Neurology

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.

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is characterized by receptive or expressive language difficulties or both. Children with the neurodevelopmental condition “struggle to comprehend and use their native language for no obvious reason,” said the authors of a new study. This leads to problems with grammar, vocabulary, and holding conversations, and in turn an increased risk of “difficulties when learning to read, underachieving academically, being unemployed, and facing social and mental health challenges.”

The condition is common and estimated to affect 7% of children – approximately two in every classroom – but is “underrecognized” said the authors.

Saloni Krishnan, PhD, reader at Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the study as a research fellow at the University of Oxford, England, explained: “DLD is a relatively unknown and understudied condition, unlike better known neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, or autism.”

It is suspected that children with DLD may have differences in areas of the brain involved with learning habits and rules. “Although we know that DLD does not result from gross neural lesions, we still do not have a clear picture of how brain anatomy differs in children with DLD,” the authors highlighted.
 

Language learning difficulties linked to brain differences

For their study, published in eLife, researchers used an MRI technique called multiparameter mapping (MPM) to investigate microstructural neural differences in children with DLD. The technique measures the properties of brain tissue and is particularly useful for measuring the amounts of myelin.

“Understanding the neural basis of DLD is particularly challenging given the developmental nature of the disorder, as well as the lack of animal models for understanding language,” explained the authors. However, they pointed out that MPM allows an “unparalleled in vivo method” to investigate microstructural neural changes in children with DLD.

Kate Watkins, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of Oxford and senior author, said: “This type of scan tells us more about the makeup or composition of the brain tissue in different areas.”

As part of the Oxford Brain Organisation in Language Development (OxBOLD) study, the researchers recruited and tested 175 children between the ages of 10 and 15 years. Subsequently, 56 children with typical language development and 33 children with DLD were scanned using MPM.

The researchers compared the two groups and found that children with DLD have less myelin in parts of the brain responsible for speaking, listening, and learning rules and habits.

Specifically, maps of magnetization transfer saturation (MTsat) – which index myelin – in children with DLD showed reductions in MTsat values in the caudate nucleus bilaterally, and in the left ventral sensorimotor cortex and Heschl’s gyrus.

“Our findings using this protocol suggest that the caudate nucleus, as well as regions in the wider speech and language network, show alterations in myelin in children with DLD,” explained the authors.

“Given myelin’s role in enabling fast and reliable communication in the brain, reduced myelin content may explain why children with DLD struggle with speech and language processing,” they highlighted.
 

Significant advance in DLD understanding

The study findings established changes in striatal and cortical myelin as a “neural basis for DLD,” explained the journal editor, who highlighted that this was a “significant advance” in the understanding of DLD. “These brain differences may explain the poorer language outcomes in this group,” the authors said.

The findings “strongly point” to a role for the striatum in the development of DLD, and this role is likely to be in the “learning of habits and sequences,” the authors said.

They pointed out, however, that myelin patterns can change over development, and that myelination can be observed after successful training. “It is important to assess whether these differences in myelin persist over development in DLD, and if they can be targeted through training using behavioral interventions,” they emphasized.

Professor Watkins commented: “The findings might help us understand the pathways involved at a biological level and ultimately allow us to explain why children with DLD have problems with language learning.”

A spokesperson for the RADLD (Raising Awareness of Developmental Language Disorder) organization, commented: “Developmental language disorder has long been understood to have a neurological basis; however, these differences in the brain development have received limited attention in research.” It added that utilizing new technology helps to better understand the “potential neurological differences” experienced by people with DLD.

More studies are needed to determine if these brain differences cause language problems and how or if experiencing language difficulties could cause these changes in the brain, explained the authors. They hoped that further research may help scientists find new treatments that target these brain differences.

Funding was provided by UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is characterized by receptive or expressive language difficulties or both. Children with the neurodevelopmental condition “struggle to comprehend and use their native language for no obvious reason,” said the authors of a new study. This leads to problems with grammar, vocabulary, and holding conversations, and in turn an increased risk of “difficulties when learning to read, underachieving academically, being unemployed, and facing social and mental health challenges.”

The condition is common and estimated to affect 7% of children – approximately two in every classroom – but is “underrecognized” said the authors.

Saloni Krishnan, PhD, reader at Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the study as a research fellow at the University of Oxford, England, explained: “DLD is a relatively unknown and understudied condition, unlike better known neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, or autism.”

It is suspected that children with DLD may have differences in areas of the brain involved with learning habits and rules. “Although we know that DLD does not result from gross neural lesions, we still do not have a clear picture of how brain anatomy differs in children with DLD,” the authors highlighted.
 

Language learning difficulties linked to brain differences

For their study, published in eLife, researchers used an MRI technique called multiparameter mapping (MPM) to investigate microstructural neural differences in children with DLD. The technique measures the properties of brain tissue and is particularly useful for measuring the amounts of myelin.

“Understanding the neural basis of DLD is particularly challenging given the developmental nature of the disorder, as well as the lack of animal models for understanding language,” explained the authors. However, they pointed out that MPM allows an “unparalleled in vivo method” to investigate microstructural neural changes in children with DLD.

Kate Watkins, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of Oxford and senior author, said: “This type of scan tells us more about the makeup or composition of the brain tissue in different areas.”

As part of the Oxford Brain Organisation in Language Development (OxBOLD) study, the researchers recruited and tested 175 children between the ages of 10 and 15 years. Subsequently, 56 children with typical language development and 33 children with DLD were scanned using MPM.

The researchers compared the two groups and found that children with DLD have less myelin in parts of the brain responsible for speaking, listening, and learning rules and habits.

Specifically, maps of magnetization transfer saturation (MTsat) – which index myelin – in children with DLD showed reductions in MTsat values in the caudate nucleus bilaterally, and in the left ventral sensorimotor cortex and Heschl’s gyrus.

“Our findings using this protocol suggest that the caudate nucleus, as well as regions in the wider speech and language network, show alterations in myelin in children with DLD,” explained the authors.

“Given myelin’s role in enabling fast and reliable communication in the brain, reduced myelin content may explain why children with DLD struggle with speech and language processing,” they highlighted.
 

Significant advance in DLD understanding

The study findings established changes in striatal and cortical myelin as a “neural basis for DLD,” explained the journal editor, who highlighted that this was a “significant advance” in the understanding of DLD. “These brain differences may explain the poorer language outcomes in this group,” the authors said.

The findings “strongly point” to a role for the striatum in the development of DLD, and this role is likely to be in the “learning of habits and sequences,” the authors said.

They pointed out, however, that myelin patterns can change over development, and that myelination can be observed after successful training. “It is important to assess whether these differences in myelin persist over development in DLD, and if they can be targeted through training using behavioral interventions,” they emphasized.

Professor Watkins commented: “The findings might help us understand the pathways involved at a biological level and ultimately allow us to explain why children with DLD have problems with language learning.”

A spokesperson for the RADLD (Raising Awareness of Developmental Language Disorder) organization, commented: “Developmental language disorder has long been understood to have a neurological basis; however, these differences in the brain development have received limited attention in research.” It added that utilizing new technology helps to better understand the “potential neurological differences” experienced by people with DLD.

More studies are needed to determine if these brain differences cause language problems and how or if experiencing language difficulties could cause these changes in the brain, explained the authors. They hoped that further research may help scientists find new treatments that target these brain differences.

Funding was provided by UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is characterized by receptive or expressive language difficulties or both. Children with the neurodevelopmental condition “struggle to comprehend and use their native language for no obvious reason,” said the authors of a new study. This leads to problems with grammar, vocabulary, and holding conversations, and in turn an increased risk of “difficulties when learning to read, underachieving academically, being unemployed, and facing social and mental health challenges.”

The condition is common and estimated to affect 7% of children – approximately two in every classroom – but is “underrecognized” said the authors.

Saloni Krishnan, PhD, reader at Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the study as a research fellow at the University of Oxford, England, explained: “DLD is a relatively unknown and understudied condition, unlike better known neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, or autism.”

It is suspected that children with DLD may have differences in areas of the brain involved with learning habits and rules. “Although we know that DLD does not result from gross neural lesions, we still do not have a clear picture of how brain anatomy differs in children with DLD,” the authors highlighted.
 

Language learning difficulties linked to brain differences

For their study, published in eLife, researchers used an MRI technique called multiparameter mapping (MPM) to investigate microstructural neural differences in children with DLD. The technique measures the properties of brain tissue and is particularly useful for measuring the amounts of myelin.

“Understanding the neural basis of DLD is particularly challenging given the developmental nature of the disorder, as well as the lack of animal models for understanding language,” explained the authors. However, they pointed out that MPM allows an “unparalleled in vivo method” to investigate microstructural neural changes in children with DLD.

Kate Watkins, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of Oxford and senior author, said: “This type of scan tells us more about the makeup or composition of the brain tissue in different areas.”

As part of the Oxford Brain Organisation in Language Development (OxBOLD) study, the researchers recruited and tested 175 children between the ages of 10 and 15 years. Subsequently, 56 children with typical language development and 33 children with DLD were scanned using MPM.

The researchers compared the two groups and found that children with DLD have less myelin in parts of the brain responsible for speaking, listening, and learning rules and habits.

Specifically, maps of magnetization transfer saturation (MTsat) – which index myelin – in children with DLD showed reductions in MTsat values in the caudate nucleus bilaterally, and in the left ventral sensorimotor cortex and Heschl’s gyrus.

“Our findings using this protocol suggest that the caudate nucleus, as well as regions in the wider speech and language network, show alterations in myelin in children with DLD,” explained the authors.

“Given myelin’s role in enabling fast and reliable communication in the brain, reduced myelin content may explain why children with DLD struggle with speech and language processing,” they highlighted.
 

Significant advance in DLD understanding

The study findings established changes in striatal and cortical myelin as a “neural basis for DLD,” explained the journal editor, who highlighted that this was a “significant advance” in the understanding of DLD. “These brain differences may explain the poorer language outcomes in this group,” the authors said.

The findings “strongly point” to a role for the striatum in the development of DLD, and this role is likely to be in the “learning of habits and sequences,” the authors said.

They pointed out, however, that myelin patterns can change over development, and that myelination can be observed after successful training. “It is important to assess whether these differences in myelin persist over development in DLD, and if they can be targeted through training using behavioral interventions,” they emphasized.

Professor Watkins commented: “The findings might help us understand the pathways involved at a biological level and ultimately allow us to explain why children with DLD have problems with language learning.”

A spokesperson for the RADLD (Raising Awareness of Developmental Language Disorder) organization, commented: “Developmental language disorder has long been understood to have a neurological basis; however, these differences in the brain development have received limited attention in research.” It added that utilizing new technology helps to better understand the “potential neurological differences” experienced by people with DLD.

More studies are needed to determine if these brain differences cause language problems and how or if experiencing language difficulties could cause these changes in the brain, explained the authors. They hoped that further research may help scientists find new treatments that target these brain differences.

Funding was provided by UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Nightmares in healthy middle-aged and older adults may be an independent risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, particularly in men, new research suggests.

Results from a large cohort study showed that healthy middle-aged adults who had bad dreams at least once a week were four times more likely to experience cognitive decline over the following decade, and older adults were twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia, compared with peers who never had bad dreams.

Frequent nightmares may “identify people who are at high risk of developing dementia in the future, several years or decades before the characteristic memory and thinking problems emerge,” study investigator Abidemi Otaiku, BMBS, University of Birmingham, England, said in an interview.

“This would be the optimum time for doctors to intervene to try and slow down or prevent dementia from developing,” Dr. Otaiku said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine).
 

Distressing dreams

Distressing dreams have been previously associated with faster cognitive decline and increased dementia risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but whether the same holds for individuals from the general population without PD is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Otaiku examined data from three community-based cohorts in the United States. This included 605 middle-aged adults (aged 35-64 years) who were followed for up to 13 years and 2,600 adults aged 79 and older who were followed for up to 7 years. All were considered cognitively normal at baseline.

The prevalence of frequent distressing dreams, defined as occurring “once a week or more,” was higher in the older cohort compared with the middle-aged cohort (6.9% vs. 6.0%, respectively).

This is in line with other research that showed distressing dreams remain relatively stable throughout early adulthood and then progressively increase in prevalence from middle to older adulthood. 

After adjustment for all covariates, a higher frequency of distressing dreams was linearly and statistically significantly associated with a higher risk for cognitive decline in middle-aged adults (P = .016) and a higher risk for dementia in older adults (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, compared with middle-aged adults who never had bad dreams, those who reported having one or more bad dreams weekly had a fourfold risk for cognitive decline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-14.85).

Older adults who had one or more bad dreams weekly had a greater than twofold increased risk for developing dementia (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.35-3.62).
 

Early days

In sex-stratified analyses, distressing dreams were strongly and statistically significantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in men, but were only weakly and nonsignificantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in women.

Dr. Otaiku said he suspects some individuals in the preclinical phase of dementia have “subtle neurodegeneration occurring over time in the right frontal lobe: the area of the brain that helps to downregulate negative emotions whilst we are awake, and also whilst we are dreaming.”

This could result in “depression and anxiety in the day, and nightmares and bad dreams during the night,” he said.

It is possible that treatment for frequent nightmares may help to slow cognitive decline and delay or prevent dementia, Dr. Otaiku added.

He noted that prazosin is used to treat nightmares and has been shown to prevent memory decline and reduce amyloid B generation in preclinical studies of Alzheimer’s disease.

“This is an exciting prospect [but] it is still early days and we will need research to see whether treating nightmares might help to reduce dementia risk down the line,” Dr. Otaiku said.
 

Credible research

In an interview regarding these findings, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said: “This is credible research consistent with the idea that sleep disturbances may be a risk factor or warning sign of cognitive decline.”

She added that “what’s novel here” is the researchers examined distressing dreams – not more physical sleep disturbances and disorders such as insomnia or apnea.

“However, nightmares can disturb sleep in the same way these disorders do by waking people up in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Carrillo, who was not involved with the study.

“Previous research has pointed to nightmares being indicative of potential changes in the brain that can precede other dementias like Parkinson’s disease. More research is needed to tease out what exactly is happening in the brain during nightmares that may be contributing to this increased risk,” she said.

Dr. Carrillo noted that “getting good sleep” is important for overall health, which includes brain health.

“The good news is there are treatments – both drug and nondrug – that can help address sleep disturbances,” she added.

This study received no external funding. Dr. Otaiku and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nightmares in healthy middle-aged and older adults may be an independent risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, particularly in men, new research suggests.

Results from a large cohort study showed that healthy middle-aged adults who had bad dreams at least once a week were four times more likely to experience cognitive decline over the following decade, and older adults were twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia, compared with peers who never had bad dreams.

Frequent nightmares may “identify people who are at high risk of developing dementia in the future, several years or decades before the characteristic memory and thinking problems emerge,” study investigator Abidemi Otaiku, BMBS, University of Birmingham, England, said in an interview.

“This would be the optimum time for doctors to intervene to try and slow down or prevent dementia from developing,” Dr. Otaiku said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine).
 

Distressing dreams

Distressing dreams have been previously associated with faster cognitive decline and increased dementia risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but whether the same holds for individuals from the general population without PD is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Otaiku examined data from three community-based cohorts in the United States. This included 605 middle-aged adults (aged 35-64 years) who were followed for up to 13 years and 2,600 adults aged 79 and older who were followed for up to 7 years. All were considered cognitively normal at baseline.

The prevalence of frequent distressing dreams, defined as occurring “once a week or more,” was higher in the older cohort compared with the middle-aged cohort (6.9% vs. 6.0%, respectively).

This is in line with other research that showed distressing dreams remain relatively stable throughout early adulthood and then progressively increase in prevalence from middle to older adulthood. 

After adjustment for all covariates, a higher frequency of distressing dreams was linearly and statistically significantly associated with a higher risk for cognitive decline in middle-aged adults (P = .016) and a higher risk for dementia in older adults (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, compared with middle-aged adults who never had bad dreams, those who reported having one or more bad dreams weekly had a fourfold risk for cognitive decline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-14.85).

Older adults who had one or more bad dreams weekly had a greater than twofold increased risk for developing dementia (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.35-3.62).
 

Early days

In sex-stratified analyses, distressing dreams were strongly and statistically significantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in men, but were only weakly and nonsignificantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in women.

Dr. Otaiku said he suspects some individuals in the preclinical phase of dementia have “subtle neurodegeneration occurring over time in the right frontal lobe: the area of the brain that helps to downregulate negative emotions whilst we are awake, and also whilst we are dreaming.”

This could result in “depression and anxiety in the day, and nightmares and bad dreams during the night,” he said.

It is possible that treatment for frequent nightmares may help to slow cognitive decline and delay or prevent dementia, Dr. Otaiku added.

He noted that prazosin is used to treat nightmares and has been shown to prevent memory decline and reduce amyloid B generation in preclinical studies of Alzheimer’s disease.

“This is an exciting prospect [but] it is still early days and we will need research to see whether treating nightmares might help to reduce dementia risk down the line,” Dr. Otaiku said.
 

Credible research

In an interview regarding these findings, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said: “This is credible research consistent with the idea that sleep disturbances may be a risk factor or warning sign of cognitive decline.”

She added that “what’s novel here” is the researchers examined distressing dreams – not more physical sleep disturbances and disorders such as insomnia or apnea.

“However, nightmares can disturb sleep in the same way these disorders do by waking people up in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Carrillo, who was not involved with the study.

“Previous research has pointed to nightmares being indicative of potential changes in the brain that can precede other dementias like Parkinson’s disease. More research is needed to tease out what exactly is happening in the brain during nightmares that may be contributing to this increased risk,” she said.

Dr. Carrillo noted that “getting good sleep” is important for overall health, which includes brain health.

“The good news is there are treatments – both drug and nondrug – that can help address sleep disturbances,” she added.

This study received no external funding. Dr. Otaiku and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nightmares in healthy middle-aged and older adults may be an independent risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, particularly in men, new research suggests.

Results from a large cohort study showed that healthy middle-aged adults who had bad dreams at least once a week were four times more likely to experience cognitive decline over the following decade, and older adults were twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia, compared with peers who never had bad dreams.

Frequent nightmares may “identify people who are at high risk of developing dementia in the future, several years or decades before the characteristic memory and thinking problems emerge,” study investigator Abidemi Otaiku, BMBS, University of Birmingham, England, said in an interview.

“This would be the optimum time for doctors to intervene to try and slow down or prevent dementia from developing,” Dr. Otaiku said.

The findings were published online in The Lancet journal eClinicalMedicine).
 

Distressing dreams

Distressing dreams have been previously associated with faster cognitive decline and increased dementia risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), but whether the same holds for individuals from the general population without PD is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Otaiku examined data from three community-based cohorts in the United States. This included 605 middle-aged adults (aged 35-64 years) who were followed for up to 13 years and 2,600 adults aged 79 and older who were followed for up to 7 years. All were considered cognitively normal at baseline.

The prevalence of frequent distressing dreams, defined as occurring “once a week or more,” was higher in the older cohort compared with the middle-aged cohort (6.9% vs. 6.0%, respectively).

This is in line with other research that showed distressing dreams remain relatively stable throughout early adulthood and then progressively increase in prevalence from middle to older adulthood. 

After adjustment for all covariates, a higher frequency of distressing dreams was linearly and statistically significantly associated with a higher risk for cognitive decline in middle-aged adults (P = .016) and a higher risk for dementia in older adults (P = .001).

In the fully adjusted model, compared with middle-aged adults who never had bad dreams, those who reported having one or more bad dreams weekly had a fourfold risk for cognitive decline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-14.85).

Older adults who had one or more bad dreams weekly had a greater than twofold increased risk for developing dementia (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.35-3.62).
 

Early days

In sex-stratified analyses, distressing dreams were strongly and statistically significantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in men, but were only weakly and nonsignificantly associated with cognitive decline and dementia in women.

Dr. Otaiku said he suspects some individuals in the preclinical phase of dementia have “subtle neurodegeneration occurring over time in the right frontal lobe: the area of the brain that helps to downregulate negative emotions whilst we are awake, and also whilst we are dreaming.”

This could result in “depression and anxiety in the day, and nightmares and bad dreams during the night,” he said.

It is possible that treatment for frequent nightmares may help to slow cognitive decline and delay or prevent dementia, Dr. Otaiku added.

He noted that prazosin is used to treat nightmares and has been shown to prevent memory decline and reduce amyloid B generation in preclinical studies of Alzheimer’s disease.

“This is an exciting prospect [but] it is still early days and we will need research to see whether treating nightmares might help to reduce dementia risk down the line,” Dr. Otaiku said.
 

Credible research

In an interview regarding these findings, Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said: “This is credible research consistent with the idea that sleep disturbances may be a risk factor or warning sign of cognitive decline.”

She added that “what’s novel here” is the researchers examined distressing dreams – not more physical sleep disturbances and disorders such as insomnia or apnea.

“However, nightmares can disturb sleep in the same way these disorders do by waking people up in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Carrillo, who was not involved with the study.

“Previous research has pointed to nightmares being indicative of potential changes in the brain that can precede other dementias like Parkinson’s disease. More research is needed to tease out what exactly is happening in the brain during nightmares that may be contributing to this increased risk,” she said.

Dr. Carrillo noted that “getting good sleep” is important for overall health, which includes brain health.

“The good news is there are treatments – both drug and nondrug – that can help address sleep disturbances,” she added.

This study received no external funding. Dr. Otaiku and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mexican researchers found no direct association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and worsening symptoms among 60 patients with Parkinson’s disease. Nonmotor symptoms seemed to improve after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although the investigators could not verify a causal relationship.

Vaccination programs should continue for patients with Parkinson’s disease, they said, reporting their clinical results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society has recommended vaccining patients with Parkinson’s disease. “All approved mRNA-based and viral vector vaccines are not expected to interact with Parkinson’s disease, but patients [still] report concern with regard to the benefits, risks, and safeness in Parkinson’s disease,” Mayela Rodríguez-Violante, MD, MSc, and colleagues wrote in an abstract of their findings.

Social isolation may be contributing to these beliefs and concerns, though this is inconclusive.

Investigators from Mexico City conducted a retrospective study of patients with Parkinson’s disease to see how COVID-19 vaccination affected motor and nonmotor symptoms. They enlisted 60 patients (66.7% were male; aged 65.7 ± 11.35 years) who received either a vector-viral vaccine (Vaxzevria Coronavirus) or an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2).

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed scale differences before and after vaccination, measuring motor involvement (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale), nonmotor involvement (Non-Motor Rating Scale [NMSS]), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and quality of life (8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire index).

Investigators found no significant difference between scales, although they did notice a marked improvement in non-motor symptoms.

“The main takeaway is that vaccination against COVID-19 does not appear to worsen motor or nonmotor symptoms in persons with Parkinson’s disease. The benefits outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante, the study’s lead author and a movement disorder specialist at the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City.

Next steps are to increase the sample size to see if it’s possible to have a similar number in terms of type of vaccine, said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante. “Also, the data presented refers to primary series doses so booster effects will also be studied.”

Few studies have looked at vaccines and their possible effects on this patient population. However, a 2021 study of 181 patients with Parkinson’s disease reported that 2 (1.1%) had adverse effects after receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. One of the patients, a 61-year-old woman with a decade-long history of Parkinson’s disease, developed severe, continuous, generalized dyskinesia 6 hours after a first dose of vaccine. The second patient was 79 years old and had Parkinson’s disease for 5 years. She developed fever, confusion, delusions, and continuous severe dyskinesia for 3 days following her vaccination.

“This highlights that there is a variability in the response triggered by the vaccine that might likely depend on individual immunological profiles … clinicians should be aware of this possibility and monitor their patients after they receive their vaccination,” Roberto Erro, MD, PhD and colleagues wrote in the Movement Disorders journal.

Mexican researchers found no direct association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and worsening symptoms among 60 patients with Parkinson’s disease. Nonmotor symptoms seemed to improve after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although the investigators could not verify a causal relationship.

Vaccination programs should continue for patients with Parkinson’s disease, they said, reporting their clinical results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society has recommended vaccining patients with Parkinson’s disease. “All approved mRNA-based and viral vector vaccines are not expected to interact with Parkinson’s disease, but patients [still] report concern with regard to the benefits, risks, and safeness in Parkinson’s disease,” Mayela Rodríguez-Violante, MD, MSc, and colleagues wrote in an abstract of their findings.

Social isolation may be contributing to these beliefs and concerns, though this is inconclusive.

Investigators from Mexico City conducted a retrospective study of patients with Parkinson’s disease to see how COVID-19 vaccination affected motor and nonmotor symptoms. They enlisted 60 patients (66.7% were male; aged 65.7 ± 11.35 years) who received either a vector-viral vaccine (Vaxzevria Coronavirus) or an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2).

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed scale differences before and after vaccination, measuring motor involvement (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale), nonmotor involvement (Non-Motor Rating Scale [NMSS]), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and quality of life (8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire index).

Investigators found no significant difference between scales, although they did notice a marked improvement in non-motor symptoms.

“The main takeaway is that vaccination against COVID-19 does not appear to worsen motor or nonmotor symptoms in persons with Parkinson’s disease. The benefits outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante, the study’s lead author and a movement disorder specialist at the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City.

Next steps are to increase the sample size to see if it’s possible to have a similar number in terms of type of vaccine, said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante. “Also, the data presented refers to primary series doses so booster effects will also be studied.”

Few studies have looked at vaccines and their possible effects on this patient population. However, a 2021 study of 181 patients with Parkinson’s disease reported that 2 (1.1%) had adverse effects after receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. One of the patients, a 61-year-old woman with a decade-long history of Parkinson’s disease, developed severe, continuous, generalized dyskinesia 6 hours after a first dose of vaccine. The second patient was 79 years old and had Parkinson’s disease for 5 years. She developed fever, confusion, delusions, and continuous severe dyskinesia for 3 days following her vaccination.

“This highlights that there is a variability in the response triggered by the vaccine that might likely depend on individual immunological profiles … clinicians should be aware of this possibility and monitor their patients after they receive their vaccination,” Roberto Erro, MD, PhD and colleagues wrote in the Movement Disorders journal.

Mexican researchers found no direct association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and worsening symptoms among 60 patients with Parkinson’s disease. Nonmotor symptoms seemed to improve after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, although the investigators could not verify a causal relationship.

Vaccination programs should continue for patients with Parkinson’s disease, they said, reporting their clinical results at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society has recommended vaccining patients with Parkinson’s disease. “All approved mRNA-based and viral vector vaccines are not expected to interact with Parkinson’s disease, but patients [still] report concern with regard to the benefits, risks, and safeness in Parkinson’s disease,” Mayela Rodríguez-Violante, MD, MSc, and colleagues wrote in an abstract of their findings.

Social isolation may be contributing to these beliefs and concerns, though this is inconclusive.

Investigators from Mexico City conducted a retrospective study of patients with Parkinson’s disease to see how COVID-19 vaccination affected motor and nonmotor symptoms. They enlisted 60 patients (66.7% were male; aged 65.7 ± 11.35 years) who received either a vector-viral vaccine (Vaxzevria Coronavirus) or an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2).

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed scale differences before and after vaccination, measuring motor involvement (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale), nonmotor involvement (Non-Motor Rating Scale [NMSS]), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), and quality of life (8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire index).

Investigators found no significant difference between scales, although they did notice a marked improvement in non-motor symptoms.

“The main takeaway is that vaccination against COVID-19 does not appear to worsen motor or nonmotor symptoms in persons with Parkinson’s disease. The benefits outweigh the risks,” said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante, the study’s lead author and a movement disorder specialist at the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mexico City.

Next steps are to increase the sample size to see if it’s possible to have a similar number in terms of type of vaccine, said Dr. Rodríguez-Violante. “Also, the data presented refers to primary series doses so booster effects will also be studied.”

Few studies have looked at vaccines and their possible effects on this patient population. However, a 2021 study of 181 patients with Parkinson’s disease reported that 2 (1.1%) had adverse effects after receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. One of the patients, a 61-year-old woman with a decade-long history of Parkinson’s disease, developed severe, continuous, generalized dyskinesia 6 hours after a first dose of vaccine. The second patient was 79 years old and had Parkinson’s disease for 5 years. She developed fever, confusion, delusions, and continuous severe dyskinesia for 3 days following her vaccination.

“This highlights that there is a variability in the response triggered by the vaccine that might likely depend on individual immunological profiles … clinicians should be aware of this possibility and monitor their patients after they receive their vaccination,” Roberto Erro, MD, PhD and colleagues wrote in the Movement Disorders journal.

A history of head trauma may predict a more rapid decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests.

In a longitudinal online study, among patients with Parkinson’s disease who had a history of head injury, motor impairment developed 25% faster and cognitive impairment developed 45% faster than among those without such a history.

In addition, severe head injuries were associated with an even more rapid onset of impairment. The results give weight to the idea that “it’s head injuries themselves” prior to the development of Parkinson’s disease that might exacerbate motor and cognitive symptoms, said study investigator Ethan Brown, MD, assistant professor, Weill Institute of Neurosciences, department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco.

The findings emphasize the importance of “doing everything we can” to prevent falls and head injuries for patients with Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Brown said.

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

Reverse causality concerns

Head injury is a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease, but its relationship to Parkinson’s disease progression is not well established. “There has always been this concern in Parkinson’s disease that maybe it’s problems with motor impairment that lead to head injuries, so reverse causality is an issue,” said Dr. Brown. “We wanted to look at whether risk factors we know relate to the development of Parkinson’s disease can also have a bearing on its progression,” he added.

The analysis was part of the online Fox Insight study that is evaluating motor and nonmotor symptoms in individuals with and those without Parkinson’s disease. The study included participants who had completed questionnaires on such things as head trauma.

The study included 1,065 patients (47% women; mean age, 63 years) with Parkinson’s disease who reported having had a head injury at least 5 years prior to their diagnosis. Among the participants, the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.

The investigators employed a 5-year lag time in their study to exclude head injuries caused by early motor dysfunction, they noted. “We wanted to look at people who had these head injuries we think might be part of the cause of Parkinson’s disease as opposed to a result of them,” Dr. Brown said.

In this head injury group, 51% had received one head injury, 28% had received two injuries, and 22% had received more than two injuries.

The study also included 1,457 participants (56% women; mean age, 65 years) with Parkinson’s disease who had not had a head injury prior to their diagnosis. Of these patients, the mean time with a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis was 8 years.

Dr. Brown noted that the age and sex distribution of the study group was “probably representative” of the general Parkinson’s disease population. However, because the participants had to be able to go online and complete questionnaires, it is unlikely that, among these patients, Parkinson’s disease was far advanced, he said.

The investigators adjusted for age, sex, years of education, and Parkinson’s disease duration.

Two-hit hypothesis?

The researchers compared time from diagnosis to the development of significant motor impairment, such as the need for assistance with walking, and cognitive impairment, such as having a score of less than 43 on the Penn Daily Activities Questionnaire.

They also examined the role of more severe head injuries. In the head injury group, over half (54%) had had a severe head injury, including 543 who had lost consciousness and others who had suffered a fracture or had had a seizure.

Results showed that the adjusted hazard ratio for developing motor impairment among those with a head injury, compared with those who had not had a head injury was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.53; P = .037). For severe injuries, the aHR for motor impairment was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.13-1.83; P = .003).

For cognitive impairment, the aHR for those with versus without head injuries was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.86; P = .003); and for severe injuries, the aHR was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.0; P = .008).

Aside from severity, the researchers did not examine subgroups. However, Dr. Brown reported that his team would like to stratify results by sex and other variables in the future.

He noted that various mechanisms may explain why Parkinson’s disease progression is faster for patients who have a history of head injury, compared with others. Chronic inflammation due to the injury and “co-pathology” might play some role, he said. He noted that head injuries are associated with cognitive impairment in other conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease.

There is also the “two hit” hypothesis, Dr. Brown said. “A head injury could cause such broad damage that once people develop Parkinson’s disease, it’s harder for them to compensate.”

Dr. Brown also noted there might have been a “higher magnitude” of a difference between groups had the study captured participants with more severe symptoms.
 

‘Provocative’ findings

Michael S. Okun, MD, medical advisor at the Parkinson’s Foundation and professor and director at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, said the new data are “provocative.”

“The idea that a head injury may be important in predicting how quickly and how severely deficits will manifest could be important to the treating clinician,” said Dr. Okun, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the results suggest clinicians should elicit more information from patients about head trauma. “They should be seeking more than a binary ‘yes or no’ answer to head injury when questioning patients,” he added.

Dr. Okun reiterated that head injury is a “known and important risk factor” not only for Parkinson’s disease but also for other neurodegenerative diseases. “It’s important to counsel patients about the association,” he said.

The study was supported by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Brown reports having received grant support from the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Okun has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A history of head trauma may predict a more rapid decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests.

In a longitudinal online study, among patients with Parkinson’s disease who had a history of head injury, motor impairment developed 25% faster and cognitive impairment developed 45% faster than among those without such a history.

In addition, severe head injuries were associated with an even more rapid onset of impairment. The results give weight to the idea that “it’s head injuries themselves” prior to the development of Parkinson’s disease that might exacerbate motor and cognitive symptoms, said study investigator Ethan Brown, MD, assistant professor, Weill Institute of Neurosciences, department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco.

The findings emphasize the importance of “doing everything we can” to prevent falls and head injuries for patients with Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Brown said.

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

Reverse causality concerns

Head injury is a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease, but its relationship to Parkinson’s disease progression is not well established. “There has always been this concern in Parkinson’s disease that maybe it’s problems with motor impairment that lead to head injuries, so reverse causality is an issue,” said Dr. Brown. “We wanted to look at whether risk factors we know relate to the development of Parkinson’s disease can also have a bearing on its progression,” he added.

The analysis was part of the online Fox Insight study that is evaluating motor and nonmotor symptoms in individuals with and those without Parkinson’s disease. The study included participants who had completed questionnaires on such things as head trauma.

The study included 1,065 patients (47% women; mean age, 63 years) with Parkinson’s disease who reported having had a head injury at least 5 years prior to their diagnosis. Among the participants, the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.

The investigators employed a 5-year lag time in their study to exclude head injuries caused by early motor dysfunction, they noted. “We wanted to look at people who had these head injuries we think might be part of the cause of Parkinson’s disease as opposed to a result of them,” Dr. Brown said.

In this head injury group, 51% had received one head injury, 28% had received two injuries, and 22% had received more than two injuries.

The study also included 1,457 participants (56% women; mean age, 65 years) with Parkinson’s disease who had not had a head injury prior to their diagnosis. Of these patients, the mean time with a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis was 8 years.

Dr. Brown noted that the age and sex distribution of the study group was “probably representative” of the general Parkinson’s disease population. However, because the participants had to be able to go online and complete questionnaires, it is unlikely that, among these patients, Parkinson’s disease was far advanced, he said.

The investigators adjusted for age, sex, years of education, and Parkinson’s disease duration.

Two-hit hypothesis?

The researchers compared time from diagnosis to the development of significant motor impairment, such as the need for assistance with walking, and cognitive impairment, such as having a score of less than 43 on the Penn Daily Activities Questionnaire.

They also examined the role of more severe head injuries. In the head injury group, over half (54%) had had a severe head injury, including 543 who had lost consciousness and others who had suffered a fracture or had had a seizure.

Results showed that the adjusted hazard ratio for developing motor impairment among those with a head injury, compared with those who had not had a head injury was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.53; P = .037). For severe injuries, the aHR for motor impairment was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.13-1.83; P = .003).

For cognitive impairment, the aHR for those with versus without head injuries was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.86; P = .003); and for severe injuries, the aHR was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.0; P = .008).

Aside from severity, the researchers did not examine subgroups. However, Dr. Brown reported that his team would like to stratify results by sex and other variables in the future.

He noted that various mechanisms may explain why Parkinson’s disease progression is faster for patients who have a history of head injury, compared with others. Chronic inflammation due to the injury and “co-pathology” might play some role, he said. He noted that head injuries are associated with cognitive impairment in other conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease.

There is also the “two hit” hypothesis, Dr. Brown said. “A head injury could cause such broad damage that once people develop Parkinson’s disease, it’s harder for them to compensate.”

Dr. Brown also noted there might have been a “higher magnitude” of a difference between groups had the study captured participants with more severe symptoms.
 

‘Provocative’ findings

Michael S. Okun, MD, medical advisor at the Parkinson’s Foundation and professor and director at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, said the new data are “provocative.”

“The idea that a head injury may be important in predicting how quickly and how severely deficits will manifest could be important to the treating clinician,” said Dr. Okun, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the results suggest clinicians should elicit more information from patients about head trauma. “They should be seeking more than a binary ‘yes or no’ answer to head injury when questioning patients,” he added.

Dr. Okun reiterated that head injury is a “known and important risk factor” not only for Parkinson’s disease but also for other neurodegenerative diseases. “It’s important to counsel patients about the association,” he said.

The study was supported by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Brown reports having received grant support from the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Okun has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A history of head trauma may predict a more rapid decline in patients with Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests.

In a longitudinal online study, among patients with Parkinson’s disease who had a history of head injury, motor impairment developed 25% faster and cognitive impairment developed 45% faster than among those without such a history.

In addition, severe head injuries were associated with an even more rapid onset of impairment. The results give weight to the idea that “it’s head injuries themselves” prior to the development of Parkinson’s disease that might exacerbate motor and cognitive symptoms, said study investigator Ethan Brown, MD, assistant professor, Weill Institute of Neurosciences, department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco.

The findings emphasize the importance of “doing everything we can” to prevent falls and head injuries for patients with Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Brown said.

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

Reverse causality concerns

Head injury is a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease, but its relationship to Parkinson’s disease progression is not well established. “There has always been this concern in Parkinson’s disease that maybe it’s problems with motor impairment that lead to head injuries, so reverse causality is an issue,” said Dr. Brown. “We wanted to look at whether risk factors we know relate to the development of Parkinson’s disease can also have a bearing on its progression,” he added.

The analysis was part of the online Fox Insight study that is evaluating motor and nonmotor symptoms in individuals with and those without Parkinson’s disease. The study included participants who had completed questionnaires on such things as head trauma.

The study included 1,065 patients (47% women; mean age, 63 years) with Parkinson’s disease who reported having had a head injury at least 5 years prior to their diagnosis. Among the participants, the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.

The investigators employed a 5-year lag time in their study to exclude head injuries caused by early motor dysfunction, they noted. “We wanted to look at people who had these head injuries we think might be part of the cause of Parkinson’s disease as opposed to a result of them,” Dr. Brown said.

In this head injury group, 51% had received one head injury, 28% had received two injuries, and 22% had received more than two injuries.

The study also included 1,457 participants (56% women; mean age, 65 years) with Parkinson’s disease who had not had a head injury prior to their diagnosis. Of these patients, the mean time with a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis was 8 years.

Dr. Brown noted that the age and sex distribution of the study group was “probably representative” of the general Parkinson’s disease population. However, because the participants had to be able to go online and complete questionnaires, it is unlikely that, among these patients, Parkinson’s disease was far advanced, he said.

The investigators adjusted for age, sex, years of education, and Parkinson’s disease duration.

Two-hit hypothesis?

The researchers compared time from diagnosis to the development of significant motor impairment, such as the need for assistance with walking, and cognitive impairment, such as having a score of less than 43 on the Penn Daily Activities Questionnaire.

They also examined the role of more severe head injuries. In the head injury group, over half (54%) had had a severe head injury, including 543 who had lost consciousness and others who had suffered a fracture or had had a seizure.

Results showed that the adjusted hazard ratio for developing motor impairment among those with a head injury, compared with those who had not had a head injury was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.53; P = .037). For severe injuries, the aHR for motor impairment was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.13-1.83; P = .003).

For cognitive impairment, the aHR for those with versus without head injuries was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.86; P = .003); and for severe injuries, the aHR was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.11-2.0; P = .008).

Aside from severity, the researchers did not examine subgroups. However, Dr. Brown reported that his team would like to stratify results by sex and other variables in the future.

He noted that various mechanisms may explain why Parkinson’s disease progression is faster for patients who have a history of head injury, compared with others. Chronic inflammation due to the injury and “co-pathology” might play some role, he said. He noted that head injuries are associated with cognitive impairment in other conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease.

There is also the “two hit” hypothesis, Dr. Brown said. “A head injury could cause such broad damage that once people develop Parkinson’s disease, it’s harder for them to compensate.”

Dr. Brown also noted there might have been a “higher magnitude” of a difference between groups had the study captured participants with more severe symptoms.
 

‘Provocative’ findings

Michael S. Okun, MD, medical advisor at the Parkinson’s Foundation and professor and director at the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, University of Florida, Gainesville, said the new data are “provocative.”

“The idea that a head injury may be important in predicting how quickly and how severely deficits will manifest could be important to the treating clinician,” said Dr. Okun, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the results suggest clinicians should elicit more information from patients about head trauma. “They should be seeking more than a binary ‘yes or no’ answer to head injury when questioning patients,” he added.

Dr. Okun reiterated that head injury is a “known and important risk factor” not only for Parkinson’s disease but also for other neurodegenerative diseases. “It’s important to counsel patients about the association,” he said.

The study was supported by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Brown reports having received grant support from the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Dr. Okun has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

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

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

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

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

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

COVID-19 has been linked to a significantly increased risk for new-onset Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a new study suggests.

The study of more than 6 million people aged 65 years or older found a 50%-80% increased risk for AD in the year after COVID-19; the risk was especially high for women older than 85 years.

However, the investigators were quick to point out that the observational retrospective study offers no evidence that COVID-19 causes AD. There could be a viral etiology at play, or the connection could be related to inflammation in neural tissue from the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Or it could simply be that exposure to the health care system for COVID-19 increased the odds of detection of existing undiagnosed AD cases.

Whatever the case, these findings point to a potential spike in AD cases, which is a cause for concern, study investigator Pamela Davis, MD, PhD, a professor in the Center for Community Health Integration at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“COVID may be giving us a legacy of ongoing medical difficulties,” Dr. Davis said. “We were already concerned about having a very large care burden and cost burden from Alzheimer’s disease. If this is another burden that’s increased by COVID, this is something we’re really going to have to prepare for.”

The findings were published online in Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Increased risk

Earlier research points to a potential link between COVID-19 and increased risk for AD and Parkinson’s disease.

For the current study, researchers analyzed anonymous electronic health records of 6.2 million adults aged 65 years or older who received medical treatment between February 2020 and May 2021 and had no prior diagnosis of AD. The database includes information on almost 30% of the entire U.S. population.

Overall, there were 410,748 cases of COVID-19 during the study period.

The overall risk for new diagnosis of AD in the COVID-19 cohort was close to double that of those who did not have COVID-19 (0.68% vs. 0.35%, respectively).

After propensity-score matching, those who have had COVID-19 had a significantly higher risk for an AD diagnosis compared with those who were not infected (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.53-1.72).

Risk for AD was elevated in all age groups, regardless of gender or ethnicity. Researchers did not collect data on COVID-19 severity, and the medical codes for long COVID were not published until after the study had ended.

Those with the highest risk were individuals older than 85 years (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.73-2.07) and women (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.69-1.97).

“We expected to see some impact, but I was surprised that it was as potent as it was,” Dr. Davis said.
 

Association, not causation

Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, who commented on the findings for this article, called the study interesting but emphasized caution in interpreting the results.

“Because this study only showed an association through medical records, we cannot know what the underlying mechanisms driving this association are without more research,” Dr. Snyder said. “If you have had COVID-19, it doesn’t mean you’re going to get dementia. But if you have had COVID-19 and are experiencing long-term symptoms including cognitive difficulties, talk to your doctor.”

Dr. Davis agreed, noting that this type of study offers information on association, but not causation. “I do think that this makes it imperative that we continue to follow the population for what’s going on in various neurodegenerative diseases,” Dr. Davis said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Synder reports no relevant financial conflicts.

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

COVID-19 has been linked to a significantly increased risk for new-onset Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a new study suggests.

The study of more than 6 million people aged 65 years or older found a 50%-80% increased risk for AD in the year after COVID-19; the risk was especially high for women older than 85 years.

However, the investigators were quick to point out that the observational retrospective study offers no evidence that COVID-19 causes AD. There could be a viral etiology at play, or the connection could be related to inflammation in neural tissue from the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Or it could simply be that exposure to the health care system for COVID-19 increased the odds of detection of existing undiagnosed AD cases.

Whatever the case, these findings point to a potential spike in AD cases, which is a cause for concern, study investigator Pamela Davis, MD, PhD, a professor in the Center for Community Health Integration at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“COVID may be giving us a legacy of ongoing medical difficulties,” Dr. Davis said. “We were already concerned about having a very large care burden and cost burden from Alzheimer’s disease. If this is another burden that’s increased by COVID, this is something we’re really going to have to prepare for.”

The findings were published online in Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Increased risk

Earlier research points to a potential link between COVID-19 and increased risk for AD and Parkinson’s disease.

For the current study, researchers analyzed anonymous electronic health records of 6.2 million adults aged 65 years or older who received medical treatment between February 2020 and May 2021 and had no prior diagnosis of AD. The database includes information on almost 30% of the entire U.S. population.

Overall, there were 410,748 cases of COVID-19 during the study period.

The overall risk for new diagnosis of AD in the COVID-19 cohort was close to double that of those who did not have COVID-19 (0.68% vs. 0.35%, respectively).

After propensity-score matching, those who have had COVID-19 had a significantly higher risk for an AD diagnosis compared with those who were not infected (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.53-1.72).

Risk for AD was elevated in all age groups, regardless of gender or ethnicity. Researchers did not collect data on COVID-19 severity, and the medical codes for long COVID were not published until after the study had ended.

Those with the highest risk were individuals older than 85 years (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.73-2.07) and women (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.69-1.97).

“We expected to see some impact, but I was surprised that it was as potent as it was,” Dr. Davis said.
 

Association, not causation

Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, who commented on the findings for this article, called the study interesting but emphasized caution in interpreting the results.

“Because this study only showed an association through medical records, we cannot know what the underlying mechanisms driving this association are without more research,” Dr. Snyder said. “If you have had COVID-19, it doesn’t mean you’re going to get dementia. But if you have had COVID-19 and are experiencing long-term symptoms including cognitive difficulties, talk to your doctor.”

Dr. Davis agreed, noting that this type of study offers information on association, but not causation. “I do think that this makes it imperative that we continue to follow the population for what’s going on in various neurodegenerative diseases,” Dr. Davis said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Synder reports no relevant financial conflicts.

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

COVID-19 has been linked to a significantly increased risk for new-onset Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a new study suggests.

The study of more than 6 million people aged 65 years or older found a 50%-80% increased risk for AD in the year after COVID-19; the risk was especially high for women older than 85 years.

However, the investigators were quick to point out that the observational retrospective study offers no evidence that COVID-19 causes AD. There could be a viral etiology at play, or the connection could be related to inflammation in neural tissue from the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Or it could simply be that exposure to the health care system for COVID-19 increased the odds of detection of existing undiagnosed AD cases.

Whatever the case, these findings point to a potential spike in AD cases, which is a cause for concern, study investigator Pamela Davis, MD, PhD, a professor in the Center for Community Health Integration at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“COVID may be giving us a legacy of ongoing medical difficulties,” Dr. Davis said. “We were already concerned about having a very large care burden and cost burden from Alzheimer’s disease. If this is another burden that’s increased by COVID, this is something we’re really going to have to prepare for.”

The findings were published online in Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Increased risk

Earlier research points to a potential link between COVID-19 and increased risk for AD and Parkinson’s disease.

For the current study, researchers analyzed anonymous electronic health records of 6.2 million adults aged 65 years or older who received medical treatment between February 2020 and May 2021 and had no prior diagnosis of AD. The database includes information on almost 30% of the entire U.S. population.

Overall, there were 410,748 cases of COVID-19 during the study period.

The overall risk for new diagnosis of AD in the COVID-19 cohort was close to double that of those who did not have COVID-19 (0.68% vs. 0.35%, respectively).

After propensity-score matching, those who have had COVID-19 had a significantly higher risk for an AD diagnosis compared with those who were not infected (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.53-1.72).

Risk for AD was elevated in all age groups, regardless of gender or ethnicity. Researchers did not collect data on COVID-19 severity, and the medical codes for long COVID were not published until after the study had ended.

Those with the highest risk were individuals older than 85 years (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.73-2.07) and women (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.69-1.97).

“We expected to see some impact, but I was surprised that it was as potent as it was,” Dr. Davis said.
 

Association, not causation

Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of medical and scientific relations, who commented on the findings for this article, called the study interesting but emphasized caution in interpreting the results.

“Because this study only showed an association through medical records, we cannot know what the underlying mechanisms driving this association are without more research,” Dr. Snyder said. “If you have had COVID-19, it doesn’t mean you’re going to get dementia. But if you have had COVID-19 and are experiencing long-term symptoms including cognitive difficulties, talk to your doctor.”

Dr. Davis agreed, noting that this type of study offers information on association, but not causation. “I do think that this makes it imperative that we continue to follow the population for what’s going on in various neurodegenerative diseases,” Dr. Davis said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Synder reports no relevant financial conflicts.

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

Study 1 Overview (Oberhaus et al)

Objective: To compare the 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) to the long-form Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) in detecting postoperative delirium.

Design: Prospective concurrent comparison of 3D-CAM and CAM evaluations in a cohort of postoperative geriatric patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible participants were patients aged 60 years or older undergoing major elective surgery at Barnes Jewish Hospital (St. Louis, Missouri) who were enrolled in ongoing clinical trials (PODCAST, ENGAGES, SATISFY-SOS) between 2015 and 2018. Surgeries were at least 2 hours in length and required general anesthesia, planned extubation, and a minimum 2-day hospital stay. Investigators were extensively trained in administering 3D-CAM and CAM instruments. Participants were evaluated 2 hours after the end of anesthesia care on the day of surgery, then daily until follow-up was completed per clinical trial protocol or until the participant was determined by CAM to be nondelirious for 3 consecutive days. For each evaluation, both 3D-CAM and CAM assessors approached the participant together, but the evaluation was conducted such that the 3D-CAM assessor was masked to the additional questions ascertained by the long-form CAM assessment. The 3D-CAM or CAM assessor independently scored their respective assessments blinded to the results of the other assessor.

Main outcome measures: Participants were concurrently evaluated for postoperative delirium by both 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments. Comparisons between 3D-CAM and CAM scores were made using Cohen κ with repeated measures, generalized linear mixed-effects model, and Bland-Altman analysis.

Main results: Sixteen raters performed 471 concurrent 3D-CAM and CAM assessments in 299 participants (mean [SD] age, 69 [6.5] years). Of these participants, 152 (50.8%) were men, 263 (88.0%) were White, and 211 (70.6%) underwent noncardiac surgery. Both instruments showed good intraclass correlation (0.98 for 3D-CAM, 0.84 for CAM) with good overall agreement (Cohen κ = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83). The mixed-effects model indicated a significant disagreement between the 3D-CAM and CAM assessments (estimated difference in fixed effect, –0.68; 95% CI, –1.32 to –0.05; P = .04). The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the probability of a delirium diagnosis with the 3D-CAM was more than twice that with the CAM (probability ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.44-3.23).

Conclusion: The high degree of agreement between 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments suggests that the former may be a pragmatic and easy-to-administer clinical tool to screen for postoperative delirium in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Study 2 Overview (Shenkin et al)

Objective: To assess the accuracy of the 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) for delirium detection in the medical inpatient setting and to compare the 4AT to the CAM.

Design: Prospective randomized diagnostic test accuracy study.

Setting and participants: This study was conducted in emergency departments and acute medical wards at 3 UK sites (Edinburgh, Bradford, and Sheffield) and enrolled acute medical patients aged 70 years or older without acute life-threatening illnesses and/or coma. Assessors administering the delirium evaluation were nurses or graduate clinical research associates who underwent systematic training in delirium and delirium assessment. Additional training was provided to those administering the CAM but not to those administering the 4AT as the latter is designed to be administered without special training. First, all participants underwent a reference standard delirium assessment using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) (DSM-IV) criteria to derive a final definitive diagnosis of delirium via expert consensus (1 psychiatrist and 2 geriatricians). Then, the participants were randomized to either the 4AT or the comparator CAM group using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. All assessments were performed by pairs of independent assessors blinded to the results of the other assessment.

Main outcome measures: All participants were evaluated by the reference standard (DSM-IV criteria for delirium) and by either 4AT or CAM instruments for delirium. The accuracy of the 4AT instrument was evaluated by comparing its positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity to the reference standard and analyzed via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The diagnostic accuracy of 4AT, compared to the CAM, was evaluated by comparing positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity using Fisher’s exact test. The overall performance of 4AT and CAM was summarized using Youden’s Index and the diagnostic odds ratio of sensitivity to specificity.

Results: All 843 individuals enrolled in the study were randomized and 785 were included in the analysis (23 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome). Of the participants analyzed, the mean age was 81.4 [6.4] years, and 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT group had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96), a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI, 61%-87%), and a specificity of 94% (95% CI, 92%-97%). In comparison, the CAM group had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI, 26%-57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98%-100%).

Conclusions: The 4AT is a pragmatic screening test for delirium in a medical space that does not require special training to administer. The use of this instrument may help to improve delirium detection as a part of routine clinical care in hospitalized older adults.

Delirium is an acute confusional state marked by fluctuating mental status, inattention, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness. It is exceedingly common in older patients in both surgical and medical settings and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length of stay, institutionalization, and health care costs. Delirium is frequently underdiagnosed in the hospitalized setting, perhaps due to a combination of its waxing and waning nature and a lack of pragmatic and easily implementable screening tools that can be readily administered by clinicians and nonclinicians alike.¹ While the CAM is a well-validated instrument to diagnose delirium, it requires specific training in the rating of each of the cardinal features ascertained through a brief cognitive assessment and takes 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Taken together, given the high patient load for clinicians in the hospital setting, the validation and application of brief delirium screening instruments that can be reliably administered by nonphysicians and nonclinicians may enhance delirium detection in vulnerable patients and consequently improve their outcomes.

In Study 1, Oberhaus et al approach the challenge of underdiagnosing delirium in the postoperative setting by investigating whether the widely accepted long-form CAM and an abbreviated 3-minute version, the 3D-CAM, provide similar delirium detection in older surgical patients. The authors found that both instruments were reliable tests individually (high interrater reliability) and had good overall agreement. However, the 3D-CAM was more likely to yield a positive diagnosis of delirium compared to the long-form CAM, consistent with its purpose as a screening tool with a high sensitivity. It is important to emphasize that the 3D-CAM takes less time to administer, but also requires less extensive training and clinical knowledge than the long-form CAM. Therefore, this instrument meets the prerequisite of a brief screening test that can be rapidly administered by nonclinicians, and if affirmative, followed by a more extensive confirmatory test performed by a clinician. Limitations of this study include a lack of a reference standard structured interview conducted by a physician-rater to better determine the true diagnostic accuracy of both 3D-CAM and CAM assessments, and the use of convenience sampling at a single center, which reduces the generalizability of its findings.

In a similar vein, Shenkin et al in Study 2 attempt to evaluate the utility of the 4AT instrument in diagnosing delirium in older medical inpatients by testing the diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT against a reference standard (ie, DSM-IV–based evaluation by physicians) as well as comparing it to CAM. The 4AT takes less time (~2 minutes) and requires less knowledge and training to administer as compared to the CAM. The study showed that the abbreviated 4AT, compared to CAM, had a higher sensitivity (76% vs 40%) and lower specificity (94% vs 100%) in delirium detection. Thus, akin to the application of 3D-CAM in the postoperative setting, 4AT possesses key characteristics of a brief delirium screening test for older patients in the acute medical setting. In contrast to the Oberhaus et al study, a major strength of this study was the utilization of a reference standard that was validated by expert consensus. This allowed the 4AT and CAM assessments to be compared to a more objective standard, thereby directly testing their diagnostic performance in detecting delirium.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The findings from both Study 1 and 2 suggest that using an abbreviated delirium instrument in both surgical and acute medical settings may provide a pragmatic and sensitive method to detect delirium in older patients. The brevity of administration of 3D-CAM (~3 minutes) and 4AT (~2 minutes), combined with their higher sensitivity for detecting delirium compared to CAM, make these instruments potentially effective rapid screening tests for delirium in hospitalized older patients. Importantly, the utilization of such instruments might be a feasible way to mitigate the issue of underdiagnosing delirium in the hospital.

Several additional aspects of these abbreviated delirium instruments increase their suitability for clinical application. Specifically, the 3D-CAM and 4AT require less extensive training and clinical knowledge to both administer and interpret the results than the CAM.² For instance, a multistage, multiday training for CAM is a key factor in maintaining its diagnostic accuracy.^3,4 In contrast, the 3D-CAM requires only a 1- to 2-hour training session, and the 4AT can be administered by a nonclinician without the need for instrument-specific training. Thus, implementation of these instruments can be particularly pragmatic in clinical settings in which the staff involved in delirium screening cannot undergo the substantial training required to administer CAM. Moreover, these abbreviated tests enable nonphysician care team members to assume the role of delirium screener in the hospital. Taken together, the adoption of these abbreviated instruments may facilitate brief screenings of delirium in older patients by caregivers who see them most often—nurses and certified nursing assistants—thereby improving early detection and prevention of delirium-related complications in the hospital.

The feasibility of using abbreviated delirium screening instruments in the hospital setting raises a system implementation question—if these instruments are designed to be administered by those with limited to no training, could nonclinicians, such as hospital volunteers, effectively take on delirium screening roles in the hospital? If volunteers are able to take on this role, the integration of hospital volunteers into the clinical team can greatly expand the capacity for delirium screening in the hospital setting. Further research is warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Practice Points

• Abbreviated delirium screening tools such as 3D-CAM and 4AT may be pragmatic instruments to improve delirium detection in surgical and hospitalized older patients, respectively.
• Further studies are warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Jared Doan, BS, and Fred Ko, MD
Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Study 1 Overview (Oberhaus et al)

Objective: To compare the 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) to the long-form Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) in detecting postoperative delirium.

Design: Prospective concurrent comparison of 3D-CAM and CAM evaluations in a cohort of postoperative geriatric patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible participants were patients aged 60 years or older undergoing major elective surgery at Barnes Jewish Hospital (St. Louis, Missouri) who were enrolled in ongoing clinical trials (PODCAST, ENGAGES, SATISFY-SOS) between 2015 and 2018. Surgeries were at least 2 hours in length and required general anesthesia, planned extubation, and a minimum 2-day hospital stay. Investigators were extensively trained in administering 3D-CAM and CAM instruments. Participants were evaluated 2 hours after the end of anesthesia care on the day of surgery, then daily until follow-up was completed per clinical trial protocol or until the participant was determined by CAM to be nondelirious for 3 consecutive days. For each evaluation, both 3D-CAM and CAM assessors approached the participant together, but the evaluation was conducted such that the 3D-CAM assessor was masked to the additional questions ascertained by the long-form CAM assessment. The 3D-CAM or CAM assessor independently scored their respective assessments blinded to the results of the other assessor.

Main outcome measures: Participants were concurrently evaluated for postoperative delirium by both 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments. Comparisons between 3D-CAM and CAM scores were made using Cohen κ with repeated measures, generalized linear mixed-effects model, and Bland-Altman analysis.

Main results: Sixteen raters performed 471 concurrent 3D-CAM and CAM assessments in 299 participants (mean [SD] age, 69 [6.5] years). Of these participants, 152 (50.8%) were men, 263 (88.0%) were White, and 211 (70.6%) underwent noncardiac surgery. Both instruments showed good intraclass correlation (0.98 for 3D-CAM, 0.84 for CAM) with good overall agreement (Cohen κ = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83). The mixed-effects model indicated a significant disagreement between the 3D-CAM and CAM assessments (estimated difference in fixed effect, –0.68; 95% CI, –1.32 to –0.05; P = .04). The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the probability of a delirium diagnosis with the 3D-CAM was more than twice that with the CAM (probability ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.44-3.23).

Conclusion: The high degree of agreement between 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments suggests that the former may be a pragmatic and easy-to-administer clinical tool to screen for postoperative delirium in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Study 2 Overview (Shenkin et al)

Objective: To assess the accuracy of the 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) for delirium detection in the medical inpatient setting and to compare the 4AT to the CAM.

Design: Prospective randomized diagnostic test accuracy study.

Setting and participants: This study was conducted in emergency departments and acute medical wards at 3 UK sites (Edinburgh, Bradford, and Sheffield) and enrolled acute medical patients aged 70 years or older without acute life-threatening illnesses and/or coma. Assessors administering the delirium evaluation were nurses or graduate clinical research associates who underwent systematic training in delirium and delirium assessment. Additional training was provided to those administering the CAM but not to those administering the 4AT as the latter is designed to be administered without special training. First, all participants underwent a reference standard delirium assessment using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) (DSM-IV) criteria to derive a final definitive diagnosis of delirium via expert consensus (1 psychiatrist and 2 geriatricians). Then, the participants were randomized to either the 4AT or the comparator CAM group using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. All assessments were performed by pairs of independent assessors blinded to the results of the other assessment.

Main outcome measures: All participants were evaluated by the reference standard (DSM-IV criteria for delirium) and by either 4AT or CAM instruments for delirium. The accuracy of the 4AT instrument was evaluated by comparing its positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity to the reference standard and analyzed via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The diagnostic accuracy of 4AT, compared to the CAM, was evaluated by comparing positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity using Fisher’s exact test. The overall performance of 4AT and CAM was summarized using Youden’s Index and the diagnostic odds ratio of sensitivity to specificity.

Results: All 843 individuals enrolled in the study were randomized and 785 were included in the analysis (23 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome). Of the participants analyzed, the mean age was 81.4 [6.4] years, and 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT group had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96), a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI, 61%-87%), and a specificity of 94% (95% CI, 92%-97%). In comparison, the CAM group had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI, 26%-57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98%-100%).

Conclusions: The 4AT is a pragmatic screening test for delirium in a medical space that does not require special training to administer. The use of this instrument may help to improve delirium detection as a part of routine clinical care in hospitalized older adults.

Delirium is an acute confusional state marked by fluctuating mental status, inattention, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness. It is exceedingly common in older patients in both surgical and medical settings and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length of stay, institutionalization, and health care costs. Delirium is frequently underdiagnosed in the hospitalized setting, perhaps due to a combination of its waxing and waning nature and a lack of pragmatic and easily implementable screening tools that can be readily administered by clinicians and nonclinicians alike.¹ While the CAM is a well-validated instrument to diagnose delirium, it requires specific training in the rating of each of the cardinal features ascertained through a brief cognitive assessment and takes 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Taken together, given the high patient load for clinicians in the hospital setting, the validation and application of brief delirium screening instruments that can be reliably administered by nonphysicians and nonclinicians may enhance delirium detection in vulnerable patients and consequently improve their outcomes.

In Study 1, Oberhaus et al approach the challenge of underdiagnosing delirium in the postoperative setting by investigating whether the widely accepted long-form CAM and an abbreviated 3-minute version, the 3D-CAM, provide similar delirium detection in older surgical patients. The authors found that both instruments were reliable tests individually (high interrater reliability) and had good overall agreement. However, the 3D-CAM was more likely to yield a positive diagnosis of delirium compared to the long-form CAM, consistent with its purpose as a screening tool with a high sensitivity. It is important to emphasize that the 3D-CAM takes less time to administer, but also requires less extensive training and clinical knowledge than the long-form CAM. Therefore, this instrument meets the prerequisite of a brief screening test that can be rapidly administered by nonclinicians, and if affirmative, followed by a more extensive confirmatory test performed by a clinician. Limitations of this study include a lack of a reference standard structured interview conducted by a physician-rater to better determine the true diagnostic accuracy of both 3D-CAM and CAM assessments, and the use of convenience sampling at a single center, which reduces the generalizability of its findings.

In a similar vein, Shenkin et al in Study 2 attempt to evaluate the utility of the 4AT instrument in diagnosing delirium in older medical inpatients by testing the diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT against a reference standard (ie, DSM-IV–based evaluation by physicians) as well as comparing it to CAM. The 4AT takes less time (~2 minutes) and requires less knowledge and training to administer as compared to the CAM. The study showed that the abbreviated 4AT, compared to CAM, had a higher sensitivity (76% vs 40%) and lower specificity (94% vs 100%) in delirium detection. Thus, akin to the application of 3D-CAM in the postoperative setting, 4AT possesses key characteristics of a brief delirium screening test for older patients in the acute medical setting. In contrast to the Oberhaus et al study, a major strength of this study was the utilization of a reference standard that was validated by expert consensus. This allowed the 4AT and CAM assessments to be compared to a more objective standard, thereby directly testing their diagnostic performance in detecting delirium.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The findings from both Study 1 and 2 suggest that using an abbreviated delirium instrument in both surgical and acute medical settings may provide a pragmatic and sensitive method to detect delirium in older patients. The brevity of administration of 3D-CAM (~3 minutes) and 4AT (~2 minutes), combined with their higher sensitivity for detecting delirium compared to CAM, make these instruments potentially effective rapid screening tests for delirium in hospitalized older patients. Importantly, the utilization of such instruments might be a feasible way to mitigate the issue of underdiagnosing delirium in the hospital.

Several additional aspects of these abbreviated delirium instruments increase their suitability for clinical application. Specifically, the 3D-CAM and 4AT require less extensive training and clinical knowledge to both administer and interpret the results than the CAM.² For instance, a multistage, multiday training for CAM is a key factor in maintaining its diagnostic accuracy.^3,4 In contrast, the 3D-CAM requires only a 1- to 2-hour training session, and the 4AT can be administered by a nonclinician without the need for instrument-specific training. Thus, implementation of these instruments can be particularly pragmatic in clinical settings in which the staff involved in delirium screening cannot undergo the substantial training required to administer CAM. Moreover, these abbreviated tests enable nonphysician care team members to assume the role of delirium screener in the hospital. Taken together, the adoption of these abbreviated instruments may facilitate brief screenings of delirium in older patients by caregivers who see them most often—nurses and certified nursing assistants—thereby improving early detection and prevention of delirium-related complications in the hospital.

The feasibility of using abbreviated delirium screening instruments in the hospital setting raises a system implementation question—if these instruments are designed to be administered by those with limited to no training, could nonclinicians, such as hospital volunteers, effectively take on delirium screening roles in the hospital? If volunteers are able to take on this role, the integration of hospital volunteers into the clinical team can greatly expand the capacity for delirium screening in the hospital setting. Further research is warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Practice Points

• Abbreviated delirium screening tools such as 3D-CAM and 4AT may be pragmatic instruments to improve delirium detection in surgical and hospitalized older patients, respectively.
• Further studies are warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Jared Doan, BS, and Fred Ko, MD
Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Study 1 Overview (Oberhaus et al)

Objective: To compare the 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) to the long-form Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) in detecting postoperative delirium.

Design: Prospective concurrent comparison of 3D-CAM and CAM evaluations in a cohort of postoperative geriatric patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible participants were patients aged 60 years or older undergoing major elective surgery at Barnes Jewish Hospital (St. Louis, Missouri) who were enrolled in ongoing clinical trials (PODCAST, ENGAGES, SATISFY-SOS) between 2015 and 2018. Surgeries were at least 2 hours in length and required general anesthesia, planned extubation, and a minimum 2-day hospital stay. Investigators were extensively trained in administering 3D-CAM and CAM instruments. Participants were evaluated 2 hours after the end of anesthesia care on the day of surgery, then daily until follow-up was completed per clinical trial protocol or until the participant was determined by CAM to be nondelirious for 3 consecutive days. For each evaluation, both 3D-CAM and CAM assessors approached the participant together, but the evaluation was conducted such that the 3D-CAM assessor was masked to the additional questions ascertained by the long-form CAM assessment. The 3D-CAM or CAM assessor independently scored their respective assessments blinded to the results of the other assessor.

Main outcome measures: Participants were concurrently evaluated for postoperative delirium by both 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments. Comparisons between 3D-CAM and CAM scores were made using Cohen κ with repeated measures, generalized linear mixed-effects model, and Bland-Altman analysis.

Main results: Sixteen raters performed 471 concurrent 3D-CAM and CAM assessments in 299 participants (mean [SD] age, 69 [6.5] years). Of these participants, 152 (50.8%) were men, 263 (88.0%) were White, and 211 (70.6%) underwent noncardiac surgery. Both instruments showed good intraclass correlation (0.98 for 3D-CAM, 0.84 for CAM) with good overall agreement (Cohen κ = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83). The mixed-effects model indicated a significant disagreement between the 3D-CAM and CAM assessments (estimated difference in fixed effect, –0.68; 95% CI, –1.32 to –0.05; P = .04). The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the probability of a delirium diagnosis with the 3D-CAM was more than twice that with the CAM (probability ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.44-3.23).

Conclusion: The high degree of agreement between 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments suggests that the former may be a pragmatic and easy-to-administer clinical tool to screen for postoperative delirium in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Study 2 Overview (Shenkin et al)

Objective: To assess the accuracy of the 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) for delirium detection in the medical inpatient setting and to compare the 4AT to the CAM.

Design: Prospective randomized diagnostic test accuracy study.

Setting and participants: This study was conducted in emergency departments and acute medical wards at 3 UK sites (Edinburgh, Bradford, and Sheffield) and enrolled acute medical patients aged 70 years or older without acute life-threatening illnesses and/or coma. Assessors administering the delirium evaluation were nurses or graduate clinical research associates who underwent systematic training in delirium and delirium assessment. Additional training was provided to those administering the CAM but not to those administering the 4AT as the latter is designed to be administered without special training. First, all participants underwent a reference standard delirium assessment using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) (DSM-IV) criteria to derive a final definitive diagnosis of delirium via expert consensus (1 psychiatrist and 2 geriatricians). Then, the participants were randomized to either the 4AT or the comparator CAM group using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. All assessments were performed by pairs of independent assessors blinded to the results of the other assessment.

Main outcome measures: All participants were evaluated by the reference standard (DSM-IV criteria for delirium) and by either 4AT or CAM instruments for delirium. The accuracy of the 4AT instrument was evaluated by comparing its positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity to the reference standard and analyzed via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The diagnostic accuracy of 4AT, compared to the CAM, was evaluated by comparing positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity using Fisher’s exact test. The overall performance of 4AT and CAM was summarized using Youden’s Index and the diagnostic odds ratio of sensitivity to specificity.

Results: All 843 individuals enrolled in the study were randomized and 785 were included in the analysis (23 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome). Of the participants analyzed, the mean age was 81.4 [6.4] years, and 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT group had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96), a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI, 61%-87%), and a specificity of 94% (95% CI, 92%-97%). In comparison, the CAM group had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI, 26%-57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98%-100%).

Conclusions: The 4AT is a pragmatic screening test for delirium in a medical space that does not require special training to administer. The use of this instrument may help to improve delirium detection as a part of routine clinical care in hospitalized older adults.

Delirium is an acute confusional state marked by fluctuating mental status, inattention, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness. It is exceedingly common in older patients in both surgical and medical settings and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length of stay, institutionalization, and health care costs. Delirium is frequently underdiagnosed in the hospitalized setting, perhaps due to a combination of its waxing and waning nature and a lack of pragmatic and easily implementable screening tools that can be readily administered by clinicians and nonclinicians alike.¹ While the CAM is a well-validated instrument to diagnose delirium, it requires specific training in the rating of each of the cardinal features ascertained through a brief cognitive assessment and takes 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Taken together, given the high patient load for clinicians in the hospital setting, the validation and application of brief delirium screening instruments that can be reliably administered by nonphysicians and nonclinicians may enhance delirium detection in vulnerable patients and consequently improve their outcomes.

In Study 1, Oberhaus et al approach the challenge of underdiagnosing delirium in the postoperative setting by investigating whether the widely accepted long-form CAM and an abbreviated 3-minute version, the 3D-CAM, provide similar delirium detection in older surgical patients. The authors found that both instruments were reliable tests individually (high interrater reliability) and had good overall agreement. However, the 3D-CAM was more likely to yield a positive diagnosis of delirium compared to the long-form CAM, consistent with its purpose as a screening tool with a high sensitivity. It is important to emphasize that the 3D-CAM takes less time to administer, but also requires less extensive training and clinical knowledge than the long-form CAM. Therefore, this instrument meets the prerequisite of a brief screening test that can be rapidly administered by nonclinicians, and if affirmative, followed by a more extensive confirmatory test performed by a clinician. Limitations of this study include a lack of a reference standard structured interview conducted by a physician-rater to better determine the true diagnostic accuracy of both 3D-CAM and CAM assessments, and the use of convenience sampling at a single center, which reduces the generalizability of its findings.

In a similar vein, Shenkin et al in Study 2 attempt to evaluate the utility of the 4AT instrument in diagnosing delirium in older medical inpatients by testing the diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT against a reference standard (ie, DSM-IV–based evaluation by physicians) as well as comparing it to CAM. The 4AT takes less time (~2 minutes) and requires less knowledge and training to administer as compared to the CAM. The study showed that the abbreviated 4AT, compared to CAM, had a higher sensitivity (76% vs 40%) and lower specificity (94% vs 100%) in delirium detection. Thus, akin to the application of 3D-CAM in the postoperative setting, 4AT possesses key characteristics of a brief delirium screening test for older patients in the acute medical setting. In contrast to the Oberhaus et al study, a major strength of this study was the utilization of a reference standard that was validated by expert consensus. This allowed the 4AT and CAM assessments to be compared to a more objective standard, thereby directly testing their diagnostic performance in detecting delirium.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The findings from both Study 1 and 2 suggest that using an abbreviated delirium instrument in both surgical and acute medical settings may provide a pragmatic and sensitive method to detect delirium in older patients. The brevity of administration of 3D-CAM (~3 minutes) and 4AT (~2 minutes), combined with their higher sensitivity for detecting delirium compared to CAM, make these instruments potentially effective rapid screening tests for delirium in hospitalized older patients. Importantly, the utilization of such instruments might be a feasible way to mitigate the issue of underdiagnosing delirium in the hospital.

Several additional aspects of these abbreviated delirium instruments increase their suitability for clinical application. Specifically, the 3D-CAM and 4AT require less extensive training and clinical knowledge to both administer and interpret the results than the CAM.² For instance, a multistage, multiday training for CAM is a key factor in maintaining its diagnostic accuracy.^3,4 In contrast, the 3D-CAM requires only a 1- to 2-hour training session, and the 4AT can be administered by a nonclinician without the need for instrument-specific training. Thus, implementation of these instruments can be particularly pragmatic in clinical settings in which the staff involved in delirium screening cannot undergo the substantial training required to administer CAM. Moreover, these abbreviated tests enable nonphysician care team members to assume the role of delirium screener in the hospital. Taken together, the adoption of these abbreviated instruments may facilitate brief screenings of delirium in older patients by caregivers who see them most often—nurses and certified nursing assistants—thereby improving early detection and prevention of delirium-related complications in the hospital.

The feasibility of using abbreviated delirium screening instruments in the hospital setting raises a system implementation question—if these instruments are designed to be administered by those with limited to no training, could nonclinicians, such as hospital volunteers, effectively take on delirium screening roles in the hospital? If volunteers are able to take on this role, the integration of hospital volunteers into the clinical team can greatly expand the capacity for delirium screening in the hospital setting. Further research is warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Practice Points

• Abbreviated delirium screening tools such as 3D-CAM and 4AT may be pragmatic instruments to improve delirium detection in surgical and hospitalized older patients, respectively.
• Further studies are warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Jared Doan, BS, and Fred Ko, MD
Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai