Neurology

Among children born prematurely, rates of school readiness were lower, compared with rates for children born full term, new data indicate.

In a Canadian cohort study that included more than 60,000 children, 35% of children born prematurely had scores on the Early Development Instrument (EDI) that indicated they were vulnerable to developmental problems, compared with 28% of children born full term.

“Our take-home message is that being born prematurely, even if all was well, is a risk factor for not being ready for school, and these families should be identified early, screened for any difficulties, and offered early intervention,” senior author Chelsea A. Ruth, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics and child health at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
 

Gestational age gradient

The investigators examined two cohorts of children who were in kindergarten at the time of data collection. One of them, the population-based cohort, included children born between 2000 and 2011 whose school readiness was assessed using the EDI data. Preterm birth was defined as a gestational age (GA) of less than 37 weeks. The other, the sibling cohort, was a subset of the population cohort and included children born prematurely and their closest-in-age siblings who were born full term.

The main outcome was vulnerability in the EDI, which was defined as having a score below the 10th percentile of the Canadian population norms for one or more of the five EDI domains. These domains are physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge.

A total of 63,277 children were included in the analyses, of whom 4,352 were born prematurely (mean GA, 34 weeks; 53% boys) and 58,925 were born full term (mean GA, 39 weeks; 51% boys).

After data adjustment, 35% of children born prematurely were vulnerable in the EDI, compared with 28% of those born full term (adjusted odds ratio, 1.32).

The investigators found a clear GA gradient. Children born at earlier GAs (< 28 weeks or 28-33 weeks) were at higher risk of being vulnerable than those born at later GAs (34-36 weeks) in any EDI domain (48% vs. 40%) and in each of the five EDI domains. Earlier GA was associated with greater risk for vulnerability in physical health and well-being (34% vs. 22%) and in the Multiple Challenge Index (25% vs. 17%). It also was associated with greater risk for need for additional support in kindergarten (22% vs. 5%).

Furthermore, 12% of children born at less than 28 weeks’ gestation were vulnerable in two EDI domains, and 8% were vulnerable in three domains. The corresponding proportions were 9% and 7%, respectively, for those born between 28 and 33 weeks and 7% and 5% for those born between 34 and 36 weeks.

“The study confirmed what we see in practice, that being born even a little bit early increases the chance for not being ready for school, and the earlier a child is born, the more likely they are to have troubles,” said Dr. Ruth.
 

Cause or manifestation?

In the population cohort, prematurity (< 34 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.72; 34-36 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.23), male sex (AOR, 2.24), small for GA (AOR, 1.31), and various maternal medical and sociodemographic factors were associated with EDI vulnerability.

In the sibling subset, EDI outcomes were similar for children born prematurely and their siblings born full term, except for the communication skills and general knowledge domain (AOR, 1.39) and the Multiple Challenge Index (AOR, 1.43). Male sex (AOR, 2.19) was associated with EDI vulnerability in this cohort as well, as was maternal age at delivery (AOR, 1.53).

“Whether prematurity is a cause or a manifestation of an altered family ecosystem is difficult to ascertain,” Lauren Neel, MD, a neonatologist at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial. “However, research on this topic is much needed, along with novel interventions to change academic trajectories and care models that implement these findings in practice. As we begin to understand the factors in and interventions for promoting resilience in preterm-born children, we may need to change our research question to this: Could we optimize resilience and long-term academic trajectories to include the family as well?”
 

Six crucial years

Commenting on the study, Veronica Bordes Edgar, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center’s Peter O’Donnell Jr. Brain Institute, Dallas, said, “None of the findings surprised me, but I was very pleased that they looked at such a broad sample.”

Pediatricians should monitor and screen children for early academic readiness, since these factors are associated with later academic outcomes, Dr. Edgar added. “Early intervention does not stop at age 3, but rather the first 6 years are so crucial to lay the foundation for future success. The pediatrician can play a role in preparing children and families by promoting early reading, such as through Reach Out and Read, encouraging language-rich play, and providing guidance on early childhood education and developmental needs.

“Further examination of long-term outcomes for these children to capture the longitudinal trend would help to document what is often observed clinically, in that children who start off with difficulties do not always catch up once they are in the academic environment,” Dr. Edgar concluded.

The study was supported by Research Manitoba and the Children’s Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Ruth, Dr. Neel, and Dr. Edgar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among children born prematurely, rates of school readiness were lower, compared with rates for children born full term, new data indicate.

In a Canadian cohort study that included more than 60,000 children, 35% of children born prematurely had scores on the Early Development Instrument (EDI) that indicated they were vulnerable to developmental problems, compared with 28% of children born full term.

“Our take-home message is that being born prematurely, even if all was well, is a risk factor for not being ready for school, and these families should be identified early, screened for any difficulties, and offered early intervention,” senior author Chelsea A. Ruth, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics and child health at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
 

Gestational age gradient

The investigators examined two cohorts of children who were in kindergarten at the time of data collection. One of them, the population-based cohort, included children born between 2000 and 2011 whose school readiness was assessed using the EDI data. Preterm birth was defined as a gestational age (GA) of less than 37 weeks. The other, the sibling cohort, was a subset of the population cohort and included children born prematurely and their closest-in-age siblings who were born full term.

The main outcome was vulnerability in the EDI, which was defined as having a score below the 10th percentile of the Canadian population norms for one or more of the five EDI domains. These domains are physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge.

A total of 63,277 children were included in the analyses, of whom 4,352 were born prematurely (mean GA, 34 weeks; 53% boys) and 58,925 were born full term (mean GA, 39 weeks; 51% boys).

After data adjustment, 35% of children born prematurely were vulnerable in the EDI, compared with 28% of those born full term (adjusted odds ratio, 1.32).

The investigators found a clear GA gradient. Children born at earlier GAs (< 28 weeks or 28-33 weeks) were at higher risk of being vulnerable than those born at later GAs (34-36 weeks) in any EDI domain (48% vs. 40%) and in each of the five EDI domains. Earlier GA was associated with greater risk for vulnerability in physical health and well-being (34% vs. 22%) and in the Multiple Challenge Index (25% vs. 17%). It also was associated with greater risk for need for additional support in kindergarten (22% vs. 5%).

Furthermore, 12% of children born at less than 28 weeks’ gestation were vulnerable in two EDI domains, and 8% were vulnerable in three domains. The corresponding proportions were 9% and 7%, respectively, for those born between 28 and 33 weeks and 7% and 5% for those born between 34 and 36 weeks.

“The study confirmed what we see in practice, that being born even a little bit early increases the chance for not being ready for school, and the earlier a child is born, the more likely they are to have troubles,” said Dr. Ruth.
 

Cause or manifestation?

In the population cohort, prematurity (< 34 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.72; 34-36 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.23), male sex (AOR, 2.24), small for GA (AOR, 1.31), and various maternal medical and sociodemographic factors were associated with EDI vulnerability.

In the sibling subset, EDI outcomes were similar for children born prematurely and their siblings born full term, except for the communication skills and general knowledge domain (AOR, 1.39) and the Multiple Challenge Index (AOR, 1.43). Male sex (AOR, 2.19) was associated with EDI vulnerability in this cohort as well, as was maternal age at delivery (AOR, 1.53).

“Whether prematurity is a cause or a manifestation of an altered family ecosystem is difficult to ascertain,” Lauren Neel, MD, a neonatologist at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial. “However, research on this topic is much needed, along with novel interventions to change academic trajectories and care models that implement these findings in practice. As we begin to understand the factors in and interventions for promoting resilience in preterm-born children, we may need to change our research question to this: Could we optimize resilience and long-term academic trajectories to include the family as well?”
 

Six crucial years

Commenting on the study, Veronica Bordes Edgar, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center’s Peter O’Donnell Jr. Brain Institute, Dallas, said, “None of the findings surprised me, but I was very pleased that they looked at such a broad sample.”

Pediatricians should monitor and screen children for early academic readiness, since these factors are associated with later academic outcomes, Dr. Edgar added. “Early intervention does not stop at age 3, but rather the first 6 years are so crucial to lay the foundation for future success. The pediatrician can play a role in preparing children and families by promoting early reading, such as through Reach Out and Read, encouraging language-rich play, and providing guidance on early childhood education and developmental needs.

“Further examination of long-term outcomes for these children to capture the longitudinal trend would help to document what is often observed clinically, in that children who start off with difficulties do not always catch up once they are in the academic environment,” Dr. Edgar concluded.

The study was supported by Research Manitoba and the Children’s Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Ruth, Dr. Neel, and Dr. Edgar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among children born prematurely, rates of school readiness were lower, compared with rates for children born full term, new data indicate.

In a Canadian cohort study that included more than 60,000 children, 35% of children born prematurely had scores on the Early Development Instrument (EDI) that indicated they were vulnerable to developmental problems, compared with 28% of children born full term.

“Our take-home message is that being born prematurely, even if all was well, is a risk factor for not being ready for school, and these families should be identified early, screened for any difficulties, and offered early intervention,” senior author Chelsea A. Ruth, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics and child health at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
 

Gestational age gradient

The investigators examined two cohorts of children who were in kindergarten at the time of data collection. One of them, the population-based cohort, included children born between 2000 and 2011 whose school readiness was assessed using the EDI data. Preterm birth was defined as a gestational age (GA) of less than 37 weeks. The other, the sibling cohort, was a subset of the population cohort and included children born prematurely and their closest-in-age siblings who were born full term.

The main outcome was vulnerability in the EDI, which was defined as having a score below the 10th percentile of the Canadian population norms for one or more of the five EDI domains. These domains are physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge.

A total of 63,277 children were included in the analyses, of whom 4,352 were born prematurely (mean GA, 34 weeks; 53% boys) and 58,925 were born full term (mean GA, 39 weeks; 51% boys).

After data adjustment, 35% of children born prematurely were vulnerable in the EDI, compared with 28% of those born full term (adjusted odds ratio, 1.32).

The investigators found a clear GA gradient. Children born at earlier GAs (< 28 weeks or 28-33 weeks) were at higher risk of being vulnerable than those born at later GAs (34-36 weeks) in any EDI domain (48% vs. 40%) and in each of the five EDI domains. Earlier GA was associated with greater risk for vulnerability in physical health and well-being (34% vs. 22%) and in the Multiple Challenge Index (25% vs. 17%). It also was associated with greater risk for need for additional support in kindergarten (22% vs. 5%).

Furthermore, 12% of children born at less than 28 weeks’ gestation were vulnerable in two EDI domains, and 8% were vulnerable in three domains. The corresponding proportions were 9% and 7%, respectively, for those born between 28 and 33 weeks and 7% and 5% for those born between 34 and 36 weeks.

“The study confirmed what we see in practice, that being born even a little bit early increases the chance for not being ready for school, and the earlier a child is born, the more likely they are to have troubles,” said Dr. Ruth.
 

Cause or manifestation?

In the population cohort, prematurity (< 34 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.72; 34-36 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.23), male sex (AOR, 2.24), small for GA (AOR, 1.31), and various maternal medical and sociodemographic factors were associated with EDI vulnerability.

In the sibling subset, EDI outcomes were similar for children born prematurely and their siblings born full term, except for the communication skills and general knowledge domain (AOR, 1.39) and the Multiple Challenge Index (AOR, 1.43). Male sex (AOR, 2.19) was associated with EDI vulnerability in this cohort as well, as was maternal age at delivery (AOR, 1.53).

“Whether prematurity is a cause or a manifestation of an altered family ecosystem is difficult to ascertain,” Lauren Neel, MD, a neonatologist at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial. “However, research on this topic is much needed, along with novel interventions to change academic trajectories and care models that implement these findings in practice. As we begin to understand the factors in and interventions for promoting resilience in preterm-born children, we may need to change our research question to this: Could we optimize resilience and long-term academic trajectories to include the family as well?”
 

Six crucial years

Commenting on the study, Veronica Bordes Edgar, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center’s Peter O’Donnell Jr. Brain Institute, Dallas, said, “None of the findings surprised me, but I was very pleased that they looked at such a broad sample.”

Pediatricians should monitor and screen children for early academic readiness, since these factors are associated with later academic outcomes, Dr. Edgar added. “Early intervention does not stop at age 3, but rather the first 6 years are so crucial to lay the foundation for future success. The pediatrician can play a role in preparing children and families by promoting early reading, such as through Reach Out and Read, encouraging language-rich play, and providing guidance on early childhood education and developmental needs.

“Further examination of long-term outcomes for these children to capture the longitudinal trend would help to document what is often observed clinically, in that children who start off with difficulties do not always catch up once they are in the academic environment,” Dr. Edgar concluded.

The study was supported by Research Manitoba and the Children’s Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Ruth, Dr. Neel, and Dr. Edgar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

How do a baby’s body and brain respond when their mother sings a lullaby?

Shannon de l’Etoile, PhD, is hoping to find out. Dr. de l’Etoile, professor of music therapy at the University of Miami, began watching interactions between typically functioning mothers and infants, mothers with postpartum depression and their babies, and mothers and infants with Down Syndrome.

The infants she studied became highly attentive to their mothers’ singing and showed “a contented state of arousal,” she said. Mothers, meanwhile, became more engaged with their babies.

To examine the issue more scientifically, Dr. de l’Etoile has launched a study of infant-directed singing, a method connecting babies and mothers through song. With the help of a nearly $20,000 grant from the Grammy Museum – a Los Angeles nonprofit that hosts and funds exhibits and other music programs – Dr. de l’Etoile plans to recruit 20 women whose children attend programming at the Linda Ray Intervention Center at the University of Miami. The early intervention program targets children under age 2 who have disabilities or slower development, or who may have been exposed to drugs in utero. The study will last 1 year, with plans for an extension. 

“By helping the mothers to become more sensitive, we are simultaneously helping infants learn how to regulate, so that by the time they’re in preschool, they can manage their behavior and have a successful, positive experience,” Dr. de l’Etoile said. She hopes her project will help women gain the confidence they need for families emotionally.

Mothers who practice infant-directed singing communicate with their babies through a variety of songs, from happy, playful versions of the ABCs, to more somber, drawn-out lullabies. In turn, their babies learn the emotional cues that go along with songs, potentially going from crying to playing, or watching their mother attentively.

Later in life, children raised with infant-directed singing might sing to themselves when they are stressed or need to go to sleep, Dr. de l’Etoile said. 

A caregiving method like singing may be less intuitive for women facing basic survival challenges, like maintaining safe housing or putting food on the table, Dr. d’Etoile said.

Interest in studying infant-directed singing has grown in the past few years, although according to Sandra Trehub, PhD, an expert in infant-directed singing, studies of the phenomenon began in the early 1990s. In her own work, Dr. Trehub found that infants appear to be more engaged with parents who sing directly to them than those who sing around but not at them.

Dr. Trehub said singing can be an additional resource for a mother to overcome socioeconomic hardships and bond with their child.

“Songs sung to an infant repeatedly become almost like a special signal between mother and child, a way for them to bond with each other,” she said.

Isabel Santana Chica, MS, executive director of the Linda Ray Intervention Center, expressed enthusiasm for the project.

“Music is a great way to support language, social, and emotional development,” Ms. Chica said. “My hope is that through infant-directed singing, mothers will have one additional tool to connect to their infants and enhance development.”

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

How do a baby’s body and brain respond when their mother sings a lullaby?

Shannon de l’Etoile, PhD, is hoping to find out. Dr. de l’Etoile, professor of music therapy at the University of Miami, began watching interactions between typically functioning mothers and infants, mothers with postpartum depression and their babies, and mothers and infants with Down Syndrome.

The infants she studied became highly attentive to their mothers’ singing and showed “a contented state of arousal,” she said. Mothers, meanwhile, became more engaged with their babies.

To examine the issue more scientifically, Dr. de l’Etoile has launched a study of infant-directed singing, a method connecting babies and mothers through song. With the help of a nearly $20,000 grant from the Grammy Museum – a Los Angeles nonprofit that hosts and funds exhibits and other music programs – Dr. de l’Etoile plans to recruit 20 women whose children attend programming at the Linda Ray Intervention Center at the University of Miami. The early intervention program targets children under age 2 who have disabilities or slower development, or who may have been exposed to drugs in utero. The study will last 1 year, with plans for an extension. 

“By helping the mothers to become more sensitive, we are simultaneously helping infants learn how to regulate, so that by the time they’re in preschool, they can manage their behavior and have a successful, positive experience,” Dr. de l’Etoile said. She hopes her project will help women gain the confidence they need for families emotionally.

Mothers who practice infant-directed singing communicate with their babies through a variety of songs, from happy, playful versions of the ABCs, to more somber, drawn-out lullabies. In turn, their babies learn the emotional cues that go along with songs, potentially going from crying to playing, or watching their mother attentively.

Later in life, children raised with infant-directed singing might sing to themselves when they are stressed or need to go to sleep, Dr. de l’Etoile said. 

A caregiving method like singing may be less intuitive for women facing basic survival challenges, like maintaining safe housing or putting food on the table, Dr. d’Etoile said.

Interest in studying infant-directed singing has grown in the past few years, although according to Sandra Trehub, PhD, an expert in infant-directed singing, studies of the phenomenon began in the early 1990s. In her own work, Dr. Trehub found that infants appear to be more engaged with parents who sing directly to them than those who sing around but not at them.

Dr. Trehub said singing can be an additional resource for a mother to overcome socioeconomic hardships and bond with their child.

“Songs sung to an infant repeatedly become almost like a special signal between mother and child, a way for them to bond with each other,” she said.

Isabel Santana Chica, MS, executive director of the Linda Ray Intervention Center, expressed enthusiasm for the project.

“Music is a great way to support language, social, and emotional development,” Ms. Chica said. “My hope is that through infant-directed singing, mothers will have one additional tool to connect to their infants and enhance development.”

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

How do a baby’s body and brain respond when their mother sings a lullaby?

Shannon de l’Etoile, PhD, is hoping to find out. Dr. de l’Etoile, professor of music therapy at the University of Miami, began watching interactions between typically functioning mothers and infants, mothers with postpartum depression and their babies, and mothers and infants with Down Syndrome.

The infants she studied became highly attentive to their mothers’ singing and showed “a contented state of arousal,” she said. Mothers, meanwhile, became more engaged with their babies.

To examine the issue more scientifically, Dr. de l’Etoile has launched a study of infant-directed singing, a method connecting babies and mothers through song. With the help of a nearly $20,000 grant from the Grammy Museum – a Los Angeles nonprofit that hosts and funds exhibits and other music programs – Dr. de l’Etoile plans to recruit 20 women whose children attend programming at the Linda Ray Intervention Center at the University of Miami. The early intervention program targets children under age 2 who have disabilities or slower development, or who may have been exposed to drugs in utero. The study will last 1 year, with plans for an extension. 

“By helping the mothers to become more sensitive, we are simultaneously helping infants learn how to regulate, so that by the time they’re in preschool, they can manage their behavior and have a successful, positive experience,” Dr. de l’Etoile said. She hopes her project will help women gain the confidence they need for families emotionally.

Mothers who practice infant-directed singing communicate with their babies through a variety of songs, from happy, playful versions of the ABCs, to more somber, drawn-out lullabies. In turn, their babies learn the emotional cues that go along with songs, potentially going from crying to playing, or watching their mother attentively.

Later in life, children raised with infant-directed singing might sing to themselves when they are stressed or need to go to sleep, Dr. de l’Etoile said. 

A caregiving method like singing may be less intuitive for women facing basic survival challenges, like maintaining safe housing or putting food on the table, Dr. d’Etoile said.

Interest in studying infant-directed singing has grown in the past few years, although according to Sandra Trehub, PhD, an expert in infant-directed singing, studies of the phenomenon began in the early 1990s. In her own work, Dr. Trehub found that infants appear to be more engaged with parents who sing directly to them than those who sing around but not at them.

Dr. Trehub said singing can be an additional resource for a mother to overcome socioeconomic hardships and bond with their child.

“Songs sung to an infant repeatedly become almost like a special signal between mother and child, a way for them to bond with each other,” she said.

Isabel Santana Chica, MS, executive director of the Linda Ray Intervention Center, expressed enthusiasm for the project.

“Music is a great way to support language, social, and emotional development,” Ms. Chica said. “My hope is that through infant-directed singing, mothers will have one additional tool to connect to their infants and enhance development.”

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

New research provides novel insight into how mindfulness alters pain-related activity in the brain, in findings that point to more targeted pain management.

In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.

Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.

A complex condition

Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.

“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”

The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”

Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.

“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
 

Thermal pain task

The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.

All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.

The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.

The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.

To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.

The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.

During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.

The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.

In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
 

Neural signatures

Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.

Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).

Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).

In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).

The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).

The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.

Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).

In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.

However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.

Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
 

‘We’re seeing the biology change’

Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.

However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.

However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.

He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.

“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.

“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.

The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.

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

New research provides novel insight into how mindfulness alters pain-related activity in the brain, in findings that point to more targeted pain management.

In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.

Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.

A complex condition

Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.

“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”

The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”

Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.

“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
 

Thermal pain task

The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.

All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.

The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.

The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.

To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.

The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.

During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.

The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.

In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
 

Neural signatures

Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.

Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).

Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).

In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).

The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).

The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.

Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).

In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.

However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.

Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
 

‘We’re seeing the biology change’

Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.

However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.

However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.

He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.

“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.

“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.

The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.

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

New research provides novel insight into how mindfulness alters pain-related activity in the brain, in findings that point to more targeted pain management.

In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.

Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.

A complex condition

Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.

“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”

The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”

Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.

“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
 

Thermal pain task

The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.

All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.

The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.

The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.

To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.

The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.

During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.

The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.

In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
 

Neural signatures

Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.

Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).

Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).

In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).

The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).

The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.

Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).

In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.

However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.

Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
 

‘We’re seeing the biology change’

Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.

However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.

However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.

He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.

“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.

“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.

The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.

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

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Gun attacks in classrooms across the nation have led principals and other school leaders to implement “active shooter” drills to try to increase the safety of their students and faculty.

The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.

“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”

“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”

Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.

The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.

They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”

The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”

The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.

The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.

According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”

“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
 

Managing the fallout

Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.

It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.

“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.

For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.

Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.

Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.

Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
 

Communicating with various stakeholders

Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.

“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.

For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.

He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.

School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
 

Executing better drills for students’ mental health

Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.

The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.

Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.

“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.

Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.

The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.

Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.

In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.

“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.

Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.

“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.

When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.

Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.

The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.

The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Two children taking the gene therapy drug onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma, Novartis) for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) have died from acute liver failure, according to a statement issued by the drug›s manufacturer.

The patients were 4 months and 28 months of age and lived in Russia and Kazakhstan. They died 5-6 weeks after infusion with Zolgensma and approximately 1-10 days after the initiation of a corticosteroid taper.

These are the first known fatal cases of acute liver failure associated with the drug, which the company notes was a known side effect included in the product label and in a boxed warning in the United States.

“Following two recent patient fatalities, and in alignment with health authorities, we will be updating the labeling to specify that fatal acute liver failure has been reported,” the statement reads.

“While this is important safety information, it is not a new safety signal,” it adds.
 

Rare genetic disorder

SMA is a rare genetic disorder that affects about 1 in 10,000 newborns. Patients with SMA lack a working copy of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes a protein called SMN that is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.

Without this protein, motor neurons eventually die, causing debilitating and progressive muscle weakness that affects the ability to walk, eat, and breathe.

Zolgensma, a one-time gene replacement therapy delivered via intravenous infusion, replaces the function of the missing or nonworking SMN1 gene with a new, working copy of the SMN1 gene.

The first gene therapy treatment for SMA, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for patients with SMA up to 2 years of age. It is also the most expensive drug in the world, costing about $2.1 million for a one-time treatment.

“We have notified health authorities in all markets where Zolgensma is used, including FDA, and are communicating to relevant healthcare professionals as an additional step in markets where this action is supported by health authorities,” the manufacturer’s statement says.

Studies have suggested that the treatment›s effects persist more than 5 years after infusion.

Clinical trials currently underway by Novartis are studying the drug’s long-term efficacy and safety and its potential use in older patients.

The company is also leading the phase 3 clinical trial STEER to test intrathecal (IT) administration of the drug in patients ages 2-18 years who have type 2 SMA.

That trial began late last year after the FDA lifted a 2-year partial hold on an earlier study. The FDA halted the STRONG trial in 2019, citing concerns from animal studies that IT administration may result in dorsal root ganglia injury. The partial hold was released last fall following positive study results in nonhuman primates.

None of the current trials will be affected by the two deaths reported this week, according to a Novartis spokesperson.

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

Two children taking the gene therapy drug onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma, Novartis) for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) have died from acute liver failure, according to a statement issued by the drug›s manufacturer.

The patients were 4 months and 28 months of age and lived in Russia and Kazakhstan. They died 5-6 weeks after infusion with Zolgensma and approximately 1-10 days after the initiation of a corticosteroid taper.

These are the first known fatal cases of acute liver failure associated with the drug, which the company notes was a known side effect included in the product label and in a boxed warning in the United States.

“Following two recent patient fatalities, and in alignment with health authorities, we will be updating the labeling to specify that fatal acute liver failure has been reported,” the statement reads.

“While this is important safety information, it is not a new safety signal,” it adds.
 

Rare genetic disorder

SMA is a rare genetic disorder that affects about 1 in 10,000 newborns. Patients with SMA lack a working copy of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes a protein called SMN that is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.

Without this protein, motor neurons eventually die, causing debilitating and progressive muscle weakness that affects the ability to walk, eat, and breathe.

Zolgensma, a one-time gene replacement therapy delivered via intravenous infusion, replaces the function of the missing or nonworking SMN1 gene with a new, working copy of the SMN1 gene.

The first gene therapy treatment for SMA, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for patients with SMA up to 2 years of age. It is also the most expensive drug in the world, costing about $2.1 million for a one-time treatment.

“We have notified health authorities in all markets where Zolgensma is used, including FDA, and are communicating to relevant healthcare professionals as an additional step in markets where this action is supported by health authorities,” the manufacturer’s statement says.

Studies have suggested that the treatment›s effects persist more than 5 years after infusion.

Clinical trials currently underway by Novartis are studying the drug’s long-term efficacy and safety and its potential use in older patients.

The company is also leading the phase 3 clinical trial STEER to test intrathecal (IT) administration of the drug in patients ages 2-18 years who have type 2 SMA.

That trial began late last year after the FDA lifted a 2-year partial hold on an earlier study. The FDA halted the STRONG trial in 2019, citing concerns from animal studies that IT administration may result in dorsal root ganglia injury. The partial hold was released last fall following positive study results in nonhuman primates.

None of the current trials will be affected by the two deaths reported this week, according to a Novartis spokesperson.

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

Two children taking the gene therapy drug onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma, Novartis) for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) have died from acute liver failure, according to a statement issued by the drug›s manufacturer.

The patients were 4 months and 28 months of age and lived in Russia and Kazakhstan. They died 5-6 weeks after infusion with Zolgensma and approximately 1-10 days after the initiation of a corticosteroid taper.

These are the first known fatal cases of acute liver failure associated with the drug, which the company notes was a known side effect included in the product label and in a boxed warning in the United States.

“Following two recent patient fatalities, and in alignment with health authorities, we will be updating the labeling to specify that fatal acute liver failure has been reported,” the statement reads.

“While this is important safety information, it is not a new safety signal,” it adds.
 

Rare genetic disorder

SMA is a rare genetic disorder that affects about 1 in 10,000 newborns. Patients with SMA lack a working copy of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes a protein called SMN that is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.

Without this protein, motor neurons eventually die, causing debilitating and progressive muscle weakness that affects the ability to walk, eat, and breathe.

Zolgensma, a one-time gene replacement therapy delivered via intravenous infusion, replaces the function of the missing or nonworking SMN1 gene with a new, working copy of the SMN1 gene.

The first gene therapy treatment for SMA, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for patients with SMA up to 2 years of age. It is also the most expensive drug in the world, costing about $2.1 million for a one-time treatment.

“We have notified health authorities in all markets where Zolgensma is used, including FDA, and are communicating to relevant healthcare professionals as an additional step in markets where this action is supported by health authorities,” the manufacturer’s statement says.

Studies have suggested that the treatment›s effects persist more than 5 years after infusion.

Clinical trials currently underway by Novartis are studying the drug’s long-term efficacy and safety and its potential use in older patients.

The company is also leading the phase 3 clinical trial STEER to test intrathecal (IT) administration of the drug in patients ages 2-18 years who have type 2 SMA.

That trial began late last year after the FDA lifted a 2-year partial hold on an earlier study. The FDA halted the STRONG trial in 2019, citing concerns from animal studies that IT administration may result in dorsal root ganglia injury. The partial hold was released last fall following positive study results in nonhuman primates.

None of the current trials will be affected by the two deaths reported this week, according to a Novartis spokesperson.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – In 1906, a neuroanatomist and psychiatrist named Alois Alzheimer examined the brain of a 50-year-old woman whom he had treated for paranoia, sleep and memory problems, aggression, and confusion. His autopsy revealed plaques and tangles in her brain. The most common components of these tangles are beta-amyloid peptide (A-beta) and the microtubule binding protein tau. Over the past few decades, that finding has launched many clinical development programs and dozens of clinical trials.

To date, all but one program has failed. In 2021, amidst much controversy, FDA granted accelerated approval to Biogen’s Aduhelm, which effectively clears A-beta and tau deposits from patients’ brains. The problem is that the clinical benefit is small, and uptake has been so low that the company was forced to abandon a planned postmarketing observational trial.
 

Chasing the wrong target?

At a session at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, Raymond J. Tesi, MD, rather forcefully refuted that approach. “Amyloid and tau therapies have had 20 years to prove themselves. We have multiple cases where we’ve been able to decrease amyloid, maybe not so much tau, but certainly amyloid, and the benefits are mild at best. So I think that the Alzheimer’s drug development community, whether you look at the NIH, whether you look at academia, whether you look at biopharma, has focused on a target that has not proven itself, and it’s time to move on,” said Dr. Tesi, who is president, CEO, and chief medical officer at INmune Bio.

Later in the session, researchers presented strategies to counter Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative conditions using strategies including modulation of metabolism and inflammation, support of brain homeostasis, and suppression of a broader range of neurotoxic proteins.

One audience member defended the potential importance of A-beta and tau, especially in astrogliosis, which is a reaction to stress by astrocytes that attempts to limit tissue damage. The questioner suggested that it was still important to measure the effect of a novel drug on A-beta and tau. “What would be the cause of the reactive astrogliosis and microglia activation, if we are not giving a damn about amyloid and tau?” he asked.

After a bit of back and forth, Dr. Tesi replied: “We both have a religious belief here, and sooner or later we’ll get the answer.”
 

A diverse clinical pipeline

The session itself focused on four companies, including Dr. Tesi’s INmune Bio, which have drugs with alternative mechanisms entering the advanced stages of clinical development. That’s good news, according to Heather Snyder, PhD, who is vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association. “One of the things that I think is really important is the diversity of what’s in the clinical pipeline, and it’s not just in the very beginning anymore. We’re seeing [companies] now reporting phase 2 [studies] and planning their next stage. That’s something that as a field we should be excited about. As we understand more and more about the biology, we’re now seeing that translating into clinical trials and we’re seeing that translate through the clinical pipeline of development,” said Dr. Snyder in an interview.

Targeting neuroinflammation

Dr. Tesi kicked off the session describing INmune Bio’s focus on neuroinflammation. The company’s drug candidate targets soluble tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which the company believes is a direct cause of Alzheimer’s disease through promotion of inflammation. He noted that TNF is a primary mediator of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, and patients with RA have an eightfold increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, compared with the general population, while patients with RA who are taking anti-TNF medication have a 60% lower risk than the general population.

The company’s TNF inhibitor XPro is also unique in that it induces remyelination in mice, while other TNF inhibitors potentially “abuse” the brain by causing demyelination. Earlier research showed that it reduces neuroinflammation, improves nerve cell survival, and improves synaptic function. The company is conducting two phase 2 clinical trials, one in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and one in mild Alzheimer’s disease. They also use the MCI Alzheimer’s Cognitive Composite (EMACC) tool for assessing outcomes rather than the more commonly used Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog). “ADAS-Cog is like trying to make sushi with an axe. It is designed for moderate to severe disease, and trying to use it for mild (Alzheimer’s disease) or MCI is a mistake. EMACC is purpose built for mild [AD] and MCI patients,” said Dr. Tesi.
 

Maintaining homeostatis

Next, Hans Moebius, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Athira Pharma, described his company’s focus on the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) receptor, also known as tyrosine kinase MET (HGF/MET). It plays an important role in brain development and homeostasis, and it is expressed at lower levels in the frontal cortex and hippocampus of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The company’s small-molecule drug candidate boosts the HGF/MET pathway, leading to downstream neuroprotection and neurotrophic effects. It also promotes formation of new synapses.

Dr. Moebius presented the results of a phase 2 trial showing that the drug, called fosgonimeton, led to significant cognitive improvement compared with placebo. The company is conducting a phase 3 clinical trial.
 

Type 3 diabetes?

In his talk, John Didsbury, PhD, founder and CEO of T3D Therapeutics, framed Alzheimer’s disease as a disease of metabolic dysfunction. He believes alterations to glucose and lipids in the brain cause structural changes that lead to symptoms. He pointed out that the strongest genetic Alzheimer’s disease risk factor is a mutant form of the lipid transport protein APOE4.

“What we have is dysregulated glucose energy metabolism and lipid metabolism that really cause, in our mind, the structural event changes and the stress event changes – plaques, tangles, inflammation, etc. – but these events perpetuate the dysregulated metabolism. It’s a massive positive feedback loop that many have called type 3 diabetes – a brain-specific form of diabetes,” said Dr. Didsbury.

The company’s approach is to use systems biology to identify a drug target that can bypass multiple aberrant insulin signaling pathways. Its drug candidate regulates the expression of multiple genes involved in glucose metabolism. Dr. Didsbury presented interim results from a phase 2 study showing improvement over placebo.
 

Focusing on neurotoxic proteins

The final presentation of the session was by Maria Maccecchini, PhD, founder, president, and CEO of Annovis Bio. The company’s drug, buntanetap, reduces expression of a range of neurotoxic proteins. The downstream effects include restoration of axonal transport, reduction of inflammation, and protection of nerve cells. The company believes that Alzheimer’s disease results from acute and chronic stress events that lead to high levels of neurotoxic proteins, which include A-beta, tau, alpha-synuclein, and TDP43. The proteins aren’t just players in Alzheimer’s disease – they are present in abnormal levels in Parkinson’s disease and a range of other brain pathologies.

“In the brain of an Alzheimer’s and of a Parkinson’s [patient], you’re going to find all four proteins. You’ll find them in different concentrations, at different time points, in different brain areas. If you just remove one, you still have the other three that cause impairment in axonal transport, and that leads to inflammation that leads to neurodegeneration,” said Dr. Maccecchini.

The company’s drug manages to reduce levels of all four proteins by binding to a segment of messenger RNA (mRNA) shared by all of them. mRNA serves as a template for protein synthesis. Under normal conditions, the neurotoxic protein concentrations are kept low because the mRNA segment remains bound to a regulatory protein that prevents synthesis from occurring. However, when stress leads to high levels of iron, this regulatory binding protein releases the mRNA segment (along with the rest of the mRNA). The freed mRNA becomes available to the cell’s protein synthesis machinery, which starts producing high levels of neurotoxic proteins. Annovis Bio’s drug improves the ability of the regulatory protein to bind to the mRNA segment, preventing protein expression even in high-iron conditions. It works on all four neurotoxic proteins because they all have the regulatory segment in their mRNA.

The drug led to improvements in phase 2 studies of Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, and the company is currently recruiting for a phase 3 study in Parkinson’s disease and a phase 2/3 dose-response study in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Combination treatments for a complex disease

Taken together, the presentations provided a snapshot of the post–A-beta/tau Alzheimer’s development world, and the future could be messy. Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are likely to require combination treatments, according to Dr. Snyder. “This is a complex disease, not just Alzheimer’s but other dementias. It’s not going to be a single drug, a single target. It’s going to require some type of combinatorial approach, whether that be with medication and lifestyle interventions, or risk reduction, and different medications,” she said.

The latest results are good news for that approach: “We’re seeing that maturation of the science in these trials,” said Dr. Snyder.

Cheng Fang, PhD, senior vice president of research and development at Annovis Bio, agreed with that sentiment. “I believe [Alzheimer’s disease and dementia] is a very complicated disease. I always call them diseases instead of a disease because it’s a spectrum. I don’t believe one drug can cure them all, as much as I am confident in our drug. I think it’s extremely important to encourage this kind of diverse thinking,” said Dr. Fang.

Dr. Snyder has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Tesi, Dr. Moebius, Dr. Didsbury, Dr. Maccecchini, and Dr. Fang are employees and in some cases stockholders of their respective companies.

SAN DIEGO – In 1906, a neuroanatomist and psychiatrist named Alois Alzheimer examined the brain of a 50-year-old woman whom he had treated for paranoia, sleep and memory problems, aggression, and confusion. His autopsy revealed plaques and tangles in her brain. The most common components of these tangles are beta-amyloid peptide (A-beta) and the microtubule binding protein tau. Over the past few decades, that finding has launched many clinical development programs and dozens of clinical trials.

To date, all but one program has failed. In 2021, amidst much controversy, FDA granted accelerated approval to Biogen’s Aduhelm, which effectively clears A-beta and tau deposits from patients’ brains. The problem is that the clinical benefit is small, and uptake has been so low that the company was forced to abandon a planned postmarketing observational trial.
 

Chasing the wrong target?

At a session at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, Raymond J. Tesi, MD, rather forcefully refuted that approach. “Amyloid and tau therapies have had 20 years to prove themselves. We have multiple cases where we’ve been able to decrease amyloid, maybe not so much tau, but certainly amyloid, and the benefits are mild at best. So I think that the Alzheimer’s drug development community, whether you look at the NIH, whether you look at academia, whether you look at biopharma, has focused on a target that has not proven itself, and it’s time to move on,” said Dr. Tesi, who is president, CEO, and chief medical officer at INmune Bio.

Later in the session, researchers presented strategies to counter Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative conditions using strategies including modulation of metabolism and inflammation, support of brain homeostasis, and suppression of a broader range of neurotoxic proteins.

One audience member defended the potential importance of A-beta and tau, especially in astrogliosis, which is a reaction to stress by astrocytes that attempts to limit tissue damage. The questioner suggested that it was still important to measure the effect of a novel drug on A-beta and tau. “What would be the cause of the reactive astrogliosis and microglia activation, if we are not giving a damn about amyloid and tau?” he asked.

After a bit of back and forth, Dr. Tesi replied: “We both have a religious belief here, and sooner or later we’ll get the answer.”
 

A diverse clinical pipeline

The session itself focused on four companies, including Dr. Tesi’s INmune Bio, which have drugs with alternative mechanisms entering the advanced stages of clinical development. That’s good news, according to Heather Snyder, PhD, who is vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association. “One of the things that I think is really important is the diversity of what’s in the clinical pipeline, and it’s not just in the very beginning anymore. We’re seeing [companies] now reporting phase 2 [studies] and planning their next stage. That’s something that as a field we should be excited about. As we understand more and more about the biology, we’re now seeing that translating into clinical trials and we’re seeing that translate through the clinical pipeline of development,” said Dr. Snyder in an interview.

Targeting neuroinflammation

Dr. Tesi kicked off the session describing INmune Bio’s focus on neuroinflammation. The company’s drug candidate targets soluble tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which the company believes is a direct cause of Alzheimer’s disease through promotion of inflammation. He noted that TNF is a primary mediator of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, and patients with RA have an eightfold increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, compared with the general population, while patients with RA who are taking anti-TNF medication have a 60% lower risk than the general population.

The company’s TNF inhibitor XPro is also unique in that it induces remyelination in mice, while other TNF inhibitors potentially “abuse” the brain by causing demyelination. Earlier research showed that it reduces neuroinflammation, improves nerve cell survival, and improves synaptic function. The company is conducting two phase 2 clinical trials, one in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and one in mild Alzheimer’s disease. They also use the MCI Alzheimer’s Cognitive Composite (EMACC) tool for assessing outcomes rather than the more commonly used Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog). “ADAS-Cog is like trying to make sushi with an axe. It is designed for moderate to severe disease, and trying to use it for mild (Alzheimer’s disease) or MCI is a mistake. EMACC is purpose built for mild [AD] and MCI patients,” said Dr. Tesi.
 

Maintaining homeostatis

Next, Hans Moebius, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Athira Pharma, described his company’s focus on the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) receptor, also known as tyrosine kinase MET (HGF/MET). It plays an important role in brain development and homeostasis, and it is expressed at lower levels in the frontal cortex and hippocampus of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The company’s small-molecule drug candidate boosts the HGF/MET pathway, leading to downstream neuroprotection and neurotrophic effects. It also promotes formation of new synapses.

Dr. Moebius presented the results of a phase 2 trial showing that the drug, called fosgonimeton, led to significant cognitive improvement compared with placebo. The company is conducting a phase 3 clinical trial.
 

Type 3 diabetes?

In his talk, John Didsbury, PhD, founder and CEO of T3D Therapeutics, framed Alzheimer’s disease as a disease of metabolic dysfunction. He believes alterations to glucose and lipids in the brain cause structural changes that lead to symptoms. He pointed out that the strongest genetic Alzheimer’s disease risk factor is a mutant form of the lipid transport protein APOE4.

“What we have is dysregulated glucose energy metabolism and lipid metabolism that really cause, in our mind, the structural event changes and the stress event changes – plaques, tangles, inflammation, etc. – but these events perpetuate the dysregulated metabolism. It’s a massive positive feedback loop that many have called type 3 diabetes – a brain-specific form of diabetes,” said Dr. Didsbury.

The company’s approach is to use systems biology to identify a drug target that can bypass multiple aberrant insulin signaling pathways. Its drug candidate regulates the expression of multiple genes involved in glucose metabolism. Dr. Didsbury presented interim results from a phase 2 study showing improvement over placebo.
 

Focusing on neurotoxic proteins

The final presentation of the session was by Maria Maccecchini, PhD, founder, president, and CEO of Annovis Bio. The company’s drug, buntanetap, reduces expression of a range of neurotoxic proteins. The downstream effects include restoration of axonal transport, reduction of inflammation, and protection of nerve cells. The company believes that Alzheimer’s disease results from acute and chronic stress events that lead to high levels of neurotoxic proteins, which include A-beta, tau, alpha-synuclein, and TDP43. The proteins aren’t just players in Alzheimer’s disease – they are present in abnormal levels in Parkinson’s disease and a range of other brain pathologies.

“In the brain of an Alzheimer’s and of a Parkinson’s [patient], you’re going to find all four proteins. You’ll find them in different concentrations, at different time points, in different brain areas. If you just remove one, you still have the other three that cause impairment in axonal transport, and that leads to inflammation that leads to neurodegeneration,” said Dr. Maccecchini.

The company’s drug manages to reduce levels of all four proteins by binding to a segment of messenger RNA (mRNA) shared by all of them. mRNA serves as a template for protein synthesis. Under normal conditions, the neurotoxic protein concentrations are kept low because the mRNA segment remains bound to a regulatory protein that prevents synthesis from occurring. However, when stress leads to high levels of iron, this regulatory binding protein releases the mRNA segment (along with the rest of the mRNA). The freed mRNA becomes available to the cell’s protein synthesis machinery, which starts producing high levels of neurotoxic proteins. Annovis Bio’s drug improves the ability of the regulatory protein to bind to the mRNA segment, preventing protein expression even in high-iron conditions. It works on all four neurotoxic proteins because they all have the regulatory segment in their mRNA.

The drug led to improvements in phase 2 studies of Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, and the company is currently recruiting for a phase 3 study in Parkinson’s disease and a phase 2/3 dose-response study in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Combination treatments for a complex disease

Taken together, the presentations provided a snapshot of the post–A-beta/tau Alzheimer’s development world, and the future could be messy. Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are likely to require combination treatments, according to Dr. Snyder. “This is a complex disease, not just Alzheimer’s but other dementias. It’s not going to be a single drug, a single target. It’s going to require some type of combinatorial approach, whether that be with medication and lifestyle interventions, or risk reduction, and different medications,” she said.

The latest results are good news for that approach: “We’re seeing that maturation of the science in these trials,” said Dr. Snyder.

Cheng Fang, PhD, senior vice president of research and development at Annovis Bio, agreed with that sentiment. “I believe [Alzheimer’s disease and dementia] is a very complicated disease. I always call them diseases instead of a disease because it’s a spectrum. I don’t believe one drug can cure them all, as much as I am confident in our drug. I think it’s extremely important to encourage this kind of diverse thinking,” said Dr. Fang.

Dr. Snyder has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Tesi, Dr. Moebius, Dr. Didsbury, Dr. Maccecchini, and Dr. Fang are employees and in some cases stockholders of their respective companies.

SAN DIEGO – In 1906, a neuroanatomist and psychiatrist named Alois Alzheimer examined the brain of a 50-year-old woman whom he had treated for paranoia, sleep and memory problems, aggression, and confusion. His autopsy revealed plaques and tangles in her brain. The most common components of these tangles are beta-amyloid peptide (A-beta) and the microtubule binding protein tau. Over the past few decades, that finding has launched many clinical development programs and dozens of clinical trials.

To date, all but one program has failed. In 2021, amidst much controversy, FDA granted accelerated approval to Biogen’s Aduhelm, which effectively clears A-beta and tau deposits from patients’ brains. The problem is that the clinical benefit is small, and uptake has been so low that the company was forced to abandon a planned postmarketing observational trial.
 

Chasing the wrong target?

At a session at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, Raymond J. Tesi, MD, rather forcefully refuted that approach. “Amyloid and tau therapies have had 20 years to prove themselves. We have multiple cases where we’ve been able to decrease amyloid, maybe not so much tau, but certainly amyloid, and the benefits are mild at best. So I think that the Alzheimer’s drug development community, whether you look at the NIH, whether you look at academia, whether you look at biopharma, has focused on a target that has not proven itself, and it’s time to move on,” said Dr. Tesi, who is president, CEO, and chief medical officer at INmune Bio.

Later in the session, researchers presented strategies to counter Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative conditions using strategies including modulation of metabolism and inflammation, support of brain homeostasis, and suppression of a broader range of neurotoxic proteins.

One audience member defended the potential importance of A-beta and tau, especially in astrogliosis, which is a reaction to stress by astrocytes that attempts to limit tissue damage. The questioner suggested that it was still important to measure the effect of a novel drug on A-beta and tau. “What would be the cause of the reactive astrogliosis and microglia activation, if we are not giving a damn about amyloid and tau?” he asked.

After a bit of back and forth, Dr. Tesi replied: “We both have a religious belief here, and sooner or later we’ll get the answer.”
 

A diverse clinical pipeline

The session itself focused on four companies, including Dr. Tesi’s INmune Bio, which have drugs with alternative mechanisms entering the advanced stages of clinical development. That’s good news, according to Heather Snyder, PhD, who is vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association. “One of the things that I think is really important is the diversity of what’s in the clinical pipeline, and it’s not just in the very beginning anymore. We’re seeing [companies] now reporting phase 2 [studies] and planning their next stage. That’s something that as a field we should be excited about. As we understand more and more about the biology, we’re now seeing that translating into clinical trials and we’re seeing that translate through the clinical pipeline of development,” said Dr. Snyder in an interview.

Targeting neuroinflammation

Dr. Tesi kicked off the session describing INmune Bio’s focus on neuroinflammation. The company’s drug candidate targets soluble tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which the company believes is a direct cause of Alzheimer’s disease through promotion of inflammation. He noted that TNF is a primary mediator of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, and patients with RA have an eightfold increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, compared with the general population, while patients with RA who are taking anti-TNF medication have a 60% lower risk than the general population.

The company’s TNF inhibitor XPro is also unique in that it induces remyelination in mice, while other TNF inhibitors potentially “abuse” the brain by causing demyelination. Earlier research showed that it reduces neuroinflammation, improves nerve cell survival, and improves synaptic function. The company is conducting two phase 2 clinical trials, one in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and one in mild Alzheimer’s disease. They also use the MCI Alzheimer’s Cognitive Composite (EMACC) tool for assessing outcomes rather than the more commonly used Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog). “ADAS-Cog is like trying to make sushi with an axe. It is designed for moderate to severe disease, and trying to use it for mild (Alzheimer’s disease) or MCI is a mistake. EMACC is purpose built for mild [AD] and MCI patients,” said Dr. Tesi.
 

Maintaining homeostatis

Next, Hans Moebius, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Athira Pharma, described his company’s focus on the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) receptor, also known as tyrosine kinase MET (HGF/MET). It plays an important role in brain development and homeostasis, and it is expressed at lower levels in the frontal cortex and hippocampus of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The company’s small-molecule drug candidate boosts the HGF/MET pathway, leading to downstream neuroprotection and neurotrophic effects. It also promotes formation of new synapses.

Dr. Moebius presented the results of a phase 2 trial showing that the drug, called fosgonimeton, led to significant cognitive improvement compared with placebo. The company is conducting a phase 3 clinical trial.
 

Type 3 diabetes?

In his talk, John Didsbury, PhD, founder and CEO of T3D Therapeutics, framed Alzheimer’s disease as a disease of metabolic dysfunction. He believes alterations to glucose and lipids in the brain cause structural changes that lead to symptoms. He pointed out that the strongest genetic Alzheimer’s disease risk factor is a mutant form of the lipid transport protein APOE4.

“What we have is dysregulated glucose energy metabolism and lipid metabolism that really cause, in our mind, the structural event changes and the stress event changes – plaques, tangles, inflammation, etc. – but these events perpetuate the dysregulated metabolism. It’s a massive positive feedback loop that many have called type 3 diabetes – a brain-specific form of diabetes,” said Dr. Didsbury.

The company’s approach is to use systems biology to identify a drug target that can bypass multiple aberrant insulin signaling pathways. Its drug candidate regulates the expression of multiple genes involved in glucose metabolism. Dr. Didsbury presented interim results from a phase 2 study showing improvement over placebo.
 

Focusing on neurotoxic proteins

The final presentation of the session was by Maria Maccecchini, PhD, founder, president, and CEO of Annovis Bio. The company’s drug, buntanetap, reduces expression of a range of neurotoxic proteins. The downstream effects include restoration of axonal transport, reduction of inflammation, and protection of nerve cells. The company believes that Alzheimer’s disease results from acute and chronic stress events that lead to high levels of neurotoxic proteins, which include A-beta, tau, alpha-synuclein, and TDP43. The proteins aren’t just players in Alzheimer’s disease – they are present in abnormal levels in Parkinson’s disease and a range of other brain pathologies.

“In the brain of an Alzheimer’s and of a Parkinson’s [patient], you’re going to find all four proteins. You’ll find them in different concentrations, at different time points, in different brain areas. If you just remove one, you still have the other three that cause impairment in axonal transport, and that leads to inflammation that leads to neurodegeneration,” said Dr. Maccecchini.

The company’s drug manages to reduce levels of all four proteins by binding to a segment of messenger RNA (mRNA) shared by all of them. mRNA serves as a template for protein synthesis. Under normal conditions, the neurotoxic protein concentrations are kept low because the mRNA segment remains bound to a regulatory protein that prevents synthesis from occurring. However, when stress leads to high levels of iron, this regulatory binding protein releases the mRNA segment (along with the rest of the mRNA). The freed mRNA becomes available to the cell’s protein synthesis machinery, which starts producing high levels of neurotoxic proteins. Annovis Bio’s drug improves the ability of the regulatory protein to bind to the mRNA segment, preventing protein expression even in high-iron conditions. It works on all four neurotoxic proteins because they all have the regulatory segment in their mRNA.

The drug led to improvements in phase 2 studies of Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, and the company is currently recruiting for a phase 3 study in Parkinson’s disease and a phase 2/3 dose-response study in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Combination treatments for a complex disease

Taken together, the presentations provided a snapshot of the post–A-beta/tau Alzheimer’s development world, and the future could be messy. Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are likely to require combination treatments, according to Dr. Snyder. “This is a complex disease, not just Alzheimer’s but other dementias. It’s not going to be a single drug, a single target. It’s going to require some type of combinatorial approach, whether that be with medication and lifestyle interventions, or risk reduction, and different medications,” she said.

The latest results are good news for that approach: “We’re seeing that maturation of the science in these trials,” said Dr. Snyder.

Cheng Fang, PhD, senior vice president of research and development at Annovis Bio, agreed with that sentiment. “I believe [Alzheimer’s disease and dementia] is a very complicated disease. I always call them diseases instead of a disease because it’s a spectrum. I don’t believe one drug can cure them all, as much as I am confident in our drug. I think it’s extremely important to encourage this kind of diverse thinking,” said Dr. Fang.

Dr. Snyder has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Tesi, Dr. Moebius, Dr. Didsbury, Dr. Maccecchini, and Dr. Fang are employees and in some cases stockholders of their respective companies.

Federal Health Care Data Trends (click to view the digital edition) is a special supplement to Federal Practitioner highlighting the latest research and study outcomes related to the health of veteran and active-duty populations. 

In this issue:

• Vaccinations
• Mental Health and Related Disorders
• LGBTQ+ Veterans
• Military Sexual Trauma
• Sleep Disorders
• Respiratory Illnesses
• HIV Care in the VA
• Rheumatologic Diseases
• The Cancer-Obesity Connection
• Skin Health for Active-Duty Personnel
• Contraception
• Chronic Kidney Disease
• Cardiovascular Diseases
• Neurologic Disorders
• Hearing, Vision, and Balance

Federal Practitioner would like to thank the following experts for their review of content and helpful guidance in developing this issue: 

Kelvin N.V. Bush, MD, FACC, CCDS; Sonya Borrero, MD, MS; Kenneth L. Cameron, PhD, MPH, ATC, FNATA; Jason DeViva, PhD; Ellen Lockard Edens, MD; Leonard E. Egede, MD, MS; Amy Justice, MD, PhD; Stephanie Knudson, MD; Willis H. Lyford, MD; Sarah O. Meadows, PhD; Tamara Schult, PhD, MPH; Eric L. Singman, MD, PhD; Art Wallace, MD, PhD; Elizabeth Waterhouse, MD, FAAN

Federal Health Care Data Trends (click to view the digital edition) is a special supplement to Federal Practitioner highlighting the latest research and study outcomes related to the health of veteran and active-duty populations. 

In this issue:

• Vaccinations
• Mental Health and Related Disorders
• LGBTQ+ Veterans
• Military Sexual Trauma
• Sleep Disorders
• Respiratory Illnesses
• HIV Care in the VA
• Rheumatologic Diseases
• The Cancer-Obesity Connection
• Skin Health for Active-Duty Personnel
• Contraception
• Chronic Kidney Disease
• Cardiovascular Diseases
• Neurologic Disorders
• Hearing, Vision, and Balance

Federal Practitioner would like to thank the following experts for their review of content and helpful guidance in developing this issue: 

Kelvin N.V. Bush, MD, FACC, CCDS; Sonya Borrero, MD, MS; Kenneth L. Cameron, PhD, MPH, ATC, FNATA; Jason DeViva, PhD; Ellen Lockard Edens, MD; Leonard E. Egede, MD, MS; Amy Justice, MD, PhD; Stephanie Knudson, MD; Willis H. Lyford, MD; Sarah O. Meadows, PhD; Tamara Schult, PhD, MPH; Eric L. Singman, MD, PhD; Art Wallace, MD, PhD; Elizabeth Waterhouse, MD, FAAN

Federal Health Care Data Trends (click to view the digital edition) is a special supplement to Federal Practitioner highlighting the latest research and study outcomes related to the health of veteran and active-duty populations. 

In this issue:

• Vaccinations
• Mental Health and Related Disorders
• LGBTQ+ Veterans
• Military Sexual Trauma
• Sleep Disorders
• Respiratory Illnesses
• HIV Care in the VA
• Rheumatologic Diseases
• The Cancer-Obesity Connection
• Skin Health for Active-Duty Personnel
• Contraception
• Chronic Kidney Disease
• Cardiovascular Diseases
• Neurologic Disorders
• Hearing, Vision, and Balance

Federal Practitioner would like to thank the following experts for their review of content and helpful guidance in developing this issue: 

Kelvin N.V. Bush, MD, FACC, CCDS; Sonya Borrero, MD, MS; Kenneth L. Cameron, PhD, MPH, ATC, FNATA; Jason DeViva, PhD; Ellen Lockard Edens, MD; Leonard E. Egede, MD, MS; Amy Justice, MD, PhD; Stephanie Knudson, MD; Willis H. Lyford, MD; Sarah O. Meadows, PhD; Tamara Schult, PhD, MPH; Eric L. Singman, MD, PhD; Art Wallace, MD, PhD; Elizabeth Waterhouse, MD, FAAN

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener from the faculty of medicine at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

Usually in this video series, I report on interesting scientific studies in the field of neurology published in the last month. But I have to admit, June was a lousy month for new science in neurology. Therefore, this month I’d like to take a different approach and tell you about a very interesting, old drug.

We are celebrating the 125th anniversary of aspirin. Aspirin was first synthesized in Wuppertal, Germany, a city which is only 40 km from my location, by Felix Hoffmann. Hoffmann was searching for a new drug for his father who suffered from severe joint pain, and the available drugs at that time had terrible adverse events. This prompted him to work on a new drug, which was later called aspirin acetylsalicylic acid.

Aspirin has been used very successfully to the present day as therapy for joint pain or arthritis. But as you know, it’s also effective in headaches, in particular, tension-type headache. I think it’s one of the most used drugs in the world for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

It’s also available in some European countries in intravenous form for the treatment of severe migraine attacks or in the emergency room, and it’s as effective as subcutaneous sumatriptan. It’s also an effective migraine preventive drug in a dose of 300 mg/d.
 

Discovering aspirin’s antiplatelet activity

There was an interesting observation by a dentist in the 1930s, who noted bleeding when he extracted teeth in people who took aspirin for joint pain. When he started to ask his patients about possible bleeding complications and vascular events, he observed that people who took aspirin didn’t have coronary myocardial infarctions.

It took a long time for people to discover that aspirin is not only a pain medication but also an antiplatelet agent. The first randomized study that showed that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction was published in 1974 in The New England Journal of Medicine. In 1980, aspirin was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the secondary prevention of stroke and in 1984 for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

A history of efficacy

Aspirin also has a proven role in the secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack and ischemic stroke. Given early, it reduces the risk for a recurrent vascular event by 50% and long-term, compared with placebo, by 20%.

Interestingly, the doses are different in different areas of the world. In the United States, it’s either 81 mg or 325 mg. In Europe, it’s usually 100 mg. Until a few years ago, there was no single trial which used 100 mg of aspirin, compared with placebo for the secondary prevention of stroke.

If we look at dual antiplatelet therapy, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was not superior to aspirin alone or clopidogrel alone for long-term prevention, but the combination of dipyridamole and aspirin and the combination of cilostazol and aspirin were superior to aspirin alone for secondary stroke prevention. Short-term, within the first 30 days, the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to monotherapy but also have an increased risk for bleeding.

People with atrial fibrillation or embolic strokes need to be anticoagulated, but the addition of aspirin to anticoagulation does not increase efficacy, it only increases the risk for bleeding.

In people above the age of 75 years who have to take aspirin, there is an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. These patients should, in addition, receive proton pump inhibitors.

The use of aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular events was promoted for almost 50 years all over the world, but in the last 5 years, a number of randomized trials clearly showed that aspirin is not effective, compared with placebo, in the primary prevention of vascular event stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death. It only increases the risk for bleeding.

So it’s a clear separation. Aspirin should not be used for primary prevention of vascular events, but it should be used in basically everyone who doesn’t have contraindications for secondary prevention of vascular events and vascular death.

Ladies and gentlemen, a drug that is 125 years old is also still one of the most used and affordable drugs all around the world. It’s highly effective and has only a small risk for major bleeding complications. It’s really time to celebrate aspirin for this achievement.

Dr. Diener is professor, department of neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen (Germany). A complete list of his financial disclosures is available at the link below.

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

PCSK9 inhibitors, which are among the most effective therapies for reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are associated with a neutral effect on cognitive function, according to a genetics-based Mendelian randomization study intended to sort out through the complexity of confounders.

The same study linked HMG-Co A reductase inhibitors (statins) with the potential for modest adverse neurocognitive effects, although these are likely to be outweighed by cardiovascular benefits, according to a collaborating team of investigators from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the University of Oxford (England).

For clinicians and patients who continue to harbor concerns that cognitive function is threatened by very low LDL-C, this novel approach to evaluating risk is “reassuring,” according to the authors.

Early in clinical testing of PCSK9 inhibitors, a potential signal for adverse effects on cognitive function was reported but unconfirmed. This signal raised concern that extremely low levels of LDL-C, such as < 25 mg/dL, achieved with PCSK9 inhibitors might pose a risk to neurocognitive function.

Of several factors that provided a basis for concern, the PCSK9 enzyme is known to participate in brain development, according to the authors of this newly published study.
 

Mendelian randomization addresses complex issue

The objective of this Mendelian randomization analysis was to evaluate the relationship of PCSK9 inhibitors and statins on long-term neurocognitive function. Used previously to address other clinical issues, a drug-effect Mendelian randomization analysis evaluates genetic variants to determine whether there is a causal relationship between a risk, which in this case was lipid-lowering drugs, to a specific outcome, which was cognitive performance.

By looking directly at genetic variants that simulate the pharmacological inhibition of drug gene targets, the bias of confounders of clinical effects, such as baseline cognitive function, are avoided, according to the authors.

The message from this drug-effect Mendelian analysis was simple, according to the senior author of the study, Falk W. Lohoff, MD, chief of the section on clinical genomics and experimental therapeutics, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

“Based on our data, we do not see a significant cognitive risk profile with PCSK9 inhibition associated with low LDL-C,” Dr. Lohoff said in an interview. He cautioned that “future long-term clinical studies are needed to confirm the absence of this effect,” but he and his coauthors noted that these data concur with the clinical studies.

From genome-wide association studies, single-nucleotide polymorphisms in PCSK9 and HMG-Co A reductase were extracted from a sample of more than 700,000 individuals of predominantly European ancestry. In the analysis, the investigators evaluated whether inhibition of PCSK9 or HMG-Co A reductase had an effect on seven clinical outcomes that relate to neurocognitive function, including memory, verbal intelligence, and reaction time, as well as biomarkers of cognitive function, such as cortical surface area.

The genetic effect of PCSK9 inhibition was “null for every cognitive-related outcome evaluated,” the investigators reported. The genetic effect of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition had a statistically significant but modest effect on cognitive performance (P = .03) and cortical surface area (P = .03). While the impact of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition on reaction time was stronger on a statistical basis (P = .0002), the investigators reported that it translated into a decrease of only 0.067 milliseconds per 38.7 mg/dL. They characterized this as a “small impact” unlikely to outweigh clinical benefits.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of this study, Brian A. Ference, MD, MPhil, provided context for the suitability of a Mendelian randomization analysis to address this or other questions regarding the impact of lipid-lowering therapies on clinical outcomes, and he ultimately concurred with the major conclusions

Ultimately, this analysis is consistent with other evidence that PCSK9 inhibition does not pose a risk of impaired cognitive function, he wrote. For statins, he concluded that this study “does not provide compelling evidence” to challenge their current clinical use.


 

Data do not support low LDL-C as cognitive risk factor

Moreover, this study – as well as other evidence – argues strongly against very low levels of LDL-C, regardless of how they are achieved, as a risk factor for diminished cognitive function, Dr. Ference, director of research in the division of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England), said in an interview.

“There is no evidence from Mendelian randomization studies that lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C increases the risk of cognitive impairment,” he said. “This is true when evaluating lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C due to genetic variants in a wide variety of different genes or the genes that encode the target PCKS9 inhibitors, statins, or other lipid-lowering therapies.”

In other words, this study “adds to the accumulating evidence” that LDL-C lowering by itself does not contribute to an adverse impact on cognitive function despite persistent concern. This should not be surprising. Dr. Ference emphasized that there has never been strong evidence for an association.

“As I point out in the editorial, there is no biologically plausible mechanism by which reducing peripheral LDL-C should impact neurological function in any way, because the therapies do not cross the blood brain barrier, and because the nervous system produces its own cholesterol to maintain the integrity of membranes in nervous system cells,” he explained.

Dr. Lohoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ference has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies including those that make lipid-lowering therapies.

PCSK9 inhibitors, which are among the most effective therapies for reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are associated with a neutral effect on cognitive function, according to a genetics-based Mendelian randomization study intended to sort out through the complexity of confounders.

The same study linked HMG-Co A reductase inhibitors (statins) with the potential for modest adverse neurocognitive effects, although these are likely to be outweighed by cardiovascular benefits, according to a collaborating team of investigators from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the University of Oxford (England).

For clinicians and patients who continue to harbor concerns that cognitive function is threatened by very low LDL-C, this novel approach to evaluating risk is “reassuring,” according to the authors.

Early in clinical testing of PCSK9 inhibitors, a potential signal for adverse effects on cognitive function was reported but unconfirmed. This signal raised concern that extremely low levels of LDL-C, such as < 25 mg/dL, achieved with PCSK9 inhibitors might pose a risk to neurocognitive function.

Of several factors that provided a basis for concern, the PCSK9 enzyme is known to participate in brain development, according to the authors of this newly published study.
 

Mendelian randomization addresses complex issue

The objective of this Mendelian randomization analysis was to evaluate the relationship of PCSK9 inhibitors and statins on long-term neurocognitive function. Used previously to address other clinical issues, a drug-effect Mendelian randomization analysis evaluates genetic variants to determine whether there is a causal relationship between a risk, which in this case was lipid-lowering drugs, to a specific outcome, which was cognitive performance.

By looking directly at genetic variants that simulate the pharmacological inhibition of drug gene targets, the bias of confounders of clinical effects, such as baseline cognitive function, are avoided, according to the authors.

The message from this drug-effect Mendelian analysis was simple, according to the senior author of the study, Falk W. Lohoff, MD, chief of the section on clinical genomics and experimental therapeutics, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

“Based on our data, we do not see a significant cognitive risk profile with PCSK9 inhibition associated with low LDL-C,” Dr. Lohoff said in an interview. He cautioned that “future long-term clinical studies are needed to confirm the absence of this effect,” but he and his coauthors noted that these data concur with the clinical studies.

From genome-wide association studies, single-nucleotide polymorphisms in PCSK9 and HMG-Co A reductase were extracted from a sample of more than 700,000 individuals of predominantly European ancestry. In the analysis, the investigators evaluated whether inhibition of PCSK9 or HMG-Co A reductase had an effect on seven clinical outcomes that relate to neurocognitive function, including memory, verbal intelligence, and reaction time, as well as biomarkers of cognitive function, such as cortical surface area.

The genetic effect of PCSK9 inhibition was “null for every cognitive-related outcome evaluated,” the investigators reported. The genetic effect of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition had a statistically significant but modest effect on cognitive performance (P = .03) and cortical surface area (P = .03). While the impact of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition on reaction time was stronger on a statistical basis (P = .0002), the investigators reported that it translated into a decrease of only 0.067 milliseconds per 38.7 mg/dL. They characterized this as a “small impact” unlikely to outweigh clinical benefits.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of this study, Brian A. Ference, MD, MPhil, provided context for the suitability of a Mendelian randomization analysis to address this or other questions regarding the impact of lipid-lowering therapies on clinical outcomes, and he ultimately concurred with the major conclusions

Ultimately, this analysis is consistent with other evidence that PCSK9 inhibition does not pose a risk of impaired cognitive function, he wrote. For statins, he concluded that this study “does not provide compelling evidence” to challenge their current clinical use.


 

Data do not support low LDL-C as cognitive risk factor

Moreover, this study – as well as other evidence – argues strongly against very low levels of LDL-C, regardless of how they are achieved, as a risk factor for diminished cognitive function, Dr. Ference, director of research in the division of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England), said in an interview.

“There is no evidence from Mendelian randomization studies that lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C increases the risk of cognitive impairment,” he said. “This is true when evaluating lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C due to genetic variants in a wide variety of different genes or the genes that encode the target PCKS9 inhibitors, statins, or other lipid-lowering therapies.”

In other words, this study “adds to the accumulating evidence” that LDL-C lowering by itself does not contribute to an adverse impact on cognitive function despite persistent concern. This should not be surprising. Dr. Ference emphasized that there has never been strong evidence for an association.

“As I point out in the editorial, there is no biologically plausible mechanism by which reducing peripheral LDL-C should impact neurological function in any way, because the therapies do not cross the blood brain barrier, and because the nervous system produces its own cholesterol to maintain the integrity of membranes in nervous system cells,” he explained.

Dr. Lohoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ference has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies including those that make lipid-lowering therapies.

PCSK9 inhibitors, which are among the most effective therapies for reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), are associated with a neutral effect on cognitive function, according to a genetics-based Mendelian randomization study intended to sort out through the complexity of confounders.

The same study linked HMG-Co A reductase inhibitors (statins) with the potential for modest adverse neurocognitive effects, although these are likely to be outweighed by cardiovascular benefits, according to a collaborating team of investigators from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the University of Oxford (England).

For clinicians and patients who continue to harbor concerns that cognitive function is threatened by very low LDL-C, this novel approach to evaluating risk is “reassuring,” according to the authors.

Early in clinical testing of PCSK9 inhibitors, a potential signal for adverse effects on cognitive function was reported but unconfirmed. This signal raised concern that extremely low levels of LDL-C, such as < 25 mg/dL, achieved with PCSK9 inhibitors might pose a risk to neurocognitive function.

Of several factors that provided a basis for concern, the PCSK9 enzyme is known to participate in brain development, according to the authors of this newly published study.
 

Mendelian randomization addresses complex issue

The objective of this Mendelian randomization analysis was to evaluate the relationship of PCSK9 inhibitors and statins on long-term neurocognitive function. Used previously to address other clinical issues, a drug-effect Mendelian randomization analysis evaluates genetic variants to determine whether there is a causal relationship between a risk, which in this case was lipid-lowering drugs, to a specific outcome, which was cognitive performance.

By looking directly at genetic variants that simulate the pharmacological inhibition of drug gene targets, the bias of confounders of clinical effects, such as baseline cognitive function, are avoided, according to the authors.

The message from this drug-effect Mendelian analysis was simple, according to the senior author of the study, Falk W. Lohoff, MD, chief of the section on clinical genomics and experimental therapeutics, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

“Based on our data, we do not see a significant cognitive risk profile with PCSK9 inhibition associated with low LDL-C,” Dr. Lohoff said in an interview. He cautioned that “future long-term clinical studies are needed to confirm the absence of this effect,” but he and his coauthors noted that these data concur with the clinical studies.

From genome-wide association studies, single-nucleotide polymorphisms in PCSK9 and HMG-Co A reductase were extracted from a sample of more than 700,000 individuals of predominantly European ancestry. In the analysis, the investigators evaluated whether inhibition of PCSK9 or HMG-Co A reductase had an effect on seven clinical outcomes that relate to neurocognitive function, including memory, verbal intelligence, and reaction time, as well as biomarkers of cognitive function, such as cortical surface area.

The genetic effect of PCSK9 inhibition was “null for every cognitive-related outcome evaluated,” the investigators reported. The genetic effect of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition had a statistically significant but modest effect on cognitive performance (P = .03) and cortical surface area (P = .03). While the impact of HMG-Co A reductase inhibition on reaction time was stronger on a statistical basis (P = .0002), the investigators reported that it translated into a decrease of only 0.067 milliseconds per 38.7 mg/dL. They characterized this as a “small impact” unlikely to outweigh clinical benefits.

In an editorial that accompanied publication of this study, Brian A. Ference, MD, MPhil, provided context for the suitability of a Mendelian randomization analysis to address this or other questions regarding the impact of lipid-lowering therapies on clinical outcomes, and he ultimately concurred with the major conclusions

Ultimately, this analysis is consistent with other evidence that PCSK9 inhibition does not pose a risk of impaired cognitive function, he wrote. For statins, he concluded that this study “does not provide compelling evidence” to challenge their current clinical use.


 

Data do not support low LDL-C as cognitive risk factor

Moreover, this study – as well as other evidence – argues strongly against very low levels of LDL-C, regardless of how they are achieved, as a risk factor for diminished cognitive function, Dr. Ference, director of research in the division of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England), said in an interview.

“There is no evidence from Mendelian randomization studies that lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C increases the risk of cognitive impairment,” he said. “This is true when evaluating lifelong exposure to lower LDL-C due to genetic variants in a wide variety of different genes or the genes that encode the target PCKS9 inhibitors, statins, or other lipid-lowering therapies.”

In other words, this study “adds to the accumulating evidence” that LDL-C lowering by itself does not contribute to an adverse impact on cognitive function despite persistent concern. This should not be surprising. Dr. Ference emphasized that there has never been strong evidence for an association.

“As I point out in the editorial, there is no biologically plausible mechanism by which reducing peripheral LDL-C should impact neurological function in any way, because the therapies do not cross the blood brain barrier, and because the nervous system produces its own cholesterol to maintain the integrity of membranes in nervous system cells,” he explained.

Dr. Lohoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Ference has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies including those that make lipid-lowering therapies.