines and antiepileptics (topiramate or valproate) in pregnancy.^43,44

Continue to: The challenges associated with MAbs

MAbs can be expensive (TABLE 2),⁴⁵ some prohibitively so. On a population scale, biologics account for around 40% of prescription drug spending and may cost 22 times more than small-molecule drugs.⁴⁶ Estimates in 2016 showed that MAbs comprise $90.2 billion (43%) of the biologic market.⁴⁶

MAbs also require prior authorization forms to be submitted. Prior authorization criteria vary by state and by insurance plan. In my (ES) experience, submitting letters of medical necessity justifying the need for therapy or expertise in the disease states for which the MAb is being prescribed help your patient get the medication they need.

Expect to see additional MAbs approved in the future. If the costs come down, adoption of these agents into practice will likely increase.

CORRESPONDENCE
Evelyn Sbar, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 1400 South Coulter Street, Suite 5100, Amarillo, TX 79106; [email protected]

Small-molecule drugs such as aspirin, albuterol, atorvastatin, and lisinopril are the backbone of disease management in family medicine.¹ However, large-molecule biological drugs such as monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are increasingly prescribed to treat common conditions. In the past decade, MAbs comprised 20% of all drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and today they represent more than half of drugs currently in development.² Fifteen MAbs have been approved by the FDA over the past decade for asthma, atopic dermatitis (AD), hyperlipidemia, osteoporosis, and migraine prevention.³ This review details what makes MAbs unique and what you should know about them.

The uniqueness of monoclonal antibodies

MAbs are biologics, but not all biologics are MAbs—eg, adalimumab (Humira) is a MAb, but etanercept (Enbrel) is not. MAbs are therapeutic proteins made possible by hybridoma technology used to create an antibody with single specificity.^4-6 Monoclonal antibodies differ from small-molecule drugs in structure, dosing, route of administration, manufacturing, metabolism, drug interactions, and elimination (TABLE 1^7-9).

MAbs can be classified as naked, “without any drug or radioactive material attached to them,” or conjugated, “joined to a chemotherapy drug, radioactive isotope, or toxin.”¹⁰ MAbs work in several ways, including competitively inhibiting ligand-­receptor binding, receptor blockade, or cell elimination from indirect immune system activities such as antibody-dependent cell-­mediated cytotoxicity.^11,12

Monoclonal antibody uses in family medicine

Asthma

Several MAbs have been approved for use in severe asthma, including but not limited to: omalizumab (Xolair),¹³ mepolizumab (Nucala),^9,14 and dupilumab (Dupixent).¹⁵All 3 agents can be self-administered subcutaneously (SC), depending on the clinician’s assessment. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines recommend that, prior to considering MAb therapy for a patient who has asthma, clinicians should assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, and modify triggering factors such as smoking or allergen exposure.¹⁶ In patients with severe asthma still uncontrolled after receiving high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or the lowest possible dose of oral corticosteroid (OCS), GINA recommends assessing for type 2 airway inflammation: blood eosinophils ≥ 150/μL, sputum eosinophils ≥ 2%, or evidence of allergen stimulation.¹⁶ If these factors are present, consider prescribing anti-immunoglobulin E (anti-IgE) (omalizumab), anti-interleukin-5 (anti-IL-5) (mepolizumab), or anti-IL-4/anti-IL-13 (dupilumab).¹⁶

Omalizumab is a humanized MAb that prevents IgE antibodies from binding to mast cells and basophils, thereby reducing inflammatory mediators.¹³ A systematic review found that, compared with placebo, omalizumab used in patients with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma led to significantly fewer asthma exacerbations (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 16% vs 26%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.60; number needed to treat [NNT] = 10) and fewer hospitalizations (ARR, 0.5% vs 3%; OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.42; NNT = 40).¹³

Significantly more patients in the omalizumab group were able to withdraw from, or reduce, the dose of ICS. GINA recommends omalizumab for patients with positive skin sensitization, total serum IgE ≥ 30 IU/mL, weight within 30 kg to 150 kg, history of childhood asthma and recent exacerbations, and blood eosinophils ≥ 260/mcL.¹⁶ Omalizumab is also approved for use in chronic spontaneous urticaria and nasal polyps.

Mepolizumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-5, effectively blocking the growth, differentiation, recruitment, activation, and survival of eosinophils.¹⁴ Mepolizumab was studied in patients with frequent exacerbations while already taking high-dose ICSs. The mean rate of clinically consequential exacerbations was significantly reduced with mepolizumab compared with placebo (0.83 vs 1.74; P < .001).¹⁷ This translates to about 1 less moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation per year per person.

Continue to: Another trial found that...

Before considering a monoclonal antibody for asthma, assess the patient’s inhaler technique and adherence, treat comorbidities, and modify triggering factors.

Another trial found that mepolizumab reduced total OCS doses in patients with severe asthma by 50% without increasing exacerbations or worsening asthma control.¹⁸ All 3 anti-IL-5 drugs—including not only mepolizumab, but also benralizumab (Fasenra) and reslizumab (Cinqair)—appear to yield similar improvements. A 2017 systematic review found all anti-IL-5 treatments reduced rates of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (treatment with OCS for ≥ 3 days) by roughly 50% in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of ≥ 2 exacerbations in the past year.¹⁴ Mepolizumab, according to GINA, is preferred for patients with blood eosinophils ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, nasal polyposis, adult-onset asthma, and maintenance OCS at baseline.¹⁶ Mepolizumab is also approved for use in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, hypereosinophilic syndrome, and rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Dupilumab is a humanized MAb that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13, which influence multiple cell types involved in inflammation (eg, mast cells, eosinophils) and inflammatory mediators (histamine, leukotrienes, cytokines).¹⁵ In a recent study of patients with uncontrolled asthma, dupilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks compared with placebo showed a modest reduction in the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations (0.46 exacerbations vs 0.87, respectively). Dupilumab was effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 150/μL but was ineffective in patients with eosinophil counts < 150/μL.¹⁵

For patients ≥ 12 years old with severe eosinophilic asthma, GINA recommends using dupilumab as add-on therapy for an initial trial of 4 months at doses of 200 or 300 mg SC every 2 weeks, with preference for 300 mg SC every 2 weeks for OCS-dependent asthma. Dupilumab is approved for use in AD and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. If a biologic agent is not successful after a 4-month trial, consider a 6- to 12-month trial. If efficacy is still minimal, consider switching to an alternative biologic therapy approved for asthma.¹⁶

  ❯ Asthma: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 19-year-old man presents to your clinic. He has a history of nasal polyps and allergic asthma. At age 18, he was given a diagnosis of severe persistent asthma. He has shortness of breath during waking hours 4 times per week, and treats each of these episodes with albuterol. He also wakes up about twice a week with shortness of breath and has some limitations in normal activities. He reports missing his prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid, only once each month. In the last year, he has had 2 exacerbations requiring oral steroids.

Medications: Albuterol 90 μg, 1-2 inhalations, q6h prn; fluticasone/salmeterol 500/50 μg, 1 inhalation bid; tiotropium 1.25 μg, 2 puffs/d; montelukast 10 mg every morning; prednisone 10 mg/d.

Continue to: Objective data

Objective data: Patient is in no apparent distress and afebrile, and oxygen saturation on room air is 97%. Ht, 70 inches; wt, 75 kg. Labs: IgE, 15 IU/mL; serum eosinophils, 315/μL.

Which MAb would be appropriate for this patient? Given that the patient has a blood eosinophil level ≥ 300/μL and severe exacerbations, adult-onset asthma, nasal polyposis, and maintenance OCS at baseline, it would be reasonable to initiate mepolizumab 100 mg SC every 4 weeks, or dupilumab 600 mg once, then 300 mg SC every 2 weeks. Both agents can be self-administered.

Atopic dermatitis

Two MAbs—dupilumab and tralokinumab (Adbry; inhibits IL-13)—are approved for treatment of AD in adults that is uncontrolled with conventional therapy.^15,19 Dupilumab is also approved for children ≥ 6 months old.²⁰ Both MAbs are dosed at 600 mg SC, followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks. Dupilumab was compared with placebo in adult patients who had moderate-to-severe AD inadequately controlled on topical corticosteroids (TCSs), to determine the proportion of patients in each group achieving improvement of either 0 or 1 points or ≥ 2 points in the 5-point Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline to 16 weeks.²¹ Thirty-seven percent of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC weekly and 38% of patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg SC every 2 weeks achieved the primary outcome, compared with 10% of those receiving placebo (P < .001).²¹ Similar IGA scores were reported when dupilumab was combined with TCS, compared with placebo.²²

In atopic dermatitis, MAbs, unlike other systemic agents, do not require frequent monitoring of factors such as blood pressure and kidney or liver function.

It would be reasonable to consider dupilumab or tralokinumab in patients with: cutaneous atrophy or ­hypothalamic-­pituitary-adrenal axis suppression with TCS, concerns of malignancy with topical calcineurin inhibitors, or problems with the alternative systemic therapies (cyclosporine-induced hypertension, nephrotoxicity, or immunosuppression; azathioprine-induced malignancy; or methotrexate-induced bone marrow suppression, renal impairment, hepatotoxicity, pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal toxicity).²³

A distinct advantage of MAbs over other systemic agents in the management of AD is that MAbs do not require frequent monitoring of blood pressure, renal or liver function, complete blood count with differential, electrolytes, or uric acid. Additionally, MAbs have fewer black box warnings and adverse reactions when compared with other systemic agents. For dupilumab, the main adverse reactions (that occurred with > 10% frequency in trials) were injection site reactions and upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁵ Antidrug antibody development occurred in 4.2%.¹⁵ Tralokinumab had > 20% incidence of upper respiratory tract infections.¹⁹

Continue to: Hyperlipidemia

Hyperlipidemia

Three MAbs are approved for use in hyperlipidemia: the angiopoietin-like protein 3 ­(ANGPTL3) inhibitor evinacumab (Evkeeza)²⁴ and 2 proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, evolocumab (Repatha)²⁵ and alirocumab (Praluent).²⁶

ANGPTL3 inhibitors block ­ANGPTL3 and reduce endothelial lipase and lipoprotein lipase activity, which in turn decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ­(HDL-C), and triglyceride formation. PCSK9 inhibitors prevent PCSK9 from binding to LDL receptors, thereby maintaining the number of active LDL receptors and increasing LDL-C removal.

Evinacumab is indicated for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and is administered intravenously every 4 weeks. Evinacumab has not been evaluated for effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Evolocumab 140 mg SC every 2 weeks or 420 mg SC monthly has been studied in patients on statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients on evolocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization compared with placebo (9.8% vs 11.3%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; NNT = 67.²⁷

Alirocumab 75 mg SC every 2 weeks has also been studied in patients receiving statin therapy with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL. Patients taking alirocumab experienced significantly less of the composite endpoint of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina compared with placebo (9.5% vs 11.1%; HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; NNT = 63).²⁸

Continue to: According to the 2018...

According to the 2018 AHA Cholesterol Guidelines, PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated for patients receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe) with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL, if they have had multiple atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events or 1 major ASCVD event with multiple high-risk conditions (eg, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention, hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73m²).²⁹ For patients without prior ASCVD events or high-risk conditions who are receiving maximally tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin and ezetimibe), PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated if the LDL-C remains ≥ 100 mg/dL.

Osteoporosis

The 2 MAbs approved for use in osteoporosis are the receptor activator of nuclear factor kB ligand (RANKL) inhibitor denosumab (Prolia)³⁰ and the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab (Evenity).³¹

Denosumab prevents RANKL from binding to the RANK receptor, thereby inhibiting osteoclast formation and decreasing bone resorption. Denosumab is approved for use in women and men who are at high risk of osteoporotic fracture, including those taking OCSs, men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer, and women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

In a 3-year randomized trial, denosumab 60 mg SC every 6 months was compared with placebo in postmenopausal women with T-scores < –2.5, but not < –4.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip. Denosumab significantly reduced new radiographic vertebral fractures (2.3% vs 7.2%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.26-0.41; NNT = 21), hip fracture (0.7% vs 1.2%), and nonvertebral fracture (6.5% vs 8.0%).³² Denosumab carries an increased risk of multiple vertebral fractures following discontinuation, skin infections, dermatologic reactions, and severe bone, joint, and muscle pain.

Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin, thereby increasing bone formation and, to a lesser degree, decreasing bone resorption. Romosozumab is approved for use in postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture (ie, those with a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors for fracture) or in patients who have not benefited from or are intolerant of other therapies. In one study, postmenopausal women with a T-score of –2.5 to –3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck were randomly assigned to receive either romosozumab 210 mg SC or placebo for 12 months, then each group was switched to denosumab 60 mg SC for 12 months. After the first year, prior to initiating denosumab, patients taking romosozumab experienced significantly fewer new vertebral fractures than patients taking placebo (0.5% vs 1.8%; RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.47; NNT = 77); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with nonvertebral fractures (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.53-1.05).³³

Continue to: In another study...

In another study, romosozumab 210 mg SC was compared with alendronate 70 mg weekly, followed by alendronate 70 mg weekly in both groups. Over the first 12 months, patients treated with romosozumab saw a significant reduction in the incidence of new vertebral fractures (4% vs 6.3%; RR = 0.63, P < .003; NNT = 44). Patients treated with romosozumab with alendronate added for another 12 months also saw a significant reduction in new incidence of vertebral fractures (6.2% vs 11.9%; RR = 0.52; P < .001; NNT = 18).³⁴ There was a higher risk of cardiovascular events among patients receiving romosozumab compared with those treated with alendronate, so romosozumab should not be used in individuals who have had an MI or stroke within the previous year.³⁴ Denosumab and romosozumab offer an advantage over some bisphosphonates in that they require less frequent dosing and can be used in patients with renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 35 mL/min, in which zoledronic acid is contraindicated and alendronate is not recommended; < 30 mL/min, in which risedronate and ibandronate are not recommended).

Migraine prevention

Four calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists have been approved for migraine prevention: erenumab (Aimovig),³⁵ eptinezumab (Vyepti),³⁶ fremanezumab (Ajovy),³⁷ and galcanezumab (Emgality).³⁸ CGRP is released at areas in and around the brain, causing vasodilation and inflammation that is thought to be the major causative factor for migraine headaches.³⁹

Erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab are all available in subcutaneous autoinjectors (or syringe with fremanezumab). Eptinezumab is an intravenous (IV) infusion given every 3 months.

Erenumab is available in both 70-mg and 140-mg dosing options. Fremanezumab can be given as 225 mg monthly or 675 mg quarterly. Galcanezumab has an initial loading dose of 240 mg followed by 120 mg given monthly. Erenumab targets the CGRP receptor; the others target the CGRP ligand. Eptinezumab has 100% bioavailability and reaches maximum serum concentration sooner than the other antagonists (due to its route of administration), but it must be given in an infusion center. Few insurers approve the use of eptinezumab unless a trial of least 1 of the monthly injectables has failed.

There are no head-to-head studies of the medications in this class. Additionally, differing study designs, definitions, statistical analyses, endpoints, and responder-rate calculations make it challenging to compare them directly against one another. At the very least, all of the CGRP MAbs have efficacy comparable to conventional preventive migraine medications such as propranolol, amitriptyline, and topiramate.⁴⁰

Continue to: The most commonly reported adverse...

The most commonly reported adverse effect for all 4 CGRPs is injection site reaction, which was highest with the quarterly fremanezumab dose (45%).³⁷ Constipation was most notable with the 140-mg dose of erenumab (3%)³⁵; with the other CGRP MAbs it is comparable to that seen with placebo (< 1%).

Erenumab-induced hypertension has been identified in 61 cases reported through the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) as of 2021.⁴¹ This was not reported during MAb development programs, nor was it noted during clinical trials. Blood pressure elevation was seen within 1 week of injection in nearly 50% of the cases, and nearly one-third had pre-existing hypertension.⁴¹ Due to these findings, the erenumab prescribing information was updated to include hypertension in its warnings and precautions. It is possible that hypertension could be a class effect, although trial data and posthoc studies have yet to bear that out. Since erenumab was the first CGRP antagonist brought to market (May 2018 vs September 2018 for fremanezumab and galcanezumab), it may have accumulated more FAERS reports. Nearly all studies exclude patients with older age, uncontrolled hypertension, and unstable cardiovascular disease, which could impact data.⁴¹

Overall, this class of medications is very well tolerated, easy to use (again, excluding eptinezumab), and maintains a low adverse effect profile, giving added value compared with conventional preventive migraine medications.

The American Headache Society recommends a preventive oral therapy for at least 3 months before trying an alternative medication. After treatment failure with at least 2 oral agents, CGRP MAbs are recommended.⁴² CGRP antagonists offer convenient dosing, bypass gastrointestinal metabolism (which is useful in patients with nausea/vomiting), and have fewer adverse effects than traditional oral medications.

Worth noting. Several newer oral agents have been recently approved for migraine prevention, including atogepant (Qulipta) and rimegepant (Nurtec), which are also CGRP antagonists. Rimegepant is approved for both acute migraine treatment and prevention.

Continue to: Migraine

❯ Migraine: Test your skills

Subjective findings: A 25-year-old woman presents to your clinic for management of episodic migraines with aura. Her baseline average migraine frequency is 9 headache days/month. Her migraines are becoming more frequent despite treatment. She fears IV medication use and avoids hospitals.

History: Hypertension, irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C), and depression. The patient is not pregnant or trying to get pregnant.

Medications: Current medications (for previous 4 months) include propranolol 40 mg at bedtime, linaclotide 145 μg/d, citalopram 20 mg/d, and sumatriptan 50 mg prn. Past medications include venlafaxine 150 mg po bid for 5 months.

What would be appropriate for this patient? This patient meets the criteria for using a CGRP antagonist because she has tried 2 preventive treatments for more than 60 to 90 days. Erenumab is not the best option, given the patient’s history of hypertension and IBS-C. The patient fears hospitals and IV medications, making eptinezumab a less-than-ideal choice. Depending on her insurance, fremanezumab or galcanezumab would be good options at this time.

CGRP antagonists have not been studied or evaluated in pregnancy, but if this patient becomes pregnant, a first-line agent for prevention would be propranolol, and a second-line agent would be a tricyclic antidepressant, memantine, or verapamil. Avoid ergotamines and antiepileptics (topiramate or valproate) in pregnancy.^43,44

Continue to: The challenges associated with MAbs

MAbs can be expensive (TABLE 2),⁴⁵ some prohibitively so. On a population scale, biologics account for around 40% of prescription drug spending and may cost 22 times more than small-molecule drugs.⁴⁶ Estimates in 2016 showed that MAbs comprise $90.2 billion (43%) of the biologic market.⁴⁶

MAbs also require prior authorization forms to be submitted. Prior authorization criteria vary by state and by insurance plan. In my (ES) experience, submitting letters of medical necessity justifying the need for therapy or expertise in the disease states for which the MAb is being prescribed help your patient get the medication they need.

Expect to see additional MAbs approved in the future. If the costs come down, adoption of these agents into practice will likely increase.

CORRESPONDENCE
Evelyn Sbar, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 1400 South Coulter Street, Suite 5100, Amarillo, TX 79106; [email protected]

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

Resistance training can help improve several symptoms of Parkinson’s disease – but is not superior to other physical activities, new research suggests.

A meta-analysis, which included 18 randomized controlled trials and more than 1,000 patients with Parkinson’s disease, showed that those who underwent resistance training had significantly greater improvement in motor impairment, muscle strength, and mobility/balance than their peers who underwent passive or placebo interventions.

However, there was no significant difference between patients who participated in resistance training and those who participated in other active physical interventions, including yoga.

Overall, the results highlight the importance that these patients should participate in some type of physical exercise, said the study’s lead author, Romina Gollan, MSc, an assistant researcher in the division of medical psychology, University of Cologne, Germany. “Patients should definitely be doing exercises, including resistance training, if they want to. But the type of exercise is of secondary interest,” she said.

The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
 

Positive but inconsistent

Previous reviews have suggested resistance training has positive effects on motor function in Parkinson’s disease. However, results from the included studies were inconsistent; and few reviews have examined nonmotor outcomes of resistance training in this population, the investigators noted.

After carrying out a literature search of studies that examined the effects of resistance training in Parkinson’s disease, the researchers included 18 randomized controlled trials in their current review. Among the 1,134 total participants, the mean age was 66 years, the mean Hoehn & Yahr stage was 2.3 (range 0-4), and the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.

The investigation was grouped into two meta-analysis groups: one examining resistance training versus a passive or placebo intervention and the other assessing resistance training versus active physical interventions, such as yoga.

During resistance training, participants use their full strength to do a repetition, working muscles to overcome a certain threshold, said Ms. Gollan. In contrast, a placebo intervention is “very low intensity” and involves a much lower threshold, she added.

Passive interventions include such things as stretching where the stimulus “is not high enough for muscles to adapt” and build strength, Ms. Gollan noted.

A passive intervention might also include “treatment as usual” or normal daily routines.
 

Patient preference important

The meta-analysis comparing resistance training groups with passive control groups showed significant large effects on muscle strength (standard mean difference, –0.84; 95% confidence interval, –1.29 to –0.39; P = .0003), motor impairment (SMD, –0.81; 95% CI, –1.34 to –0.27; P = .003), and mobility and balance (SMD, –1.80; 95% CI, –3.13 to –0.49; P  = .007).

The review also showed significant but small effects on quality of life.

However, the meta-analysis that assessed resistance training versus other physical interventions showed no significant between-group differences.

Ms. Gollan noted that although there were some assessments of cognition and depression, the data were too limited to determine the impact of resistance training on these outcomes.

“We need more studies, especially randomized controlled trials, to investigate the effects of resistance training on nonmotor outcomes like depression and cognition,” she said.

Co-investigator Ann-Kristin Folkerts, PhD, who heads the University of Cologne medical psychology working group, noted that although exercise in general is beneficial for patients with Parkinson’s disease, the choice of activity should take patient preferences into consideration.

It is important that patients choose an exercise they enjoy “because otherwise they probably wouldn’t adhere to the treatment,” Dr. Folkerts said. “It’s important to have fun.”

Specific goals or objectives, such as improving quality of life or balance, should also be considered, she added.
 

Oversimplification?

Commenting on the research, Alice Nieuwboer, PhD, professor in the department of rehabilitation sciences and head of the neurorehabilitation research group at the University of Leuven, Belgium, disagreed that exercise type is of secondary importance in Parkinson’s disease.

“In my view, it’s of primary interest, especially at the mid- to later stages,” said Dr. Nieuwboer, who was not involved with the research.

She noted it is difficult to carry out meta-analyses of resistance training versus other interventions because studies comparing different exercise types “are rather scarce.”

“Another issue is that the dose may differ, so you’re comparing apples with pears,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

She did agree that all patients should exercise, because it is “better than no exercise,” and they should be “free to choose a mode that interests them.”

However, she stressed that exercise requires significant effort on the part of patients with Parkinson’s disease, requires “sustained motivation,” and has to become habit-forming. This makes “exercise targeting” very important, with the target changing over the disease course, Dr. Nieuwboer said.

For example, for a patient at an early stage of the disease who can still move quite well, both resistance training and endurance training can improve fitness and health; but at a mid-stage, it is perhaps better for patients to work on balance and walking quality “to preempt the risk of falls and developing freezing,” she noted.

Later on, as movement becomes very difficult, “the exercise menu is even more restricted,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

The bottom line is that a message saying “any movement counts” is an oversimplification, she added.

The study was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The investigators and Dr. Nieuwboer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Resistance training can help improve several symptoms of Parkinson’s disease – but is not superior to other physical activities, new research suggests.

A meta-analysis, which included 18 randomized controlled trials and more than 1,000 patients with Parkinson’s disease, showed that those who underwent resistance training had significantly greater improvement in motor impairment, muscle strength, and mobility/balance than their peers who underwent passive or placebo interventions.

However, there was no significant difference between patients who participated in resistance training and those who participated in other active physical interventions, including yoga.

Overall, the results highlight the importance that these patients should participate in some type of physical exercise, said the study’s lead author, Romina Gollan, MSc, an assistant researcher in the division of medical psychology, University of Cologne, Germany. “Patients should definitely be doing exercises, including resistance training, if they want to. But the type of exercise is of secondary interest,” she said.

The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
 

Positive but inconsistent

Previous reviews have suggested resistance training has positive effects on motor function in Parkinson’s disease. However, results from the included studies were inconsistent; and few reviews have examined nonmotor outcomes of resistance training in this population, the investigators noted.

After carrying out a literature search of studies that examined the effects of resistance training in Parkinson’s disease, the researchers included 18 randomized controlled trials in their current review. Among the 1,134 total participants, the mean age was 66 years, the mean Hoehn & Yahr stage was 2.3 (range 0-4), and the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.

The investigation was grouped into two meta-analysis groups: one examining resistance training versus a passive or placebo intervention and the other assessing resistance training versus active physical interventions, such as yoga.

During resistance training, participants use their full strength to do a repetition, working muscles to overcome a certain threshold, said Ms. Gollan. In contrast, a placebo intervention is “very low intensity” and involves a much lower threshold, she added.

Passive interventions include such things as stretching where the stimulus “is not high enough for muscles to adapt” and build strength, Ms. Gollan noted.

A passive intervention might also include “treatment as usual” or normal daily routines.
 

Patient preference important

The meta-analysis comparing resistance training groups with passive control groups showed significant large effects on muscle strength (standard mean difference, –0.84; 95% confidence interval, –1.29 to –0.39; P = .0003), motor impairment (SMD, –0.81; 95% CI, –1.34 to –0.27; P = .003), and mobility and balance (SMD, –1.80; 95% CI, –3.13 to –0.49; P  = .007).

The review also showed significant but small effects on quality of life.

However, the meta-analysis that assessed resistance training versus other physical interventions showed no significant between-group differences.

Ms. Gollan noted that although there were some assessments of cognition and depression, the data were too limited to determine the impact of resistance training on these outcomes.

“We need more studies, especially randomized controlled trials, to investigate the effects of resistance training on nonmotor outcomes like depression and cognition,” she said.

Co-investigator Ann-Kristin Folkerts, PhD, who heads the University of Cologne medical psychology working group, noted that although exercise in general is beneficial for patients with Parkinson’s disease, the choice of activity should take patient preferences into consideration.

It is important that patients choose an exercise they enjoy “because otherwise they probably wouldn’t adhere to the treatment,” Dr. Folkerts said. “It’s important to have fun.”

Specific goals or objectives, such as improving quality of life or balance, should also be considered, she added.
 

Oversimplification?

Commenting on the research, Alice Nieuwboer, PhD, professor in the department of rehabilitation sciences and head of the neurorehabilitation research group at the University of Leuven, Belgium, disagreed that exercise type is of secondary importance in Parkinson’s disease.

“In my view, it’s of primary interest, especially at the mid- to later stages,” said Dr. Nieuwboer, who was not involved with the research.

She noted it is difficult to carry out meta-analyses of resistance training versus other interventions because studies comparing different exercise types “are rather scarce.”

“Another issue is that the dose may differ, so you’re comparing apples with pears,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

She did agree that all patients should exercise, because it is “better than no exercise,” and they should be “free to choose a mode that interests them.”

However, she stressed that exercise requires significant effort on the part of patients with Parkinson’s disease, requires “sustained motivation,” and has to become habit-forming. This makes “exercise targeting” very important, with the target changing over the disease course, Dr. Nieuwboer said.

For example, for a patient at an early stage of the disease who can still move quite well, both resistance training and endurance training can improve fitness and health; but at a mid-stage, it is perhaps better for patients to work on balance and walking quality “to preempt the risk of falls and developing freezing,” she noted.

Later on, as movement becomes very difficult, “the exercise menu is even more restricted,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

The bottom line is that a message saying “any movement counts” is an oversimplification, she added.

The study was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The investigators and Dr. Nieuwboer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Resistance training can help improve several symptoms of Parkinson’s disease – but is not superior to other physical activities, new research suggests.

A meta-analysis, which included 18 randomized controlled trials and more than 1,000 patients with Parkinson’s disease, showed that those who underwent resistance training had significantly greater improvement in motor impairment, muscle strength, and mobility/balance than their peers who underwent passive or placebo interventions.

However, there was no significant difference between patients who participated in resistance training and those who participated in other active physical interventions, including yoga.

Overall, the results highlight the importance that these patients should participate in some type of physical exercise, said the study’s lead author, Romina Gollan, MSc, an assistant researcher in the division of medical psychology, University of Cologne, Germany. “Patients should definitely be doing exercises, including resistance training, if they want to. But the type of exercise is of secondary interest,” she said.

The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
 

Positive but inconsistent

Previous reviews have suggested resistance training has positive effects on motor function in Parkinson’s disease. However, results from the included studies were inconsistent; and few reviews have examined nonmotor outcomes of resistance training in this population, the investigators noted.

After carrying out a literature search of studies that examined the effects of resistance training in Parkinson’s disease, the researchers included 18 randomized controlled trials in their current review. Among the 1,134 total participants, the mean age was 66 years, the mean Hoehn & Yahr stage was 2.3 (range 0-4), and the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.

The investigation was grouped into two meta-analysis groups: one examining resistance training versus a passive or placebo intervention and the other assessing resistance training versus active physical interventions, such as yoga.

During resistance training, participants use their full strength to do a repetition, working muscles to overcome a certain threshold, said Ms. Gollan. In contrast, a placebo intervention is “very low intensity” and involves a much lower threshold, she added.

Passive interventions include such things as stretching where the stimulus “is not high enough for muscles to adapt” and build strength, Ms. Gollan noted.

A passive intervention might also include “treatment as usual” or normal daily routines.
 

Patient preference important

The meta-analysis comparing resistance training groups with passive control groups showed significant large effects on muscle strength (standard mean difference, –0.84; 95% confidence interval, –1.29 to –0.39; P = .0003), motor impairment (SMD, –0.81; 95% CI, –1.34 to –0.27; P = .003), and mobility and balance (SMD, –1.80; 95% CI, –3.13 to –0.49; P  = .007).

The review also showed significant but small effects on quality of life.

However, the meta-analysis that assessed resistance training versus other physical interventions showed no significant between-group differences.

Ms. Gollan noted that although there were some assessments of cognition and depression, the data were too limited to determine the impact of resistance training on these outcomes.

“We need more studies, especially randomized controlled trials, to investigate the effects of resistance training on nonmotor outcomes like depression and cognition,” she said.

Co-investigator Ann-Kristin Folkerts, PhD, who heads the University of Cologne medical psychology working group, noted that although exercise in general is beneficial for patients with Parkinson’s disease, the choice of activity should take patient preferences into consideration.

It is important that patients choose an exercise they enjoy “because otherwise they probably wouldn’t adhere to the treatment,” Dr. Folkerts said. “It’s important to have fun.”

Specific goals or objectives, such as improving quality of life or balance, should also be considered, she added.
 

Oversimplification?

Commenting on the research, Alice Nieuwboer, PhD, professor in the department of rehabilitation sciences and head of the neurorehabilitation research group at the University of Leuven, Belgium, disagreed that exercise type is of secondary importance in Parkinson’s disease.

“In my view, it’s of primary interest, especially at the mid- to later stages,” said Dr. Nieuwboer, who was not involved with the research.

She noted it is difficult to carry out meta-analyses of resistance training versus other interventions because studies comparing different exercise types “are rather scarce.”

“Another issue is that the dose may differ, so you’re comparing apples with pears,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

She did agree that all patients should exercise, because it is “better than no exercise,” and they should be “free to choose a mode that interests them.”

However, she stressed that exercise requires significant effort on the part of patients with Parkinson’s disease, requires “sustained motivation,” and has to become habit-forming. This makes “exercise targeting” very important, with the target changing over the disease course, Dr. Nieuwboer said.

For example, for a patient at an early stage of the disease who can still move quite well, both resistance training and endurance training can improve fitness and health; but at a mid-stage, it is perhaps better for patients to work on balance and walking quality “to preempt the risk of falls and developing freezing,” she noted.

Later on, as movement becomes very difficult, “the exercise menu is even more restricted,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

The bottom line is that a message saying “any movement counts” is an oversimplification, she added.

The study was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The investigators and Dr. Nieuwboer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Bariatric surgery may raise the risk of developing epilepsy, new research suggests. Analyzing health records, investigators compared almost 17,000 patients who had undergone bariatric surgery with more than 620,000 individuals with obesity who had not undergone the surgery.

During a minimum 3-year follow-up period, the surgery group had a 45% higher risk of developing epilepsy than the nonsurgery group. Moreover, patients who had a stroke after their bariatric surgery were 14 times more likely to develop epilepsy than those who did not have a stroke.

“When considering having bariatric surgery, people should talk to their doctors about the benefits and risks,” senior investigator Jorge Burneo, MD, professor of neurology, biostatistics, and epidemiology and endowed chair in epilepsy at Western University, London, told this news organization.

“While there are many health benefits of weight loss, our findings suggest that epilepsy is a long-term risk of bariatric surgery for weight loss,” Dr. Burneo said.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Unrecognized risk factor?

Bariatric surgery has become more common as global rates of obesity have increased. The surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for serious obesity-related conditions, the researchers note.

However, “in addition to the positive outcomes of bariatric surgery, several long-term neurological complications have also been identified,” they write.

One previous study reported increased epilepsy risk following gastric bypass. Those findings “suggest that bariatric surgery may be an unrecognized epilepsy risk factor; however, this possible association has not been thoroughly explored,” write the investigators.

Dr. Burneo said he conducted the study because he has seen patients with epilepsy in his clinic who were “without risk factors, with normal MRIs, who shared the history of having bariatric surgery before the development of epilepsy.”

The researchers’ primary objective was to “assess whether epilepsy risk is elevated following bariatric surgery for weight loss relative to a nonsurgical cohort of patients who are obese,” he noted.

The study used linked administrative health databases in Ontario, Canada. Patients were accrued from July 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2016, and were followed until Dec. 31, 2019. The analysis included 639,472 participants, 2.7% of whom had undergone bariatric surgery.

The “exposed” cohort consisted of all Ontario residents aged 18 years or older who had undergone bariatric surgery during the 6-year period (n = 16,958; 65.1% women; mean age, 47.4 years), while the “unexposed” cohort consisted of patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of obesity who had not undergone bariatric surgery (n = 622,514; 62.8% women; mean age, 47.6 years).

Patients with a history of seizures, epilepsy, epilepsy risk factors, prior brain surgery, psychiatric disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse/dependence were excluded from the analysis.

The researchers collected data on patients’ sociodemographic characteristics at the index date, as well as Charlson Comorbidity Index scores during the 2 years prior to index, and data regarding several specific comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, sleep apnea, depression/anxiety, and cardiovascular factors.

The exposed and unexposed cohorts were followed for a median period of 5.8 and 5.9 person-years, respectively.
 

‘Unclear’ mechanisms

Before weighting, 0.4% of participants in the exposed cohort (n = 73) developed epilepsy, versus 0.2% of participants in the unexposed cohort (n = 1,260) by the end of the follow-up period.

In the weighted cohorts, there were 50.1 epilepsy diagnoses per 100,000 person-years, versus 34.1 per 100,000 person-years (rate difference, 16 per 100,000 person-years).

The multivariable analysis of the weighted cohort showed the hazard ratio for epilepsy cases that were associated with bariatric surgery was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.35-1.56), after adjusting for sleep apnea and including stroke as a time-varying covariate.

Having a stroke during the follow-up period increased epilepsy 14-fold in the exposed cohort (HR, 14.03; 95% CI, 4.25-46.25).

The investigators note that they were unable to measure obesity status or body mass index throughout the study and that some obesity-related comorbidities “may affect epilepsy risk.”

In addition, Dr. Burneo reported that the study did not investigate potential causes and mechanisms of the association between bariatric surgery and epilepsy risk.

Hypotheses “include potential nutritional deficiencies, receipt of general anesthesia, or other unclear causes,” he said.

“Future research should investigate epilepsy as a potential long-term complication of bariatric surgery, exploring the possible effects of this procedure,” Dr. Burneo added.
 

Risk-benefit discussion

In a comment, Jacqueline French, MD, professor of neurology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of NYU’s Epilepsy Study Consortium, said she was “not 100% surprised by the findings” because she has seen in her clinical practice “a number of patients who developed epilepsy after bariatric surgery or had a history of bariatric surgery at the time they developed epilepsy.”

On the other hand, she has also seen patients who did not have a history of bariatric surgery and who developed epilepsy.

“I’m unable to tell if there is an association, although I’ve had it at the back of my head as a thought and wondered about it,” said Dr. French, who is also the chief medical and innovation officer at the Epilepsy Foundation. She was not involved with the study.

She noted that possible mechanisms underlying the association are that gastric bypass surgery leads to a “significant alteration” in nutrient absorption. Moreover, “we now know that the microbiome is associated with epilepsy” and that changes occur in the gut microbiome after bariatric surgery, Dr. French said.

There are two take-home messages for practicing clinicians, she added.

“Although the risk [of developing epilepsy] is very low, it should be presented as part of the risks and benefits to patients considering bariatric surgery,” she said.

“It’s equally important to follow up on the potential differences in these patients who go on to develop epilepsy following bariatric surgery,” said Dr. French. “Is there a certain metabolic profile or some nutrient previously absorbed that now is not absorbed that might predispose people to risk?”

This would be “enormously important to know because it might not just pertain to these people but to a whole other cohort of people who develop epilepsy,” Dr. French concluded.

The study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and by the Jack Cowin Endowed Chair in Epilepsy Research at Western University. Dr. Burneo holds the Jack Cowin Endowed Chair in Epilepsy Research at Western University. The other investigators and Dr. French have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bariatric surgery may raise the risk of developing epilepsy, new research suggests. Analyzing health records, investigators compared almost 17,000 patients who had undergone bariatric surgery with more than 620,000 individuals with obesity who had not undergone the surgery.

During a minimum 3-year follow-up period, the surgery group had a 45% higher risk of developing epilepsy than the nonsurgery group. Moreover, patients who had a stroke after their bariatric surgery were 14 times more likely to develop epilepsy than those who did not have a stroke.

“When considering having bariatric surgery, people should talk to their doctors about the benefits and risks,” senior investigator Jorge Burneo, MD, professor of neurology, biostatistics, and epidemiology and endowed chair in epilepsy at Western University, London, told this news organization.

“While there are many health benefits of weight loss, our findings suggest that epilepsy is a long-term risk of bariatric surgery for weight loss,” Dr. Burneo said.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Unrecognized risk factor?

Bariatric surgery has become more common as global rates of obesity have increased. The surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for serious obesity-related conditions, the researchers note.

However, “in addition to the positive outcomes of bariatric surgery, several long-term neurological complications have also been identified,” they write.

One previous study reported increased epilepsy risk following gastric bypass. Those findings “suggest that bariatric surgery may be an unrecognized epilepsy risk factor; however, this possible association has not been thoroughly explored,” write the investigators.

Dr. Burneo said he conducted the study because he has seen patients with epilepsy in his clinic who were “without risk factors, with normal MRIs, who shared the history of having bariatric surgery before the development of epilepsy.”

The researchers’ primary objective was to “assess whether epilepsy risk is elevated following bariatric surgery for weight loss relative to a nonsurgical cohort of patients who are obese,” he noted.

The study used linked administrative health databases in Ontario, Canada. Patients were accrued from July 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2016, and were followed until Dec. 31, 2019. The analysis included 639,472 participants, 2.7% of whom had undergone bariatric surgery.

The “exposed” cohort consisted of all Ontario residents aged 18 years or older who had undergone bariatric surgery during the 6-year period (n = 16,958; 65.1% women; mean age, 47.4 years), while the “unexposed” cohort consisted of patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of obesity who had not undergone bariatric surgery (n = 622,514; 62.8% women; mean age, 47.6 years).

Patients with a history of seizures, epilepsy, epilepsy risk factors, prior brain surgery, psychiatric disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse/dependence were excluded from the analysis.

The researchers collected data on patients’ sociodemographic characteristics at the index date, as well as Charlson Comorbidity Index scores during the 2 years prior to index, and data regarding several specific comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, sleep apnea, depression/anxiety, and cardiovascular factors.

The exposed and unexposed cohorts were followed for a median period of 5.8 and 5.9 person-years, respectively.
 

‘Unclear’ mechanisms

Before weighting, 0.4% of participants in the exposed cohort (n = 73) developed epilepsy, versus 0.2% of participants in the unexposed cohort (n = 1,260) by the end of the follow-up period.

In the weighted cohorts, there were 50.1 epilepsy diagnoses per 100,000 person-years, versus 34.1 per 100,000 person-years (rate difference, 16 per 100,000 person-years).

The multivariable analysis of the weighted cohort showed the hazard ratio for epilepsy cases that were associated with bariatric surgery was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.35-1.56), after adjusting for sleep apnea and including stroke as a time-varying covariate.

Having a stroke during the follow-up period increased epilepsy 14-fold in the exposed cohort (HR, 14.03; 95% CI, 4.25-46.25).

The investigators note that they were unable to measure obesity status or body mass index throughout the study and that some obesity-related comorbidities “may affect epilepsy risk.”

In addition, Dr. Burneo reported that the study did not investigate potential causes and mechanisms of the association between bariatric surgery and epilepsy risk.

Hypotheses “include potential nutritional deficiencies, receipt of general anesthesia, or other unclear causes,” he said.

“Future research should investigate epilepsy as a potential long-term complication of bariatric surgery, exploring the possible effects of this procedure,” Dr. Burneo added.
 

Risk-benefit discussion

In a comment, Jacqueline French, MD, professor of neurology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of NYU’s Epilepsy Study Consortium, said she was “not 100% surprised by the findings” because she has seen in her clinical practice “a number of patients who developed epilepsy after bariatric surgery or had a history of bariatric surgery at the time they developed epilepsy.”

On the other hand, she has also seen patients who did not have a history of bariatric surgery and who developed epilepsy.

“I’m unable to tell if there is an association, although I’ve had it at the back of my head as a thought and wondered about it,” said Dr. French, who is also the chief medical and innovation officer at the Epilepsy Foundation. She was not involved with the study.

She noted that possible mechanisms underlying the association are that gastric bypass surgery leads to a “significant alteration” in nutrient absorption. Moreover, “we now know that the microbiome is associated with epilepsy” and that changes occur in the gut microbiome after bariatric surgery, Dr. French said.

There are two take-home messages for practicing clinicians, she added.

“Although the risk [of developing epilepsy] is very low, it should be presented as part of the risks and benefits to patients considering bariatric surgery,” she said.

“It’s equally important to follow up on the potential differences in these patients who go on to develop epilepsy following bariatric surgery,” said Dr. French. “Is there a certain metabolic profile or some nutrient previously absorbed that now is not absorbed that might predispose people to risk?”

This would be “enormously important to know because it might not just pertain to these people but to a whole other cohort of people who develop epilepsy,” Dr. French concluded.

The study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and by the Jack Cowin Endowed Chair in Epilepsy Research at Western University. Dr. Burneo holds the Jack Cowin Endowed Chair in Epilepsy Research at Western University. The other investigators and Dr. French have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bariatric surgery may raise the risk of developing epilepsy, new research suggests. Analyzing health records, investigators compared almost 17,000 patients who had undergone bariatric surgery with more than 620,000 individuals with obesity who had not undergone the surgery.

During a minimum 3-year follow-up period, the surgery group had a 45% higher risk of developing epilepsy than the nonsurgery group. Moreover, patients who had a stroke after their bariatric surgery were 14 times more likely to develop epilepsy than those who did not have a stroke.

“When considering having bariatric surgery, people should talk to their doctors about the benefits and risks,” senior investigator Jorge Burneo, MD, professor of neurology, biostatistics, and epidemiology and endowed chair in epilepsy at Western University, London, told this news organization.

“While there are many health benefits of weight loss, our findings suggest that epilepsy is a long-term risk of bariatric surgery for weight loss,” Dr. Burneo said.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Unrecognized risk factor?

Bariatric surgery has become more common as global rates of obesity have increased. The surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for serious obesity-related conditions, the researchers note.

However, “in addition to the positive outcomes of bariatric surgery, several long-term neurological complications have also been identified,” they write.

One previous study reported increased epilepsy risk following gastric bypass. Those findings “suggest that bariatric surgery may be an unrecognized epilepsy risk factor; however, this possible association has not been thoroughly explored,” write the investigators.

Dr. Burneo said he conducted the study because he has seen patients with epilepsy in his clinic who were “without risk factors, with normal MRIs, who shared the history of having bariatric surgery before the development of epilepsy.”

The researchers’ primary objective was to “assess whether epilepsy risk is elevated following bariatric surgery for weight loss relative to a nonsurgical cohort of patients who are obese,” he noted.

The study used linked administrative health databases in Ontario, Canada. Patients were accrued from July 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2016, and were followed until Dec. 31, 2019. The analysis included 639,472 participants, 2.7% of whom had undergone bariatric surgery.

The “exposed” cohort consisted of all Ontario residents aged 18 years or older who had undergone bariatric surgery during the 6-year period (n = 16,958; 65.1% women; mean age, 47.4 years), while the “unexposed” cohort consisted of patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of obesity who had not undergone bariatric surgery (n = 622,514; 62.8% women; mean age, 47.6 years).

Patients with a history of seizures, epilepsy, epilepsy risk factors, prior brain surgery, psychiatric disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse/dependence were excluded from the analysis.

The researchers collected data on patients’ sociodemographic characteristics at the index date, as well as Charlson Comorbidity Index scores during the 2 years prior to index, and data regarding several specific comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, sleep apnea, depression/anxiety, and cardiovascular factors.

The exposed and unexposed cohorts were followed for a median period of 5.8 and 5.9 person-years, respectively.
 

‘Unclear’ mechanisms

Before weighting, 0.4% of participants in the exposed cohort (n = 73) developed epilepsy, versus 0.2% of participants in the unexposed cohort (n = 1,260) by the end of the follow-up period.

In the weighted cohorts, there were 50.1 epilepsy diagnoses per 100,000 person-years, versus 34.1 per 100,000 person-years (rate difference, 16 per 100,000 person-years).

The multivariable analysis of the weighted cohort showed the hazard ratio for epilepsy cases that were associated with bariatric surgery was 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.35-1.56), after adjusting for sleep apnea and including stroke as a time-varying covariate.

Having a stroke during the follow-up period increased epilepsy 14-fold in the exposed cohort (HR, 14.03; 95% CI, 4.25-46.25).

The investigators note that they were unable to measure obesity status or body mass index throughout the study and that some obesity-related comorbidities “may affect epilepsy risk.”

In addition, Dr. Burneo reported that the study did not investigate potential causes and mechanisms of the association between bariatric surgery and epilepsy risk.

Hypotheses “include potential nutritional deficiencies, receipt of general anesthesia, or other unclear causes,” he said.

“Future research should investigate epilepsy as a potential long-term complication of bariatric surgery, exploring the possible effects of this procedure,” Dr. Burneo added.
 

Risk-benefit discussion

In a comment, Jacqueline French, MD, professor of neurology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of NYU’s Epilepsy Study Consortium, said she was “not 100% surprised by the findings” because she has seen in her clinical practice “a number of patients who developed epilepsy after bariatric surgery or had a history of bariatric surgery at the time they developed epilepsy.”

On the other hand, she has also seen patients who did not have a history of bariatric surgery and who developed epilepsy.

“I’m unable to tell if there is an association, although I’ve had it at the back of my head as a thought and wondered about it,” said Dr. French, who is also the chief medical and innovation officer at the Epilepsy Foundation. She was not involved with the study.

She noted that possible mechanisms underlying the association are that gastric bypass surgery leads to a “significant alteration” in nutrient absorption. Moreover, “we now know that the microbiome is associated with epilepsy” and that changes occur in the gut microbiome after bariatric surgery, Dr. French said.

There are two take-home messages for practicing clinicians, she added.

“Although the risk [of developing epilepsy] is very low, it should be presented as part of the risks and benefits to patients considering bariatric surgery,” she said.

“It’s equally important to follow up on the potential differences in these patients who go on to develop epilepsy following bariatric surgery,” said Dr. French. “Is there a certain metabolic profile or some nutrient previously absorbed that now is not absorbed that might predispose people to risk?”

This would be “enormously important to know because it might not just pertain to these people but to a whole other cohort of people who develop epilepsy,” Dr. French concluded.

The study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and by the Jack Cowin Endowed Chair in Epilepsy Research at Western University. Dr. Burneo holds the Jack Cowin Endowed Chair in Epilepsy Research at Western University. The other investigators and Dr. French have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

We now know that the effects of COVID-19 don’t always end when the infection seems over. Long COVID—the postacute sequelae—can encompass a wide range of extrapulmonary organ dysfunctions. Most studies on COVID-19 have had follow-ups of 6 months or less with a narrow selection of neurologic outcomes, say Evan Xu, Yan Xie, PhD, and Ziyad Al-Aly, MD of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Louis Health Care System in Missouri. The 12-month study of 11,652,484 people published in Nature Medicine sounds an alert: Get ready to care for more patients with long-term, even chronic, neurologic disorders from migraine to stroke.

The researchers “leveraged the breadth and depth” of the VA’s national health care databases to build 3 groups: 154,068 people who survived the first 30 days of COVID-19; 5,638,795 VA users with no evidence of COVID-19 infection; and 5,859,621 VA users during 2017 (ie, prepandemic). Altogether, the groups corresponded to 14,064,985 person-years of follow-up.

The findings, which the researchers termed robust, revealed substantial risks and burdens beyond the first 30 days of COVID-19 infection, including “an array of neurologic disorders spanning several disease categories.”

Patients were at greater risk for stroke (both ischemic and hemorrhagic), cognition and memory disorders, peripheral nervous system disorders, episodic disorders like migraine and seizures, extrapyramidal and movement disorders, mental health disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, sensory disorders, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and encephalitis or encephalopathy.

The researchers estimated the hazard ratio of any neurological sequelae as 1.42. The risks were elevated even in people who did not require hospitalization during acute COVID-19 and increased according to the care setting of the acute phase of the disease from nonhospitalized to hospitalized and admitted to intensive care.

“Given the colossal scale of the pandemic,” the researchers say, governments and health systems should consider these findings when devising policy for continued management and developing plans for a postpandemic world. Some of the disorders they report on, they note, “are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime.” They point to 2 key findings: first, regardless of age, people with COVID-19 had a higher risk of all the neurologic outcomes examined, and second, the analyses suggest that the effects on risk were stronger in younger adults.

“The effects of these disorders on younger lives are profound and cannot be overstated,” the researchers say. Equally troubling, they note, is the stronger effect of COVID-19 on mental health, musculoskeletal, and episodic disorders in older adults, “highlighting their vulnerability” to these disorders following COVID-19 infection.

“It is imperative,” the researchers conclude, “that we recognize the enormous challenges posed by long COVID and all its downstream long-term consequences” and design capacity planning and clinical care pathways to address the needs of people who make it past the acute phase of COVID-19

We now know that the effects of COVID-19 don’t always end when the infection seems over. Long COVID—the postacute sequelae—can encompass a wide range of extrapulmonary organ dysfunctions. Most studies on COVID-19 have had follow-ups of 6 months or less with a narrow selection of neurologic outcomes, say Evan Xu, Yan Xie, PhD, and Ziyad Al-Aly, MD of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Louis Health Care System in Missouri. The 12-month study of 11,652,484 people published in Nature Medicine sounds an alert: Get ready to care for more patients with long-term, even chronic, neurologic disorders from migraine to stroke.

The researchers “leveraged the breadth and depth” of the VA’s national health care databases to build 3 groups: 154,068 people who survived the first 30 days of COVID-19; 5,638,795 VA users with no evidence of COVID-19 infection; and 5,859,621 VA users during 2017 (ie, prepandemic). Altogether, the groups corresponded to 14,064,985 person-years of follow-up.

The findings, which the researchers termed robust, revealed substantial risks and burdens beyond the first 30 days of COVID-19 infection, including “an array of neurologic disorders spanning several disease categories.”

Patients were at greater risk for stroke (both ischemic and hemorrhagic), cognition and memory disorders, peripheral nervous system disorders, episodic disorders like migraine and seizures, extrapyramidal and movement disorders, mental health disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, sensory disorders, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and encephalitis or encephalopathy.

The researchers estimated the hazard ratio of any neurological sequelae as 1.42. The risks were elevated even in people who did not require hospitalization during acute COVID-19 and increased according to the care setting of the acute phase of the disease from nonhospitalized to hospitalized and admitted to intensive care.

“Given the colossal scale of the pandemic,” the researchers say, governments and health systems should consider these findings when devising policy for continued management and developing plans for a postpandemic world. Some of the disorders they report on, they note, “are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime.” They point to 2 key findings: first, regardless of age, people with COVID-19 had a higher risk of all the neurologic outcomes examined, and second, the analyses suggest that the effects on risk were stronger in younger adults.

“The effects of these disorders on younger lives are profound and cannot be overstated,” the researchers say. Equally troubling, they note, is the stronger effect of COVID-19 on mental health, musculoskeletal, and episodic disorders in older adults, “highlighting their vulnerability” to these disorders following COVID-19 infection.

“It is imperative,” the researchers conclude, “that we recognize the enormous challenges posed by long COVID and all its downstream long-term consequences” and design capacity planning and clinical care pathways to address the needs of people who make it past the acute phase of COVID-19

We now know that the effects of COVID-19 don’t always end when the infection seems over. Long COVID—the postacute sequelae—can encompass a wide range of extrapulmonary organ dysfunctions. Most studies on COVID-19 have had follow-ups of 6 months or less with a narrow selection of neurologic outcomes, say Evan Xu, Yan Xie, PhD, and Ziyad Al-Aly, MD of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Louis Health Care System in Missouri. The 12-month study of 11,652,484 people published in Nature Medicine sounds an alert: Get ready to care for more patients with long-term, even chronic, neurologic disorders from migraine to stroke.

The researchers “leveraged the breadth and depth” of the VA’s national health care databases to build 3 groups: 154,068 people who survived the first 30 days of COVID-19; 5,638,795 VA users with no evidence of COVID-19 infection; and 5,859,621 VA users during 2017 (ie, prepandemic). Altogether, the groups corresponded to 14,064,985 person-years of follow-up.

The findings, which the researchers termed robust, revealed substantial risks and burdens beyond the first 30 days of COVID-19 infection, including “an array of neurologic disorders spanning several disease categories.”

Patients were at greater risk for stroke (both ischemic and hemorrhagic), cognition and memory disorders, peripheral nervous system disorders, episodic disorders like migraine and seizures, extrapyramidal and movement disorders, mental health disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, sensory disorders, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and encephalitis or encephalopathy.

The researchers estimated the hazard ratio of any neurological sequelae as 1.42. The risks were elevated even in people who did not require hospitalization during acute COVID-19 and increased according to the care setting of the acute phase of the disease from nonhospitalized to hospitalized and admitted to intensive care.

“Given the colossal scale of the pandemic,” the researchers say, governments and health systems should consider these findings when devising policy for continued management and developing plans for a postpandemic world. Some of the disorders they report on, they note, “are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime.” They point to 2 key findings: first, regardless of age, people with COVID-19 had a higher risk of all the neurologic outcomes examined, and second, the analyses suggest that the effects on risk were stronger in younger adults.

“The effects of these disorders on younger lives are profound and cannot be overstated,” the researchers say. Equally troubling, they note, is the stronger effect of COVID-19 on mental health, musculoskeletal, and episodic disorders in older adults, “highlighting their vulnerability” to these disorders following COVID-19 infection.

“It is imperative,” the researchers conclude, “that we recognize the enormous challenges posed by long COVID and all its downstream long-term consequences” and design capacity planning and clinical care pathways to address the needs of people who make it past the acute phase of COVID-19

Ms. D, age 45, has major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), migraines, and hypertension. At a follow-up visit, she says she has been under a lot of stress at work in the past several months and feels her antidepressant is not working well for her depression or anxiety. Ms. D notes that lately she has had more frequent migraines, occurring approximately 4 times per month during the past 3 months. She describes a severe throbbing frontal pain that occurs primarily on the left side of her head, but sometimes on the right side. Ms. D says she experiences nausea, vomiting, and photophobia during these migraine episodes. The migraines last up to 12 hours, but often resolve with sumatriptan 50 mg as needed.

Ms. D takes fluoxetine 60 mg/d for depression and anxiety, lisinopril 20 mg/d for hypertension, as well as a women’s multivitamin and vitamin D3 daily. She has not tried other antidepressants and misses doses of her medications about once every other week. Her blood pressure is 125/80 mm Hg; heart rate is 80 beats per minute; and temperature is 37° C. Ms. D’s treatment team is considering switching her to a medication that can act as preventative therapy for migraines while also treating her depression and anxiety.

Migraine is a chronic, disabling neurovascular disorder that affects approximately 15% of the United States population.¹ It is the second-leading disabling condition worldwide and may negatively affect social, family, personal, academic, and occupational domains.² Migraine is often characterized by throbbing pain, is frequently unilateral, and may last 24 to 72 hours.³ It may occur with or without aura and can be associated with nausea, vomiting, or sensitivity to light.³ Episodic migraines occur <15 days a month, while chronic migraines occur ≥15 days a month.⁴

Many psychiatric, neurologic, vascular, and cardiac comorbidities are more prevalent in individuals who experience migraine headaches compared to the general population. Common psychiatric comorbidities found in patients with migraines are depression, bipolar disorder, GAD, panic disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder⁵; MDD is the most common.⁴ A person who experiences migraine headaches is 2 to 4 times more likely to develop MDD than one who does not experience migraine headaches.⁴

First-line treatments for preventing migraine including divalproex, topiramate, metoprolol, propranolol, and timolol.⁶ However, for some patients with migraines and comorbid depression or anxiety, an antidepressant may be an option. This article briefly reviews the evidence for using antidepressants that have been studied for their ability to decrease migraine frequency.

Antidepressants that can prevent migraine

Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are second- or third-line options for migraine prevention.⁶ While TCAs have proven to be effective for preventing migraines, many patients are unable to tolerate their adverse effects (ie, anticholinergic effects, sedation).⁷ TCAs may be more appealing for younger patients, who may be less bothered by anticholinergic burden, or those who have difficulty sleeping.

Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). There has been growing interest in understanding the potential utility of SNRIs as a preventative treatment for migraines. Research has found that SNRIs are as effective as TCAs for preventing migraines and also more tolerable in terms of adverse effects.⁷ SNRIs such as venlafaxine and duloxetine are currently prescribed off-label to prevent migraines despite a lack of FDA approval for this indication.⁸

Continue to: Understanding the safety and efficacy...

Understanding the safety and efficacy of SNRIs as preventative treatment for episodic migraines is useful, particularly for patients with comorbid depression. The Table^8-17 details clinical information related to SNRI use.

Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in preventing migraines in patients with comorbid depression.⁸ In a 2019 study, Kisler et al¹⁴ found that duloxetine 60 mg/d for 7 weeks was more effective for migraine prophylaxis than placebo as measured by the percentage of self-estimated migraine improvement by each patient compared to pretreatment levels (duloxetine: 52.3% ± 30.4%; placebo: 26.0% ± 27.3%; P = .001).

Venlafaxine has also demonstrated efficacy for preventing migraines in patients with comorbid depression.⁸ One study demonstrated a significant decrease in headaches per month with the use of venlafaxine 150 mg/d compared to placebo.¹⁸ Adelman et al¹⁹ found a reduction in migraine headaches per month (16.1 to 11.1, P < .0001) in patients who took venlafaxine for an average of 6 months with a mean dose of 150 mg/d. In a study of patients who did not have a mood disorder, Tarlaci²⁰ found that venlafaxine reduced migraine headache independent of its antidepressant action.

Though milnacipran has not been studied as extensively as other SNRIs, evidence suggests it reduces the incidence of headaches and migraines, especially among episodic migraine patients. Although it has an equipotent effect on both serotonin and norepinephrine (NE) reuptake, milnacipran has a greater NE effect compared to other SNRIs approved for treating mood disorders. A prospective, single-arm study by Engel et al²¹ found a significant (P < .005) reduction from baseline in all headache and migraine days per month with the use of milnacipran 100 mg/d over the course of 3 months. The number of headache days per month was reduced by 4.2 compared to baseline. This same study reported improved functionality and reduced use of acute and symptomatic medications overall due to the decrease in headaches and migraines.²¹

In addition to demonstrating that certain SNRIs can effectively prevent migraine, some evidence suggests certain patients may benefit from the opportunity to decrease pill burden by using a single medication to treat both depression and migraine.²² Duloxetine may be preferred for patients who struggle with adherence (such as Ms. D) due to its relatively lower incidence of withdrawal symptoms compared to venlafaxine.⁸

CASE CONTINUED

Ms. D’s psychiatrist concludes she would be an appropriate candidate for treatment with an SNRI due to her history of MDD and chronic migraines. Because Ms. D expresses some difficulty remembering to take her medications, the psychiatrist recommends duloxetine because it is less likely to produce withdrawal symptoms compared to venlafaxine. To decrease pill burden, fluoxetine 60 mg is stopped with no taper due to its long half-life, and duloxetine is started at 30 mg/d, with a planned increase to 60 mg/d after 1 to 2 weeks as tolerated to target both mood and migraine prophylaxis. Duloxetine will not interact with Ms. D’s current medication regimen, including lisinopril, women’s multivitamin, or vitamin D3. The psychiatrist discusses the importance of medication adherence to improve her conditions effectively and safely. Ms. D’s heart rate and blood pressure will continue to be monitored.

Related Resources

• Leo RJ, Khalid K. Antidepressants for chronic pain. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(2):8-16,21-22.
• Williams AM, Knox ED. When to prescribe antidepressants to treat comorbid depression and pain disorders. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):55-58.

Drug Brand Names

Divalproex • Depakote
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Lisinopril • Zestril, Prinivil
Milnacipran • Savella
Sumatriptan • Imitrex
Topiramate • Topamax
Venlafaxine • Effexor

Ms. D, age 45, has major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), migraines, and hypertension. At a follow-up visit, she says she has been under a lot of stress at work in the past several months and feels her antidepressant is not working well for her depression or anxiety. Ms. D notes that lately she has had more frequent migraines, occurring approximately 4 times per month during the past 3 months. She describes a severe throbbing frontal pain that occurs primarily on the left side of her head, but sometimes on the right side. Ms. D says she experiences nausea, vomiting, and photophobia during these migraine episodes. The migraines last up to 12 hours, but often resolve with sumatriptan 50 mg as needed.

Ms. D takes fluoxetine 60 mg/d for depression and anxiety, lisinopril 20 mg/d for hypertension, as well as a women’s multivitamin and vitamin D3 daily. She has not tried other antidepressants and misses doses of her medications about once every other week. Her blood pressure is 125/80 mm Hg; heart rate is 80 beats per minute; and temperature is 37° C. Ms. D’s treatment team is considering switching her to a medication that can act as preventative therapy for migraines while also treating her depression and anxiety.

Migraine is a chronic, disabling neurovascular disorder that affects approximately 15% of the United States population.¹ It is the second-leading disabling condition worldwide and may negatively affect social, family, personal, academic, and occupational domains.² Migraine is often characterized by throbbing pain, is frequently unilateral, and may last 24 to 72 hours.³ It may occur with or without aura and can be associated with nausea, vomiting, or sensitivity to light.³ Episodic migraines occur <15 days a month, while chronic migraines occur ≥15 days a month.⁴

Many psychiatric, neurologic, vascular, and cardiac comorbidities are more prevalent in individuals who experience migraine headaches compared to the general population. Common psychiatric comorbidities found in patients with migraines are depression, bipolar disorder, GAD, panic disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder⁵; MDD is the most common.⁴ A person who experiences migraine headaches is 2 to 4 times more likely to develop MDD than one who does not experience migraine headaches.⁴

First-line treatments for preventing migraine including divalproex, topiramate, metoprolol, propranolol, and timolol.⁶ However, for some patients with migraines and comorbid depression or anxiety, an antidepressant may be an option. This article briefly reviews the evidence for using antidepressants that have been studied for their ability to decrease migraine frequency.

Antidepressants that can prevent migraine

Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are second- or third-line options for migraine prevention.⁶ While TCAs have proven to be effective for preventing migraines, many patients are unable to tolerate their adverse effects (ie, anticholinergic effects, sedation).⁷ TCAs may be more appealing for younger patients, who may be less bothered by anticholinergic burden, or those who have difficulty sleeping.

Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). There has been growing interest in understanding the potential utility of SNRIs as a preventative treatment for migraines. Research has found that SNRIs are as effective as TCAs for preventing migraines and also more tolerable in terms of adverse effects.⁷ SNRIs such as venlafaxine and duloxetine are currently prescribed off-label to prevent migraines despite a lack of FDA approval for this indication.⁸

Continue to: Understanding the safety and efficacy...

Understanding the safety and efficacy of SNRIs as preventative treatment for episodic migraines is useful, particularly for patients with comorbid depression. The Table^8-17 details clinical information related to SNRI use.

Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in preventing migraines in patients with comorbid depression.⁸ In a 2019 study, Kisler et al¹⁴ found that duloxetine 60 mg/d for 7 weeks was more effective for migraine prophylaxis than placebo as measured by the percentage of self-estimated migraine improvement by each patient compared to pretreatment levels (duloxetine: 52.3% ± 30.4%; placebo: 26.0% ± 27.3%; P = .001).

Venlafaxine has also demonstrated efficacy for preventing migraines in patients with comorbid depression.⁸ One study demonstrated a significant decrease in headaches per month with the use of venlafaxine 150 mg/d compared to placebo.¹⁸ Adelman et al¹⁹ found a reduction in migraine headaches per month (16.1 to 11.1, P < .0001) in patients who took venlafaxine for an average of 6 months with a mean dose of 150 mg/d. In a study of patients who did not have a mood disorder, Tarlaci²⁰ found that venlafaxine reduced migraine headache independent of its antidepressant action.

Though milnacipran has not been studied as extensively as other SNRIs, evidence suggests it reduces the incidence of headaches and migraines, especially among episodic migraine patients. Although it has an equipotent effect on both serotonin and norepinephrine (NE) reuptake, milnacipran has a greater NE effect compared to other SNRIs approved for treating mood disorders. A prospective, single-arm study by Engel et al²¹ found a significant (P < .005) reduction from baseline in all headache and migraine days per month with the use of milnacipran 100 mg/d over the course of 3 months. The number of headache days per month was reduced by 4.2 compared to baseline. This same study reported improved functionality and reduced use of acute and symptomatic medications overall due to the decrease in headaches and migraines.²¹

In addition to demonstrating that certain SNRIs can effectively prevent migraine, some evidence suggests certain patients may benefit from the opportunity to decrease pill burden by using a single medication to treat both depression and migraine.²² Duloxetine may be preferred for patients who struggle with adherence (such as Ms. D) due to its relatively lower incidence of withdrawal symptoms compared to venlafaxine.⁸

CASE CONTINUED

Ms. D’s psychiatrist concludes she would be an appropriate candidate for treatment with an SNRI due to her history of MDD and chronic migraines. Because Ms. D expresses some difficulty remembering to take her medications, the psychiatrist recommends duloxetine because it is less likely to produce withdrawal symptoms compared to venlafaxine. To decrease pill burden, fluoxetine 60 mg is stopped with no taper due to its long half-life, and duloxetine is started at 30 mg/d, with a planned increase to 60 mg/d after 1 to 2 weeks as tolerated to target both mood and migraine prophylaxis. Duloxetine will not interact with Ms. D’s current medication regimen, including lisinopril, women’s multivitamin, or vitamin D3. The psychiatrist discusses the importance of medication adherence to improve her conditions effectively and safely. Ms. D’s heart rate and blood pressure will continue to be monitored.

Related Resources

• Leo RJ, Khalid K. Antidepressants for chronic pain. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(2):8-16,21-22.
• Williams AM, Knox ED. When to prescribe antidepressants to treat comorbid depression and pain disorders. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):55-58.

Drug Brand Names

Divalproex • Depakote
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Lisinopril • Zestril, Prinivil
Milnacipran • Savella
Sumatriptan • Imitrex
Topiramate • Topamax
Venlafaxine • Effexor

Ms. D, age 45, has major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), migraines, and hypertension. At a follow-up visit, she says she has been under a lot of stress at work in the past several months and feels her antidepressant is not working well for her depression or anxiety. Ms. D notes that lately she has had more frequent migraines, occurring approximately 4 times per month during the past 3 months. She describes a severe throbbing frontal pain that occurs primarily on the left side of her head, but sometimes on the right side. Ms. D says she experiences nausea, vomiting, and photophobia during these migraine episodes. The migraines last up to 12 hours, but often resolve with sumatriptan 50 mg as needed.

Ms. D takes fluoxetine 60 mg/d for depression and anxiety, lisinopril 20 mg/d for hypertension, as well as a women’s multivitamin and vitamin D3 daily. She has not tried other antidepressants and misses doses of her medications about once every other week. Her blood pressure is 125/80 mm Hg; heart rate is 80 beats per minute; and temperature is 37° C. Ms. D’s treatment team is considering switching her to a medication that can act as preventative therapy for migraines while also treating her depression and anxiety.

Migraine is a chronic, disabling neurovascular disorder that affects approximately 15% of the United States population.¹ It is the second-leading disabling condition worldwide and may negatively affect social, family, personal, academic, and occupational domains.² Migraine is often characterized by throbbing pain, is frequently unilateral, and may last 24 to 72 hours.³ It may occur with or without aura and can be associated with nausea, vomiting, or sensitivity to light.³ Episodic migraines occur <15 days a month, while chronic migraines occur ≥15 days a month.⁴

Many psychiatric, neurologic, vascular, and cardiac comorbidities are more prevalent in individuals who experience migraine headaches compared to the general population. Common psychiatric comorbidities found in patients with migraines are depression, bipolar disorder, GAD, panic disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder⁵; MDD is the most common.⁴ A person who experiences migraine headaches is 2 to 4 times more likely to develop MDD than one who does not experience migraine headaches.⁴

First-line treatments for preventing migraine including divalproex, topiramate, metoprolol, propranolol, and timolol.⁶ However, for some patients with migraines and comorbid depression or anxiety, an antidepressant may be an option. This article briefly reviews the evidence for using antidepressants that have been studied for their ability to decrease migraine frequency.

Antidepressants that can prevent migraine

Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are second- or third-line options for migraine prevention.⁶ While TCAs have proven to be effective for preventing migraines, many patients are unable to tolerate their adverse effects (ie, anticholinergic effects, sedation).⁷ TCAs may be more appealing for younger patients, who may be less bothered by anticholinergic burden, or those who have difficulty sleeping.

Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). There has been growing interest in understanding the potential utility of SNRIs as a preventative treatment for migraines. Research has found that SNRIs are as effective as TCAs for preventing migraines and also more tolerable in terms of adverse effects.⁷ SNRIs such as venlafaxine and duloxetine are currently prescribed off-label to prevent migraines despite a lack of FDA approval for this indication.⁸

Continue to: Understanding the safety and efficacy...

Understanding the safety and efficacy of SNRIs as preventative treatment for episodic migraines is useful, particularly for patients with comorbid depression. The Table^8-17 details clinical information related to SNRI use.

Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in preventing migraines in patients with comorbid depression.⁸ In a 2019 study, Kisler et al¹⁴ found that duloxetine 60 mg/d for 7 weeks was more effective for migraine prophylaxis than placebo as measured by the percentage of self-estimated migraine improvement by each patient compared to pretreatment levels (duloxetine: 52.3% ± 30.4%; placebo: 26.0% ± 27.3%; P = .001).

Venlafaxine has also demonstrated efficacy for preventing migraines in patients with comorbid depression.⁸ One study demonstrated a significant decrease in headaches per month with the use of venlafaxine 150 mg/d compared to placebo.¹⁸ Adelman et al¹⁹ found a reduction in migraine headaches per month (16.1 to 11.1, P < .0001) in patients who took venlafaxine for an average of 6 months with a mean dose of 150 mg/d. In a study of patients who did not have a mood disorder, Tarlaci²⁰ found that venlafaxine reduced migraine headache independent of its antidepressant action.

Though milnacipran has not been studied as extensively as other SNRIs, evidence suggests it reduces the incidence of headaches and migraines, especially among episodic migraine patients. Although it has an equipotent effect on both serotonin and norepinephrine (NE) reuptake, milnacipran has a greater NE effect compared to other SNRIs approved for treating mood disorders. A prospective, single-arm study by Engel et al²¹ found a significant (P < .005) reduction from baseline in all headache and migraine days per month with the use of milnacipran 100 mg/d over the course of 3 months. The number of headache days per month was reduced by 4.2 compared to baseline. This same study reported improved functionality and reduced use of acute and symptomatic medications overall due to the decrease in headaches and migraines.²¹

In addition to demonstrating that certain SNRIs can effectively prevent migraine, some evidence suggests certain patients may benefit from the opportunity to decrease pill burden by using a single medication to treat both depression and migraine.²² Duloxetine may be preferred for patients who struggle with adherence (such as Ms. D) due to its relatively lower incidence of withdrawal symptoms compared to venlafaxine.⁸

CASE CONTINUED

Ms. D’s psychiatrist concludes she would be an appropriate candidate for treatment with an SNRI due to her history of MDD and chronic migraines. Because Ms. D expresses some difficulty remembering to take her medications, the psychiatrist recommends duloxetine because it is less likely to produce withdrawal symptoms compared to venlafaxine. To decrease pill burden, fluoxetine 60 mg is stopped with no taper due to its long half-life, and duloxetine is started at 30 mg/d, with a planned increase to 60 mg/d after 1 to 2 weeks as tolerated to target both mood and migraine prophylaxis. Duloxetine will not interact with Ms. D’s current medication regimen, including lisinopril, women’s multivitamin, or vitamin D3. The psychiatrist discusses the importance of medication adherence to improve her conditions effectively and safely. Ms. D’s heart rate and blood pressure will continue to be monitored.

Related Resources

• Leo RJ, Khalid K. Antidepressants for chronic pain. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(2):8-16,21-22.
• Williams AM, Knox ED. When to prescribe antidepressants to treat comorbid depression and pain disorders. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):55-58.

Drug Brand Names

Divalproex • Depakote
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Lisinopril • Zestril, Prinivil
Milnacipran • Savella
Sumatriptan • Imitrex
Topiramate • Topamax
Venlafaxine • Effexor

Black and Hispanic adults with spina bifida or cerebral palsy are less likely to attend wellness visits than are White adults with the same pediatric-onset disabilities, a new study finds.

Black adults also had lower odds of having a bone density screening, compared with White adults. Plus, comorbidities were highest among the Black patients, according to the paper, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Elham Mahmoudi, PhD, and her coauthors examined private insurance claims from 11,635 patients with cerebral palsy (CP) or spina bifida over ten years from 2007 to 2017. The researchers analyzed comorbidities and compared the rates of different psychological, cardiometabolic, and musculoskeletal conditions among these patients.

Only 23% of Hispanic participants and 18% of Black participants attended an annual wellness visit, compared with 32% of the White participants.

Only 1% of Black and 2% of White participants received any bone density screening (odds ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.95), a service that is essential for catching a patient’s potential risk for osteoporosis and fractures.

According to the researchers, patients accessed services such as bone density scans, cholesterol assessments, diabetes screenings, and annual wellness visits less than recommended for people with those chronic conditions.

“People with spina bifida and cerebral palsy have complex care needs. We know through our work that chronic conditions are much higher among them compared with adults without disabilities,” Dr. Mahmoudi, associate professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “I was surprised to see even with private insurance, the rate of using preventative services is so low among White people and minority populations.”
 

Comorbidities highest in Black participants

Black adults had the highest comorbidity score of 2.5, and Hispanic adults had the lowest comorbidity score of 1.8. For White adults in the study, the comorbidity score was 2.0.

Osteoporosis, a common concern for people with spina bifida or cerebral palsy, was detected in around 4% of all participants. Osteoarthritis was detected in 13.38% of Black participants, versus 8.53% of Hispanic participants and 11.09% of White participants.

Diabetes and hypertension were more common among Black participants than among Hispanic and White participants. The percentages of Black patients with hypertension and diabetes were 16.5% and 39.89%, respectively. Among the Hispanic and White adults, the percentages with hypertension were 22.3% and 28.2%, respectively, according to the paper.
 

Disparities in access

Jamil Paden, racial and health equity manager at the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, said getting access to literature, transportation, tables, chairs, weigh scales, and imaging equipment that accommodate the needs of people with disabilities are some of the biggest challenges for people with disabilities who are trying to receive care.

“It’s not a one size fits all, we have to recognize that if someone doesn’t see themselves in a particular place, then it makes it more challenging for them to feel comfortable speaking up and saying things about their health, which would prevent a person from saying something early on,” Mr. Paden said in an interview. “That particular issue will continue to grow and become more of a health risk, or health challenge down the line.”

Mr. Paden emphasized intersections between class, race, and circumstances which can, together, make health care less equitable for people with disabilities, especially in underserved communities and communities of color. He urged health care providers to distance their practices from a “one size fits all” approach to treatment and engage in their patients’ individual lives and communities.

“It’s not enough to just say, Hey, you have a disability. So let me treat your disability ... You have to recognize that although a patient may have a dire diagnosis, they also are a person of color, and they have to navigate different aspects of life from their counterparts,” he said.

Dr. Mahmoudi said patient and provider understanding of the disability is often lacking. She recommended advocating for patients, noting that giving both patients and providers the tools to further educate themselves and apply that to their regular visits is a good first step.

“Just having access to a facility doesn’t mean they will get the services they need. Preventative services that are recommended for people with disabilities differ from the general population. Providers should be educated about that and the patient needs to be educated about that,” she added.

“Patients who do not approach clinicians get lost in the system. Maybe many facilities are not disability friendly, or they need health literacy. If they don’t know they are at risk for osteoporosis, for example, then they won’t ask,” Dr. Mahmoudi said.

The study was funded by The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Dr. Mahmoudi and Mr. Paden report no relevant financial relationships.

Black and Hispanic adults with spina bifida or cerebral palsy are less likely to attend wellness visits than are White adults with the same pediatric-onset disabilities, a new study finds.

Black adults also had lower odds of having a bone density screening, compared with White adults. Plus, comorbidities were highest among the Black patients, according to the paper, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Elham Mahmoudi, PhD, and her coauthors examined private insurance claims from 11,635 patients with cerebral palsy (CP) or spina bifida over ten years from 2007 to 2017. The researchers analyzed comorbidities and compared the rates of different psychological, cardiometabolic, and musculoskeletal conditions among these patients.

Only 23% of Hispanic participants and 18% of Black participants attended an annual wellness visit, compared with 32% of the White participants.

Only 1% of Black and 2% of White participants received any bone density screening (odds ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.95), a service that is essential for catching a patient’s potential risk for osteoporosis and fractures.

According to the researchers, patients accessed services such as bone density scans, cholesterol assessments, diabetes screenings, and annual wellness visits less than recommended for people with those chronic conditions.

“People with spina bifida and cerebral palsy have complex care needs. We know through our work that chronic conditions are much higher among them compared with adults without disabilities,” Dr. Mahmoudi, associate professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “I was surprised to see even with private insurance, the rate of using preventative services is so low among White people and minority populations.”
 

Comorbidities highest in Black participants

Black adults had the highest comorbidity score of 2.5, and Hispanic adults had the lowest comorbidity score of 1.8. For White adults in the study, the comorbidity score was 2.0.

Osteoporosis, a common concern for people with spina bifida or cerebral palsy, was detected in around 4% of all participants. Osteoarthritis was detected in 13.38% of Black participants, versus 8.53% of Hispanic participants and 11.09% of White participants.

Diabetes and hypertension were more common among Black participants than among Hispanic and White participants. The percentages of Black patients with hypertension and diabetes were 16.5% and 39.89%, respectively. Among the Hispanic and White adults, the percentages with hypertension were 22.3% and 28.2%, respectively, according to the paper.
 

Disparities in access

Jamil Paden, racial and health equity manager at the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, said getting access to literature, transportation, tables, chairs, weigh scales, and imaging equipment that accommodate the needs of people with disabilities are some of the biggest challenges for people with disabilities who are trying to receive care.

“It’s not a one size fits all, we have to recognize that if someone doesn’t see themselves in a particular place, then it makes it more challenging for them to feel comfortable speaking up and saying things about their health, which would prevent a person from saying something early on,” Mr. Paden said in an interview. “That particular issue will continue to grow and become more of a health risk, or health challenge down the line.”

Mr. Paden emphasized intersections between class, race, and circumstances which can, together, make health care less equitable for people with disabilities, especially in underserved communities and communities of color. He urged health care providers to distance their practices from a “one size fits all” approach to treatment and engage in their patients’ individual lives and communities.

“It’s not enough to just say, Hey, you have a disability. So let me treat your disability ... You have to recognize that although a patient may have a dire diagnosis, they also are a person of color, and they have to navigate different aspects of life from their counterparts,” he said.

Dr. Mahmoudi said patient and provider understanding of the disability is often lacking. She recommended advocating for patients, noting that giving both patients and providers the tools to further educate themselves and apply that to their regular visits is a good first step.

“Just having access to a facility doesn’t mean they will get the services they need. Preventative services that are recommended for people with disabilities differ from the general population. Providers should be educated about that and the patient needs to be educated about that,” she added.

“Patients who do not approach clinicians get lost in the system. Maybe many facilities are not disability friendly, or they need health literacy. If they don’t know they are at risk for osteoporosis, for example, then they won’t ask,” Dr. Mahmoudi said.

The study was funded by The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Dr. Mahmoudi and Mr. Paden report no relevant financial relationships.

Black and Hispanic adults with spina bifida or cerebral palsy are less likely to attend wellness visits than are White adults with the same pediatric-onset disabilities, a new study finds.

Black adults also had lower odds of having a bone density screening, compared with White adults. Plus, comorbidities were highest among the Black patients, according to the paper, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Elham Mahmoudi, PhD, and her coauthors examined private insurance claims from 11,635 patients with cerebral palsy (CP) or spina bifida over ten years from 2007 to 2017. The researchers analyzed comorbidities and compared the rates of different psychological, cardiometabolic, and musculoskeletal conditions among these patients.

Only 23% of Hispanic participants and 18% of Black participants attended an annual wellness visit, compared with 32% of the White participants.

Only 1% of Black and 2% of White participants received any bone density screening (odds ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.95), a service that is essential for catching a patient’s potential risk for osteoporosis and fractures.

According to the researchers, patients accessed services such as bone density scans, cholesterol assessments, diabetes screenings, and annual wellness visits less than recommended for people with those chronic conditions.

“People with spina bifida and cerebral palsy have complex care needs. We know through our work that chronic conditions are much higher among them compared with adults without disabilities,” Dr. Mahmoudi, associate professor in the department of family medicine at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “I was surprised to see even with private insurance, the rate of using preventative services is so low among White people and minority populations.”
 

Comorbidities highest in Black participants

Black adults had the highest comorbidity score of 2.5, and Hispanic adults had the lowest comorbidity score of 1.8. For White adults in the study, the comorbidity score was 2.0.

Osteoporosis, a common concern for people with spina bifida or cerebral palsy, was detected in around 4% of all participants. Osteoarthritis was detected in 13.38% of Black participants, versus 8.53% of Hispanic participants and 11.09% of White participants.

Diabetes and hypertension were more common among Black participants than among Hispanic and White participants. The percentages of Black patients with hypertension and diabetes were 16.5% and 39.89%, respectively. Among the Hispanic and White adults, the percentages with hypertension were 22.3% and 28.2%, respectively, according to the paper.
 

Disparities in access

Jamil Paden, racial and health equity manager at the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, said getting access to literature, transportation, tables, chairs, weigh scales, and imaging equipment that accommodate the needs of people with disabilities are some of the biggest challenges for people with disabilities who are trying to receive care.

“It’s not a one size fits all, we have to recognize that if someone doesn’t see themselves in a particular place, then it makes it more challenging for them to feel comfortable speaking up and saying things about their health, which would prevent a person from saying something early on,” Mr. Paden said in an interview. “That particular issue will continue to grow and become more of a health risk, or health challenge down the line.”

Mr. Paden emphasized intersections between class, race, and circumstances which can, together, make health care less equitable for people with disabilities, especially in underserved communities and communities of color. He urged health care providers to distance their practices from a “one size fits all” approach to treatment and engage in their patients’ individual lives and communities.

“It’s not enough to just say, Hey, you have a disability. So let me treat your disability ... You have to recognize that although a patient may have a dire diagnosis, they also are a person of color, and they have to navigate different aspects of life from their counterparts,” he said.

Dr. Mahmoudi said patient and provider understanding of the disability is often lacking. She recommended advocating for patients, noting that giving both patients and providers the tools to further educate themselves and apply that to their regular visits is a good first step.

“Just having access to a facility doesn’t mean they will get the services they need. Preventative services that are recommended for people with disabilities differ from the general population. Providers should be educated about that and the patient needs to be educated about that,” she added.

“Patients who do not approach clinicians get lost in the system. Maybe many facilities are not disability friendly, or they need health literacy. If they don’t know they are at risk for osteoporosis, for example, then they won’t ask,” Dr. Mahmoudi said.

The study was funded by The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. Dr. Mahmoudi and Mr. Paden report no relevant financial relationships.