MDedge Neurology

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Cancer incidence among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated after the advent of immune therapies showed an increase, compared with prior generations, according to a large study of Norwegian MS patients.

“We detected a similar cancer risk among MS patients, compared to the general Norwegian population before 1996, [however] MS patients had increased risk of cancer compared to the general population after 1996,” first author Nina Grytten, PhD, of the department of neurology at the Norwegian Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Bergen, Norway, said in an interview at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“This finding suggests that clinicians should be aware of this increased risk of cancer when caring for MS patients.”

With the widespread use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with MS, such findings are always of interest to clinicians and patients alike, commented ACTRIMS president, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD.

“Something that’s already on the mind of most people with MS is what are the long-term safety characteristics of these medicines because we’re talking about a life-long therapy for most people,” Dr. Cohen, who is the director of Experimental Therapeutics at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“With such a large sample size and such a long study, this is on one hand reassuring and tells us the cancer risk is likely low, but it also suggests that it’s something we should pay attention to,” he said.

In previous research, Dr. Grytten and her team identified an increased risk of cancer among patients with MS in Norway, but conflicting results have been reported in other studies looking at cancer risk and MS.

The authors therefore sought to dig deeper into the risk in the Norwegian population, looking into the specifics of cancer incidence according to sex and the period of diagnosis.

For the study, they identified a total of 6,638 patients with MS from previous prevalence studies in Norway, as well as in the Norwegian MS Registry and Biobank.

The data from the cohort was matched with 36,957 Norwegian citizens without MS in a 5:1 ratio, with the participants matched according to age, gender, and county. The cohort was further linked to data from the Norwegian Cancer Registry for additional information on the year and type of cancer diagnosis, as well as cause and year of death data. The participants were born between 1930 and 1979.

Over the course of the full 65-year observation period, the cancer diagnosis rates were similar between participants with MS (774; 11.2%) and those without MS (4,017; 10.6%).

And in looking at cancer incidence rate ratios of those with MS, compared with controls between the years 1953 and 1995, the rate was similar (IRR, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.14). However, after 1995, the rate increased, with a higher cancer incidence among MS patients, compared with those without MS (IRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.30-1.51).

Cancer rates were additionally higher among those with MS in cancers of various organs, including the brain (IRR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.40), meninges (IRR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.47-3.53), urinary organs (IRR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.52-2.79), digestive system (IRR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.20-1.80), endocrine glands (IRR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.06-2.54), and respiratory organs (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.55-2.07).

Dr. Grytten noted, however, that the study cannot rule out various other possible causes for the differences. For instance, “cancer in urinary system and respiratory organs showed increased risk in MS both before and after introduction of disease-modifying therapies,” she noted. “Those are possibly caused by smoking, which is a habit more common among MS patients in Norway.”

Furthermore, “increased cancer in the central nervous system in MS could possibly be explained by frequent use of magnetic resonance imaging and the ability to detect CNS cancer at early stages.”

“There is increasing evidence that patients with MS are also more susceptible to other diseases, and increased cancer risk seems to be one of these comorbidities.”

However, the finding that increased cancers were observed after 1996 in other organs in MS patients as well does raise the issue of a possible role of DMTs.

Of note, mitoxantrone has been associated with an increased risk of leukemia and colorectal cancer.

And “other immunosuppressant drugs, including the MS drug fingolimod, are believed to possibly be linked to an increased cancer risk, although evidence has not yet been established,” Dr. Grytten said.

“The increased risk of cancer associated with MS was detected in the era of disease-modifying treatment of MS, and this association suggests that DMTs might possibly increase cancer risk.”

In general, “clinicians should be aware of comorbidity in MS,” Dr. Grytten said. “More data is needed on the long-time effects of immunomodulatory treatment.”

Dr. Cohen added that, in addition to mitoxantrone, azathioprine and cyclophosphamide have shown risk, but “clinical trials and follow-up studies of individual MS DMTs have not shown clear cut increased risk of cancer, which is reassuring.”

“Nevertheless, this study suggests that, in aggregate, there may be a mild increased risk. There are many other potential explanations, so the research needs to be followed up,” he said.

Dr. Cohen reported receiving personal compensation for consulting for Adamas, Convelo, MedDay, Mylan, and Population Council; and serving as an Editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

SOURCE: Torkildsen NG et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P126.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Cancer incidence among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated after the advent of immune therapies showed an increase, compared with prior generations, according to a large study of Norwegian MS patients.

“We detected a similar cancer risk among MS patients, compared to the general Norwegian population before 1996, [however] MS patients had increased risk of cancer compared to the general population after 1996,” first author Nina Grytten, PhD, of the department of neurology at the Norwegian Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Bergen, Norway, said in an interview at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“This finding suggests that clinicians should be aware of this increased risk of cancer when caring for MS patients.”

With the widespread use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with MS, such findings are always of interest to clinicians and patients alike, commented ACTRIMS president, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD.

“Something that’s already on the mind of most people with MS is what are the long-term safety characteristics of these medicines because we’re talking about a life-long therapy for most people,” Dr. Cohen, who is the director of Experimental Therapeutics at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“With such a large sample size and such a long study, this is on one hand reassuring and tells us the cancer risk is likely low, but it also suggests that it’s something we should pay attention to,” he said.

In previous research, Dr. Grytten and her team identified an increased risk of cancer among patients with MS in Norway, but conflicting results have been reported in other studies looking at cancer risk and MS.

The authors therefore sought to dig deeper into the risk in the Norwegian population, looking into the specifics of cancer incidence according to sex and the period of diagnosis.

For the study, they identified a total of 6,638 patients with MS from previous prevalence studies in Norway, as well as in the Norwegian MS Registry and Biobank.

The data from the cohort was matched with 36,957 Norwegian citizens without MS in a 5:1 ratio, with the participants matched according to age, gender, and county. The cohort was further linked to data from the Norwegian Cancer Registry for additional information on the year and type of cancer diagnosis, as well as cause and year of death data. The participants were born between 1930 and 1979.

Over the course of the full 65-year observation period, the cancer diagnosis rates were similar between participants with MS (774; 11.2%) and those without MS (4,017; 10.6%).

And in looking at cancer incidence rate ratios of those with MS, compared with controls between the years 1953 and 1995, the rate was similar (IRR, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.14). However, after 1995, the rate increased, with a higher cancer incidence among MS patients, compared with those without MS (IRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.30-1.51).

Cancer rates were additionally higher among those with MS in cancers of various organs, including the brain (IRR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.40), meninges (IRR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.47-3.53), urinary organs (IRR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.52-2.79), digestive system (IRR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.20-1.80), endocrine glands (IRR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.06-2.54), and respiratory organs (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.55-2.07).

Dr. Grytten noted, however, that the study cannot rule out various other possible causes for the differences. For instance, “cancer in urinary system and respiratory organs showed increased risk in MS both before and after introduction of disease-modifying therapies,” she noted. “Those are possibly caused by smoking, which is a habit more common among MS patients in Norway.”

Furthermore, “increased cancer in the central nervous system in MS could possibly be explained by frequent use of magnetic resonance imaging and the ability to detect CNS cancer at early stages.”

“There is increasing evidence that patients with MS are also more susceptible to other diseases, and increased cancer risk seems to be one of these comorbidities.”

However, the finding that increased cancers were observed after 1996 in other organs in MS patients as well does raise the issue of a possible role of DMTs.

Of note, mitoxantrone has been associated with an increased risk of leukemia and colorectal cancer.

And “other immunosuppressant drugs, including the MS drug fingolimod, are believed to possibly be linked to an increased cancer risk, although evidence has not yet been established,” Dr. Grytten said.

“The increased risk of cancer associated with MS was detected in the era of disease-modifying treatment of MS, and this association suggests that DMTs might possibly increase cancer risk.”

In general, “clinicians should be aware of comorbidity in MS,” Dr. Grytten said. “More data is needed on the long-time effects of immunomodulatory treatment.”

Dr. Cohen added that, in addition to mitoxantrone, azathioprine and cyclophosphamide have shown risk, but “clinical trials and follow-up studies of individual MS DMTs have not shown clear cut increased risk of cancer, which is reassuring.”

“Nevertheless, this study suggests that, in aggregate, there may be a mild increased risk. There are many other potential explanations, so the research needs to be followed up,” he said.

Dr. Cohen reported receiving personal compensation for consulting for Adamas, Convelo, MedDay, Mylan, and Population Council; and serving as an Editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

SOURCE: Torkildsen NG et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P126.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Cancer incidence among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated after the advent of immune therapies showed an increase, compared with prior generations, according to a large study of Norwegian MS patients.

“We detected a similar cancer risk among MS patients, compared to the general Norwegian population before 1996, [however] MS patients had increased risk of cancer compared to the general population after 1996,” first author Nina Grytten, PhD, of the department of neurology at the Norwegian Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Bergen, Norway, said in an interview at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“This finding suggests that clinicians should be aware of this increased risk of cancer when caring for MS patients.”

With the widespread use of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in patients with MS, such findings are always of interest to clinicians and patients alike, commented ACTRIMS president, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD.

“Something that’s already on the mind of most people with MS is what are the long-term safety characteristics of these medicines because we’re talking about a life-long therapy for most people,” Dr. Cohen, who is the director of Experimental Therapeutics at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“With such a large sample size and such a long study, this is on one hand reassuring and tells us the cancer risk is likely low, but it also suggests that it’s something we should pay attention to,” he said.

In previous research, Dr. Grytten and her team identified an increased risk of cancer among patients with MS in Norway, but conflicting results have been reported in other studies looking at cancer risk and MS.

The authors therefore sought to dig deeper into the risk in the Norwegian population, looking into the specifics of cancer incidence according to sex and the period of diagnosis.

For the study, they identified a total of 6,638 patients with MS from previous prevalence studies in Norway, as well as in the Norwegian MS Registry and Biobank.

The data from the cohort was matched with 36,957 Norwegian citizens without MS in a 5:1 ratio, with the participants matched according to age, gender, and county. The cohort was further linked to data from the Norwegian Cancer Registry for additional information on the year and type of cancer diagnosis, as well as cause and year of death data. The participants were born between 1930 and 1979.

Over the course of the full 65-year observation period, the cancer diagnosis rates were similar between participants with MS (774; 11.2%) and those without MS (4,017; 10.6%).

And in looking at cancer incidence rate ratios of those with MS, compared with controls between the years 1953 and 1995, the rate was similar (IRR, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.14). However, after 1995, the rate increased, with a higher cancer incidence among MS patients, compared with those without MS (IRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.30-1.51).

Cancer rates were additionally higher among those with MS in cancers of various organs, including the brain (IRR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.28-2.40), meninges (IRR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.47-3.53), urinary organs (IRR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.52-2.79), digestive system (IRR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.20-1.80), endocrine glands (IRR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.06-2.54), and respiratory organs (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.55-2.07).

Dr. Grytten noted, however, that the study cannot rule out various other possible causes for the differences. For instance, “cancer in urinary system and respiratory organs showed increased risk in MS both before and after introduction of disease-modifying therapies,” she noted. “Those are possibly caused by smoking, which is a habit more common among MS patients in Norway.”

Furthermore, “increased cancer in the central nervous system in MS could possibly be explained by frequent use of magnetic resonance imaging and the ability to detect CNS cancer at early stages.”

“There is increasing evidence that patients with MS are also more susceptible to other diseases, and increased cancer risk seems to be one of these comorbidities.”

However, the finding that increased cancers were observed after 1996 in other organs in MS patients as well does raise the issue of a possible role of DMTs.

Of note, mitoxantrone has been associated with an increased risk of leukemia and colorectal cancer.

And “other immunosuppressant drugs, including the MS drug fingolimod, are believed to possibly be linked to an increased cancer risk, although evidence has not yet been established,” Dr. Grytten said.

“The increased risk of cancer associated with MS was detected in the era of disease-modifying treatment of MS, and this association suggests that DMTs might possibly increase cancer risk.”

In general, “clinicians should be aware of comorbidity in MS,” Dr. Grytten said. “More data is needed on the long-time effects of immunomodulatory treatment.”

Dr. Cohen added that, in addition to mitoxantrone, azathioprine and cyclophosphamide have shown risk, but “clinical trials and follow-up studies of individual MS DMTs have not shown clear cut increased risk of cancer, which is reassuring.”

“Nevertheless, this study suggests that, in aggregate, there may be a mild increased risk. There are many other potential explanations, so the research needs to be followed up,” he said.

Dr. Cohen reported receiving personal compensation for consulting for Adamas, Convelo, MedDay, Mylan, and Population Council; and serving as an Editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

SOURCE: Torkildsen NG et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P126.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved rimegepant (Nurtec ODT, Biohaven), the first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist available in a fast-acting orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine in adults.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved rimegepant (Nurtec ODT, Biohaven), the first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist available in a fast-acting orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine in adults.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved rimegepant (Nurtec ODT, Biohaven), the first calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist available in a fast-acting orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine in adults.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) have less higher education and greater use of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT), compared with patients with adult-onset MS (AOMS), according to data presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Among patients with POMS, researchers also have observed an association between fatigue and mood disorders on one hand and DMT choice on the other hand. “These findings confirm the unique features of POMS and suggest that DMT choice in POMS and AOMS may influence the frequency of fatigue and mood disorders,” said Mary Rensel, MD, staff neurologist in neuroimmunology at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, and colleagues.

POMS is defined as MS onset before age 18, and the disease characteristics of POMS and AOMS are distinct. The former diagnosis is rare, which has limited the amount of data collected on POMS to date.

MS Partners Advancing Technology and Health Solutions (MS-PATHS), sponsored by Biogen, is a multicenter initiative in which researchers collect MS performance measures longitudinally at each patient visit. MS-PATHS data include sociodemographic information, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), functional outcomes (FOs), MS phenotype, and DMT. Using MS-PATHS data, Dr. Rensel and colleagues sought to determine differences in sociodemographics, MS phenotype, PRO, FO, and DMT among patients with POMS and between patients with POMS and those with AOMS.

The investigators analyzed data cut 9 of the MS-PATHS database for their study. They included 637 participants with POMS and matched them with patients with AOMS, based on disease duration, in a 1:5 ratio. Dr. Rensel and colleagues categorized DMTs as high, mid, or low efficacy. They calculated descriptive statistics to characterize the study population. In addition, they compared MS FOs and PROs in the matched cohort using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Finally, linear regression analysis allowed the investigators to identify differences in the data set, while adjusting for important covariates.

The matched cohort included 5,857 patients with AOMS and 600 patients with POMS. The patients with AOMS had an average age of 49.8 years. About 87.5% of these patients were white, and 73.5% were female. The POMS patients had an average age of 31.49 years. Overall, 76.7% of these patients were white, and 73.2% were female. Dr. Rensel and colleagues found significant differences between the two groups in age at encounter, disease duration, race, insurance, Patient Determined Disease Steps (PDDS), education, employment, FOs, PROs, and DMT.

Patients with POMS used high-efficacy DMT more frequently than those with AOMS. The rate of depression was similar between patients with AOMS and those with POMS. Depression, anxiety, and fatigue were associated with DMT potency in AOMS, and anxiety and fatigue were associated with DMT groups in POMS.

Racial differences between POMS and AOMS have been reported previously, said Dr. Rensel. First-generation immigrant children have an increased risk of POMS, compared with other children. “In our data set, we had more Asians, more blacks, and fewer Caucasians in the POMS group,” said Dr. Rensel. People from a socioeconomically challenged environment have an increased risk of POMS, and this observation may explain the difference in insurance coverage between the POMS and AOMS groups, she added. Socioeconomic challenges also may explain the difference in the rate of higher education between the two groups.

“Why were the POMS cases associated with higher-efficacy DMT when only one oral MS DMT is [Food and Drug Administration]-approved for POMS?” Dr. Rensel asked. “This is likely due to the fact that POMS cases tend to have higher disease activity with more relapses and more brain lesions, leading to the choice of higher efficacy DMTs that are currently not FDA-approved for POMS.”

These data “may help [clinicians] caring for kids and teens, especially non-Caucasian [patients], to consider MS on the differential diagnosis,” Dr. Rensel added. “Mood disorders in POMS were as common as mood disorders in AOMS, so these should be screened for in this POMS population.”

Dr. Rensel has received funding for consulting, research, or patient education from Biogen, Genentech, Genzyme, Medimmune, MSAA, NMSS, Novartis, TSerono, and Teva.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rensel M et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P042.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) have less higher education and greater use of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT), compared with patients with adult-onset MS (AOMS), according to data presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Among patients with POMS, researchers also have observed an association between fatigue and mood disorders on one hand and DMT choice on the other hand. “These findings confirm the unique features of POMS and suggest that DMT choice in POMS and AOMS may influence the frequency of fatigue and mood disorders,” said Mary Rensel, MD, staff neurologist in neuroimmunology at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, and colleagues.

POMS is defined as MS onset before age 18, and the disease characteristics of POMS and AOMS are distinct. The former diagnosis is rare, which has limited the amount of data collected on POMS to date.

MS Partners Advancing Technology and Health Solutions (MS-PATHS), sponsored by Biogen, is a multicenter initiative in which researchers collect MS performance measures longitudinally at each patient visit. MS-PATHS data include sociodemographic information, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), functional outcomes (FOs), MS phenotype, and DMT. Using MS-PATHS data, Dr. Rensel and colleagues sought to determine differences in sociodemographics, MS phenotype, PRO, FO, and DMT among patients with POMS and between patients with POMS and those with AOMS.

The investigators analyzed data cut 9 of the MS-PATHS database for their study. They included 637 participants with POMS and matched them with patients with AOMS, based on disease duration, in a 1:5 ratio. Dr. Rensel and colleagues categorized DMTs as high, mid, or low efficacy. They calculated descriptive statistics to characterize the study population. In addition, they compared MS FOs and PROs in the matched cohort using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Finally, linear regression analysis allowed the investigators to identify differences in the data set, while adjusting for important covariates.

The matched cohort included 5,857 patients with AOMS and 600 patients with POMS. The patients with AOMS had an average age of 49.8 years. About 87.5% of these patients were white, and 73.5% were female. The POMS patients had an average age of 31.49 years. Overall, 76.7% of these patients were white, and 73.2% were female. Dr. Rensel and colleagues found significant differences between the two groups in age at encounter, disease duration, race, insurance, Patient Determined Disease Steps (PDDS), education, employment, FOs, PROs, and DMT.

Patients with POMS used high-efficacy DMT more frequently than those with AOMS. The rate of depression was similar between patients with AOMS and those with POMS. Depression, anxiety, and fatigue were associated with DMT potency in AOMS, and anxiety and fatigue were associated with DMT groups in POMS.

Racial differences between POMS and AOMS have been reported previously, said Dr. Rensel. First-generation immigrant children have an increased risk of POMS, compared with other children. “In our data set, we had more Asians, more blacks, and fewer Caucasians in the POMS group,” said Dr. Rensel. People from a socioeconomically challenged environment have an increased risk of POMS, and this observation may explain the difference in insurance coverage between the POMS and AOMS groups, she added. Socioeconomic challenges also may explain the difference in the rate of higher education between the two groups.

“Why were the POMS cases associated with higher-efficacy DMT when only one oral MS DMT is [Food and Drug Administration]-approved for POMS?” Dr. Rensel asked. “This is likely due to the fact that POMS cases tend to have higher disease activity with more relapses and more brain lesions, leading to the choice of higher efficacy DMTs that are currently not FDA-approved for POMS.”

These data “may help [clinicians] caring for kids and teens, especially non-Caucasian [patients], to consider MS on the differential diagnosis,” Dr. Rensel added. “Mood disorders in POMS were as common as mood disorders in AOMS, so these should be screened for in this POMS population.”

Dr. Rensel has received funding for consulting, research, or patient education from Biogen, Genentech, Genzyme, Medimmune, MSAA, NMSS, Novartis, TSerono, and Teva.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rensel M et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P042.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) have less higher education and greater use of high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT), compared with patients with adult-onset MS (AOMS), according to data presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Among patients with POMS, researchers also have observed an association between fatigue and mood disorders on one hand and DMT choice on the other hand. “These findings confirm the unique features of POMS and suggest that DMT choice in POMS and AOMS may influence the frequency of fatigue and mood disorders,” said Mary Rensel, MD, staff neurologist in neuroimmunology at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research, and colleagues.

POMS is defined as MS onset before age 18, and the disease characteristics of POMS and AOMS are distinct. The former diagnosis is rare, which has limited the amount of data collected on POMS to date.

MS Partners Advancing Technology and Health Solutions (MS-PATHS), sponsored by Biogen, is a multicenter initiative in which researchers collect MS performance measures longitudinally at each patient visit. MS-PATHS data include sociodemographic information, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), functional outcomes (FOs), MS phenotype, and DMT. Using MS-PATHS data, Dr. Rensel and colleagues sought to determine differences in sociodemographics, MS phenotype, PRO, FO, and DMT among patients with POMS and between patients with POMS and those with AOMS.

The investigators analyzed data cut 9 of the MS-PATHS database for their study. They included 637 participants with POMS and matched them with patients with AOMS, based on disease duration, in a 1:5 ratio. Dr. Rensel and colleagues categorized DMTs as high, mid, or low efficacy. They calculated descriptive statistics to characterize the study population. In addition, they compared MS FOs and PROs in the matched cohort using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Finally, linear regression analysis allowed the investigators to identify differences in the data set, while adjusting for important covariates.

The matched cohort included 5,857 patients with AOMS and 600 patients with POMS. The patients with AOMS had an average age of 49.8 years. About 87.5% of these patients were white, and 73.5% were female. The POMS patients had an average age of 31.49 years. Overall, 76.7% of these patients were white, and 73.2% were female. Dr. Rensel and colleagues found significant differences between the two groups in age at encounter, disease duration, race, insurance, Patient Determined Disease Steps (PDDS), education, employment, FOs, PROs, and DMT.

Patients with POMS used high-efficacy DMT more frequently than those with AOMS. The rate of depression was similar between patients with AOMS and those with POMS. Depression, anxiety, and fatigue were associated with DMT potency in AOMS, and anxiety and fatigue were associated with DMT groups in POMS.

Racial differences between POMS and AOMS have been reported previously, said Dr. Rensel. First-generation immigrant children have an increased risk of POMS, compared with other children. “In our data set, we had more Asians, more blacks, and fewer Caucasians in the POMS group,” said Dr. Rensel. People from a socioeconomically challenged environment have an increased risk of POMS, and this observation may explain the difference in insurance coverage between the POMS and AOMS groups, she added. Socioeconomic challenges also may explain the difference in the rate of higher education between the two groups.

“Why were the POMS cases associated with higher-efficacy DMT when only one oral MS DMT is [Food and Drug Administration]-approved for POMS?” Dr. Rensel asked. “This is likely due to the fact that POMS cases tend to have higher disease activity with more relapses and more brain lesions, leading to the choice of higher efficacy DMTs that are currently not FDA-approved for POMS.”

These data “may help [clinicians] caring for kids and teens, especially non-Caucasian [patients], to consider MS on the differential diagnosis,” Dr. Rensel added. “Mood disorders in POMS were as common as mood disorders in AOMS, so these should be screened for in this POMS population.”

Dr. Rensel has received funding for consulting, research, or patient education from Biogen, Genentech, Genzyme, Medimmune, MSAA, NMSS, Novartis, TSerono, and Teva.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rensel M et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P042.

womensWEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are at increased risk for most types of infection, with the highest risk associated with renal tract infections, according to an analysis of Department of Defense data.

Susan Jick, DSc, director of the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program and professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Boston University, and colleagues sought to understand the rates at which infections occur because they are known to be a common cause of comorbidity and death in patients with MS.

At the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, Dr. Jick and associates presented rates of infection in patients with MS after MS diagnosis, compared with a matched population of patients without MS. The MS cohort included patients who had MS diagnosed and treated between January 2004 and August 2017. Patients had medical history available for at least 1 year before MS diagnosis and at least one prescription for an MS disease-modifying treatment.

Patients without MS were matched to patients with MS 10:1 based on age, sex, geographic region, and cohort entry date. For each patient, the researchers identified the first diagnosed infection of each type after cohort entry. They followed patients until loss of eligibility, death, or end of data collection.

In all, the study included 8,695 patients with MS and 86,934 matched patients without MS. The median age at cohort entry was 41 years, and 71% were female. Median duration of follow-up after study entry was about 6 years. Patients with MS were more likely to have an infection in the year before cohort entry, compared with non-MS patients (43.9% vs. 36.3%).

After cohort entry, the incidence rate of any infection was higher among patients with MS, compared with non-MS patients (4,805 vs. 2,731 per 10,000 person-years; IR ratio, 1.76). In addition, the IR of hospitalized infection was higher among MS patients (125 vs. 51.3 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 2.43). The IR also was increased for several other types of infections, including renal, skin, fungal, pneumonia or influenza, and other infections (such as rickettsial and spirochetal diseases, helminthiases, and nonsyphilitic and nongonococcal venereal diseases). Eye or ear, respiratory or throat, and viral IRRs “were marginally elevated,” the investigators wrote.

In both cohorts, females had a higher risk of infection than males did. The rate of renal tract infection was more than fourfold higher among females, compared with males, in both cohorts. Relative to non-MS patients, however, men with MS had a higher IRR for renal tract infection than women with MS did (2.47 vs. 1.90).

“The risk for any opportunistic infection was slightly increased among MS patients,” the researchers wrote (520 vs. 338 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 1.54). This was particularly true for candidiasis (252 vs. 166 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 1.52) and herpes virus infection (221 vs. 150 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 1.47). “There were few cases of tuberculosis, hepatitis B infection, or hepatitis C infection,” they noted.

The study was funded by a grant from Celgene, a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Four authors are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb, and one author works for a company that does business with Celgene.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jick S et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P086.


 

womensWEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are at increased risk for most types of infection, with the highest risk associated with renal tract infections, according to an analysis of Department of Defense data.

Susan Jick, DSc, director of the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program and professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Boston University, and colleagues sought to understand the rates at which infections occur because they are known to be a common cause of comorbidity and death in patients with MS.

At the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, Dr. Jick and associates presented rates of infection in patients with MS after MS diagnosis, compared with a matched population of patients without MS. The MS cohort included patients who had MS diagnosed and treated between January 2004 and August 2017. Patients had medical history available for at least 1 year before MS diagnosis and at least one prescription for an MS disease-modifying treatment.

Patients without MS were matched to patients with MS 10:1 based on age, sex, geographic region, and cohort entry date. For each patient, the researchers identified the first diagnosed infection of each type after cohort entry. They followed patients until loss of eligibility, death, or end of data collection.

In all, the study included 8,695 patients with MS and 86,934 matched patients without MS. The median age at cohort entry was 41 years, and 71% were female. Median duration of follow-up after study entry was about 6 years. Patients with MS were more likely to have an infection in the year before cohort entry, compared with non-MS patients (43.9% vs. 36.3%).

After cohort entry, the incidence rate of any infection was higher among patients with MS, compared with non-MS patients (4,805 vs. 2,731 per 10,000 person-years; IR ratio, 1.76). In addition, the IR of hospitalized infection was higher among MS patients (125 vs. 51.3 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 2.43). The IR also was increased for several other types of infections, including renal, skin, fungal, pneumonia or influenza, and other infections (such as rickettsial and spirochetal diseases, helminthiases, and nonsyphilitic and nongonococcal venereal diseases). Eye or ear, respiratory or throat, and viral IRRs “were marginally elevated,” the investigators wrote.

In both cohorts, females had a higher risk of infection than males did. The rate of renal tract infection was more than fourfold higher among females, compared with males, in both cohorts. Relative to non-MS patients, however, men with MS had a higher IRR for renal tract infection than women with MS did (2.47 vs. 1.90).

“The risk for any opportunistic infection was slightly increased among MS patients,” the researchers wrote (520 vs. 338 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 1.54). This was particularly true for candidiasis (252 vs. 166 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 1.52) and herpes virus infection (221 vs. 150 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 1.47). “There were few cases of tuberculosis, hepatitis B infection, or hepatitis C infection,” they noted.

The study was funded by a grant from Celgene, a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Four authors are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb, and one author works for a company that does business with Celgene.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jick S et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P086.


 

womensWEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) are at increased risk for most types of infection, with the highest risk associated with renal tract infections, according to an analysis of Department of Defense data.

Susan Jick, DSc, director of the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program and professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Boston University, and colleagues sought to understand the rates at which infections occur because they are known to be a common cause of comorbidity and death in patients with MS.

At the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, Dr. Jick and associates presented rates of infection in patients with MS after MS diagnosis, compared with a matched population of patients without MS. The MS cohort included patients who had MS diagnosed and treated between January 2004 and August 2017. Patients had medical history available for at least 1 year before MS diagnosis and at least one prescription for an MS disease-modifying treatment.

Patients without MS were matched to patients with MS 10:1 based on age, sex, geographic region, and cohort entry date. For each patient, the researchers identified the first diagnosed infection of each type after cohort entry. They followed patients until loss of eligibility, death, or end of data collection.

In all, the study included 8,695 patients with MS and 86,934 matched patients without MS. The median age at cohort entry was 41 years, and 71% were female. Median duration of follow-up after study entry was about 6 years. Patients with MS were more likely to have an infection in the year before cohort entry, compared with non-MS patients (43.9% vs. 36.3%).

After cohort entry, the incidence rate of any infection was higher among patients with MS, compared with non-MS patients (4,805 vs. 2,731 per 10,000 person-years; IR ratio, 1.76). In addition, the IR of hospitalized infection was higher among MS patients (125 vs. 51.3 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 2.43). The IR also was increased for several other types of infections, including renal, skin, fungal, pneumonia or influenza, and other infections (such as rickettsial and spirochetal diseases, helminthiases, and nonsyphilitic and nongonococcal venereal diseases). Eye or ear, respiratory or throat, and viral IRRs “were marginally elevated,” the investigators wrote.

In both cohorts, females had a higher risk of infection than males did. The rate of renal tract infection was more than fourfold higher among females, compared with males, in both cohorts. Relative to non-MS patients, however, men with MS had a higher IRR for renal tract infection than women with MS did (2.47 vs. 1.90).

“The risk for any opportunistic infection was slightly increased among MS patients,” the researchers wrote (520 vs. 338 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 1.54). This was particularly true for candidiasis (252 vs. 166 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 1.52) and herpes virus infection (221 vs. 150 per 10,000 person-years; IRR, 1.47). “There were few cases of tuberculosis, hepatitis B infection, or hepatitis C infection,” they noted.

The study was funded by a grant from Celgene, a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Four authors are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb, and one author works for a company that does business with Celgene.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Jick S et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P086.


 

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Women who have no history of a full-term pregnancy show an earlier onset of progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) compared to those who do have pregnancies, and the apparent onset-delaying effect appears to increase with the number of pregnancies, according to new research adding to speculation of the effects of pregnancy in MS.

“Our results suggest that a higher number of full-term pregnancies than average is associated with later onset of progressive MS, while having no full-term pregnancies is associated with significantly younger age at progressive MS onset,” first author Burcu Zeydan, MD, an assistant professor of radiology in the Center of MS and Autoimmune Neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The study was presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

The findings, which also link early menopause with faster disease progression, offer important insights into the broader effects of pregnancy on MS, said ACTRIMS president Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of Experimental Therapeutics at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic.

“We know pregnancy affects the short term disease activity – relapses tend to quiet down during pregnancy – but what has been somewhat conflicting is whether it affects the long-term prognosis or is just a temporary effect,” he said in an interview.

“So that is the main interest in this study, and it does indicate that pregnancy affects the long-term prognosis and provides some insight into the mechanism by which it might do that.”

While being female is in fact considered the most important risk factor for MS susceptibility, pregnancy has been suggested to have a protective role in disease progression, but more research is needed on the nature of the effect – and its mechanisms.

For the study, Dr. Zeydan and colleagues evaluated data on 202 patients with MS who were part of a Mayo Clinic survey, including 134 women and 68 men.

They found that women who had no full-term pregnancies (n = 32), had an earlier onset of progressive MS (mean age 41.4 ± 12.6 years) compared to women giving birth to 1 or more children (n = 95; 47.1 ± 9.7 years; P = .012).

In addition, the mean age of progressive MS onset also increased with a dose-effect trend according to number of full pregnancies (no children, 41.4 ± 12.6 years; 1-3 children: 46.4 ± 9.2 years; 4 or more children: 52.6 ± 12.9 years; P = .002).

A look at a subgroup of patients with secondary progressive MS also showed an earlier mean age of onset among women who had no full pregnancies (n = 19; 41.5 ± 9.2 years) compared to women with 1 or more full pregnancies (n = 57; 47.3 ± 10.6 years; P = .049).

The later disease onset associated with pregnancy was also seen in relapsing-remitting MS: Mean age of onset was earlier women with no pregnancies (27.5 ± 7.0 years) compared to those with one or more children (33.0 ± 9.4 years; P = .021).

The trends of later onset with more pregnancies was also observed with the mean age of onset of secondary progressive MS (no full pregnancies: onset at 41.5 ± 9.2 years; 1-3 pregnancies: 46.2 ± 9.9 years; 4 or more pregnancies, onset 52.6 ± 12.9 years; P = .010).

And likewise, the later mean age of onset of relapsing-remitting MS was seen with additional pregnancies (no full pregnancies: 27.5 ± 7.0 years; 1-3 pregnancies: 32.4 ± 9.3 years; 4 or more pregnancies: 35.8 ± 9.8 years; P = .012).

“The dose effect was clearly a surprise (having no full-term pregnancies vs. 1-3 vs. 4 or more),” Dr. Zeydan said.

“In addition to the significant difference between having no versus one or more full-term pregnancies, the clear dose-effect consolidates our results related to the association between the number of pregnancies and age at progressive MS onset.”

Early menopause also linked to shorter progression to secondary progressive MS

The study also showed that women with premature or early menopause had a shorter duration of progressing from relapsing-remitting MS to secondary progressive MS (n = 26; 12.9 ± 9.0 years) compared to women with normal age at menopause (n = 39; 17.8 ± 10.3 years).

The pattern was similar for women experiencing the onset of secondary progressive MS after menopause, with a shorter progression among those with early menopause (P = .012).

The patterns in early menopause are consistent with previous observations regarding menopause and MS progression, Dr. Cohen said.

“When women go through menopause, estradiol and pregnancy-related factors further decline and we know this coincides temporally with the development of progressive MS in women,” he noted.

Compared to men, women with premature or early menopause furthermore had a longer duration from relapsing-remitting MS to secondary progressive MS (P = .008), and women with secondary progressive MS also had also had an earlier age of relapsing-remitting MS onset than men (P = .018).

Possible mechanisms and applications of the findings

The mechanisms of pregnancy that could include a complex interaction between estrogen and factors such as astrocyte and microglia function, Dr. Zeydan explained.

“Estrogen, through various mechanisms of eliminating toxicity of highly activated neurons – including preventing proinflammatory molecule release, supporting mitochondria function thereby eliminating energy failure, and promoting remyelination – helps neuronal plasticity and delays neurodegeneration, which is closely related to the progressive phase of MS,” she said.

“One could easily make the probable association, while yet to be proven, that our findings may relate to these mechanisms,” Dr. Zeydan said.

The logical question of whether hormone replacement or some type of therapy that could mimic the effects of pregnancy could also benefit in delaying MS onset remained to be seen, Dr. Zeydan said.

“While we believe that is possible, particularly for delaying the onset of progressive phase, definitive evidence is lacking at this time,” Dr. Zeydan said.

“However, our study ultimately may lead to such a trial.”

In the meantime, the findings provide additional insights that may be beneficial in sharing with patients regarding pregnancy,” she said.

“As the contemporary problem in MS care is to delay or prevent progressive MS onset, our findings may suggest that how we counsel women with MS who are planning to get pregnant, or contemplating surgically induced menopause, or how we consider hormone therapies during perimenopause may impact the course of their disease.”

Dr. Zeydan cautioned, however, that “our findings do not confirm causality beyond an association.”

“More studies are needed in this important issue in a disease that affects women three times more than men.”

Dr. Zeydan had no disclosures to report. Dr. Cohen reported receiving personal compensation for consulting for Adamas, Convelo, MedDay, Mylan, and Population Council; and serving as an Editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

SOURCE: Zeydan B et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P135.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Women who have no history of a full-term pregnancy show an earlier onset of progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) compared to those who do have pregnancies, and the apparent onset-delaying effect appears to increase with the number of pregnancies, according to new research adding to speculation of the effects of pregnancy in MS.

“Our results suggest that a higher number of full-term pregnancies than average is associated with later onset of progressive MS, while having no full-term pregnancies is associated with significantly younger age at progressive MS onset,” first author Burcu Zeydan, MD, an assistant professor of radiology in the Center of MS and Autoimmune Neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The study was presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

The findings, which also link early menopause with faster disease progression, offer important insights into the broader effects of pregnancy on MS, said ACTRIMS president Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of Experimental Therapeutics at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic.

“We know pregnancy affects the short term disease activity – relapses tend to quiet down during pregnancy – but what has been somewhat conflicting is whether it affects the long-term prognosis or is just a temporary effect,” he said in an interview.

“So that is the main interest in this study, and it does indicate that pregnancy affects the long-term prognosis and provides some insight into the mechanism by which it might do that.”

While being female is in fact considered the most important risk factor for MS susceptibility, pregnancy has been suggested to have a protective role in disease progression, but more research is needed on the nature of the effect – and its mechanisms.

For the study, Dr. Zeydan and colleagues evaluated data on 202 patients with MS who were part of a Mayo Clinic survey, including 134 women and 68 men.

They found that women who had no full-term pregnancies (n = 32), had an earlier onset of progressive MS (mean age 41.4 ± 12.6 years) compared to women giving birth to 1 or more children (n = 95; 47.1 ± 9.7 years; P = .012).

In addition, the mean age of progressive MS onset also increased with a dose-effect trend according to number of full pregnancies (no children, 41.4 ± 12.6 years; 1-3 children: 46.4 ± 9.2 years; 4 or more children: 52.6 ± 12.9 years; P = .002).

A look at a subgroup of patients with secondary progressive MS also showed an earlier mean age of onset among women who had no full pregnancies (n = 19; 41.5 ± 9.2 years) compared to women with 1 or more full pregnancies (n = 57; 47.3 ± 10.6 years; P = .049).

The later disease onset associated with pregnancy was also seen in relapsing-remitting MS: Mean age of onset was earlier women with no pregnancies (27.5 ± 7.0 years) compared to those with one or more children (33.0 ± 9.4 years; P = .021).

The trends of later onset with more pregnancies was also observed with the mean age of onset of secondary progressive MS (no full pregnancies: onset at 41.5 ± 9.2 years; 1-3 pregnancies: 46.2 ± 9.9 years; 4 or more pregnancies, onset 52.6 ± 12.9 years; P = .010).

And likewise, the later mean age of onset of relapsing-remitting MS was seen with additional pregnancies (no full pregnancies: 27.5 ± 7.0 years; 1-3 pregnancies: 32.4 ± 9.3 years; 4 or more pregnancies: 35.8 ± 9.8 years; P = .012).

“The dose effect was clearly a surprise (having no full-term pregnancies vs. 1-3 vs. 4 or more),” Dr. Zeydan said.

“In addition to the significant difference between having no versus one or more full-term pregnancies, the clear dose-effect consolidates our results related to the association between the number of pregnancies and age at progressive MS onset.”

Early menopause also linked to shorter progression to secondary progressive MS

The study also showed that women with premature or early menopause had a shorter duration of progressing from relapsing-remitting MS to secondary progressive MS (n = 26; 12.9 ± 9.0 years) compared to women with normal age at menopause (n = 39; 17.8 ± 10.3 years).

The pattern was similar for women experiencing the onset of secondary progressive MS after menopause, with a shorter progression among those with early menopause (P = .012).

The patterns in early menopause are consistent with previous observations regarding menopause and MS progression, Dr. Cohen said.

“When women go through menopause, estradiol and pregnancy-related factors further decline and we know this coincides temporally with the development of progressive MS in women,” he noted.

Compared to men, women with premature or early menopause furthermore had a longer duration from relapsing-remitting MS to secondary progressive MS (P = .008), and women with secondary progressive MS also had also had an earlier age of relapsing-remitting MS onset than men (P = .018).

Possible mechanisms and applications of the findings

The mechanisms of pregnancy that could include a complex interaction between estrogen and factors such as astrocyte and microglia function, Dr. Zeydan explained.

“Estrogen, through various mechanisms of eliminating toxicity of highly activated neurons – including preventing proinflammatory molecule release, supporting mitochondria function thereby eliminating energy failure, and promoting remyelination – helps neuronal plasticity and delays neurodegeneration, which is closely related to the progressive phase of MS,” she said.

“One could easily make the probable association, while yet to be proven, that our findings may relate to these mechanisms,” Dr. Zeydan said.

The logical question of whether hormone replacement or some type of therapy that could mimic the effects of pregnancy could also benefit in delaying MS onset remained to be seen, Dr. Zeydan said.

“While we believe that is possible, particularly for delaying the onset of progressive phase, definitive evidence is lacking at this time,” Dr. Zeydan said.

“However, our study ultimately may lead to such a trial.”

In the meantime, the findings provide additional insights that may be beneficial in sharing with patients regarding pregnancy,” she said.

“As the contemporary problem in MS care is to delay or prevent progressive MS onset, our findings may suggest that how we counsel women with MS who are planning to get pregnant, or contemplating surgically induced menopause, or how we consider hormone therapies during perimenopause may impact the course of their disease.”

Dr. Zeydan cautioned, however, that “our findings do not confirm causality beyond an association.”

“More studies are needed in this important issue in a disease that affects women three times more than men.”

Dr. Zeydan had no disclosures to report. Dr. Cohen reported receiving personal compensation for consulting for Adamas, Convelo, MedDay, Mylan, and Population Council; and serving as an Editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

SOURCE: Zeydan B et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P135.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Women who have no history of a full-term pregnancy show an earlier onset of progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) compared to those who do have pregnancies, and the apparent onset-delaying effect appears to increase with the number of pregnancies, according to new research adding to speculation of the effects of pregnancy in MS.

“Our results suggest that a higher number of full-term pregnancies than average is associated with later onset of progressive MS, while having no full-term pregnancies is associated with significantly younger age at progressive MS onset,” first author Burcu Zeydan, MD, an assistant professor of radiology in the Center of MS and Autoimmune Neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

The study was presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

The findings, which also link early menopause with faster disease progression, offer important insights into the broader effects of pregnancy on MS, said ACTRIMS president Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of Experimental Therapeutics at the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research at the Cleveland Clinic.

“We know pregnancy affects the short term disease activity – relapses tend to quiet down during pregnancy – but what has been somewhat conflicting is whether it affects the long-term prognosis or is just a temporary effect,” he said in an interview.

“So that is the main interest in this study, and it does indicate that pregnancy affects the long-term prognosis and provides some insight into the mechanism by which it might do that.”

While being female is in fact considered the most important risk factor for MS susceptibility, pregnancy has been suggested to have a protective role in disease progression, but more research is needed on the nature of the effect – and its mechanisms.

For the study, Dr. Zeydan and colleagues evaluated data on 202 patients with MS who were part of a Mayo Clinic survey, including 134 women and 68 men.

They found that women who had no full-term pregnancies (n = 32), had an earlier onset of progressive MS (mean age 41.4 ± 12.6 years) compared to women giving birth to 1 or more children (n = 95; 47.1 ± 9.7 years; P = .012).

In addition, the mean age of progressive MS onset also increased with a dose-effect trend according to number of full pregnancies (no children, 41.4 ± 12.6 years; 1-3 children: 46.4 ± 9.2 years; 4 or more children: 52.6 ± 12.9 years; P = .002).

A look at a subgroup of patients with secondary progressive MS also showed an earlier mean age of onset among women who had no full pregnancies (n = 19; 41.5 ± 9.2 years) compared to women with 1 or more full pregnancies (n = 57; 47.3 ± 10.6 years; P = .049).

The later disease onset associated with pregnancy was also seen in relapsing-remitting MS: Mean age of onset was earlier women with no pregnancies (27.5 ± 7.0 years) compared to those with one or more children (33.0 ± 9.4 years; P = .021).

The trends of later onset with more pregnancies was also observed with the mean age of onset of secondary progressive MS (no full pregnancies: onset at 41.5 ± 9.2 years; 1-3 pregnancies: 46.2 ± 9.9 years; 4 or more pregnancies, onset 52.6 ± 12.9 years; P = .010).

And likewise, the later mean age of onset of relapsing-remitting MS was seen with additional pregnancies (no full pregnancies: 27.5 ± 7.0 years; 1-3 pregnancies: 32.4 ± 9.3 years; 4 or more pregnancies: 35.8 ± 9.8 years; P = .012).

“The dose effect was clearly a surprise (having no full-term pregnancies vs. 1-3 vs. 4 or more),” Dr. Zeydan said.

“In addition to the significant difference between having no versus one or more full-term pregnancies, the clear dose-effect consolidates our results related to the association between the number of pregnancies and age at progressive MS onset.”

Early menopause also linked to shorter progression to secondary progressive MS

The study also showed that women with premature or early menopause had a shorter duration of progressing from relapsing-remitting MS to secondary progressive MS (n = 26; 12.9 ± 9.0 years) compared to women with normal age at menopause (n = 39; 17.8 ± 10.3 years).

The pattern was similar for women experiencing the onset of secondary progressive MS after menopause, with a shorter progression among those with early menopause (P = .012).

The patterns in early menopause are consistent with previous observations regarding menopause and MS progression, Dr. Cohen said.

“When women go through menopause, estradiol and pregnancy-related factors further decline and we know this coincides temporally with the development of progressive MS in women,” he noted.

Compared to men, women with premature or early menopause furthermore had a longer duration from relapsing-remitting MS to secondary progressive MS (P = .008), and women with secondary progressive MS also had also had an earlier age of relapsing-remitting MS onset than men (P = .018).

Possible mechanisms and applications of the findings

The mechanisms of pregnancy that could include a complex interaction between estrogen and factors such as astrocyte and microglia function, Dr. Zeydan explained.

“Estrogen, through various mechanisms of eliminating toxicity of highly activated neurons – including preventing proinflammatory molecule release, supporting mitochondria function thereby eliminating energy failure, and promoting remyelination – helps neuronal plasticity and delays neurodegeneration, which is closely related to the progressive phase of MS,” she said.

“One could easily make the probable association, while yet to be proven, that our findings may relate to these mechanisms,” Dr. Zeydan said.

The logical question of whether hormone replacement or some type of therapy that could mimic the effects of pregnancy could also benefit in delaying MS onset remained to be seen, Dr. Zeydan said.

“While we believe that is possible, particularly for delaying the onset of progressive phase, definitive evidence is lacking at this time,” Dr. Zeydan said.

“However, our study ultimately may lead to such a trial.”

In the meantime, the findings provide additional insights that may be beneficial in sharing with patients regarding pregnancy,” she said.

“As the contemporary problem in MS care is to delay or prevent progressive MS onset, our findings may suggest that how we counsel women with MS who are planning to get pregnant, or contemplating surgically induced menopause, or how we consider hormone therapies during perimenopause may impact the course of their disease.”

Dr. Zeydan cautioned, however, that “our findings do not confirm causality beyond an association.”

“More studies are needed in this important issue in a disease that affects women three times more than men.”

Dr. Zeydan had no disclosures to report. Dr. Cohen reported receiving personal compensation for consulting for Adamas, Convelo, MedDay, Mylan, and Population Council; and serving as an Editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

SOURCE: Zeydan B et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract P135.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Baseline measurements of the eye may help neurologists predict future disease activity and diagnosis after the first attack of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), according to research presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. The results suggest that optical coherence tomography (OCT) could support patient monitoring and the initiation of disease-modifying therapy.

“Treatment of early MS [multiple sclerosis] is crucial to prevent neuroaxonal damage and, thus, sustained disability,” said Hanna G. Zimmermann, PhD, a research associate at NeuroCure Clinical Research Center at Charité Universitätsmedizin in Berlin. The ability to identify patients at high risk of future disease activity shortly after disease onset could help optimize patient management and guide the initiation of disease-modifying therapy. Dr. Zimmermann and colleagues investigated whether retinal OCT could predict disease activity in patients with CIS.

The investigators included 97 patients (mean age, 33.6 years; 62.9% female) with CIS in a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. Diagnoses of CIS were based on the 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Patients were enrolled from two German centers within 12 months after a first clinical event. The researchers performed a neurologic examination, cerebral MRI, and retinal OCT for each participant and followed the population for 729 days (median, 664 days).

The primary OCT predictor was ganglion cell and inner plexiform (GCIP) layer thickness, because this parameter is stable and reliable for quantifying neuronal visual system damage in MS, said Dr. Zimmermann. Secondary OCT predictors were peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness and inner nuclear layer (INL) thickness. The investigators only included eyes without a history of optic neuritis in the analysis.

The study’s primary outcome was failing the no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) criteria (no relapses, no disability progression, and no MRI activity). The secondary outcomes were MS diagnosis (according to the 2010 McDonald criteria) and worsening of disability.

At baseline, Dr. Zimmerman and colleagues found no differences in thickness of GCIP and pRNFL between patients and matched healthy controls. In all, 58 patients (59%) failed NEDA-3 criteria during follow-up. When Dr. Zimmermann and colleagues conducted Kaplan-Meier analysis, they found that patients with thinner GCIP thickness had a significantly higher risk of failing NEDA-3 criteria (thinnest vs. thickest tertile: hazard ratio, 3.33). A follow-up diagnosis of MS also was significantly more likely among patients with low GCIP thickness (thinnest vs. thickest tertile: HR, 4.05).

In addition, low pRNFL thickness indicated an increased risk of not meeting NEDA-3 criteria (thinnest vs. thickest tertile: HR, 2.46). However, neither INL thickness nor T2-weighted lesion count were associated with failing NEDA-3 criteria. Also, none of the OCT parameters were associated with future disability worsening.

Among the study’s limitations are its small sample size, the relatively short observation time, and the heterogeneity of patients between the two centers, which used different study protocols, said Dr. Zimmermann.

“OCT-assessed GCIP is promising for the early appraisal of future disease activity and might thus be helpful for risk-adjusted patient participation in clinical research,” she said. “It might also be helpful for clinicians for identifying CIS patients with worse prognosis and planning the care.” Dr. Zimmermann and colleagues plan to use advanced imaging techniques in future studies to understand the mechanisms behind the associations they identified. They hope to confirm their findings in a larger cohort and examine whether OCT can predict clinical outcomes such as relapses, disability worsening, and the extent of disease activity.

Dr. Zimmermann had no relevant disclosures and did not report a source of funding for the study.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zimmermann HG et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Baseline measurements of the eye may help neurologists predict future disease activity and diagnosis after the first attack of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), according to research presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. The results suggest that optical coherence tomography (OCT) could support patient monitoring and the initiation of disease-modifying therapy.

“Treatment of early MS [multiple sclerosis] is crucial to prevent neuroaxonal damage and, thus, sustained disability,” said Hanna G. Zimmermann, PhD, a research associate at NeuroCure Clinical Research Center at Charité Universitätsmedizin in Berlin. The ability to identify patients at high risk of future disease activity shortly after disease onset could help optimize patient management and guide the initiation of disease-modifying therapy. Dr. Zimmermann and colleagues investigated whether retinal OCT could predict disease activity in patients with CIS.

The investigators included 97 patients (mean age, 33.6 years; 62.9% female) with CIS in a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. Diagnoses of CIS were based on the 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Patients were enrolled from two German centers within 12 months after a first clinical event. The researchers performed a neurologic examination, cerebral MRI, and retinal OCT for each participant and followed the population for 729 days (median, 664 days).

The primary OCT predictor was ganglion cell and inner plexiform (GCIP) layer thickness, because this parameter is stable and reliable for quantifying neuronal visual system damage in MS, said Dr. Zimmermann. Secondary OCT predictors were peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness and inner nuclear layer (INL) thickness. The investigators only included eyes without a history of optic neuritis in the analysis.

The study’s primary outcome was failing the no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) criteria (no relapses, no disability progression, and no MRI activity). The secondary outcomes were MS diagnosis (according to the 2010 McDonald criteria) and worsening of disability.

At baseline, Dr. Zimmerman and colleagues found no differences in thickness of GCIP and pRNFL between patients and matched healthy controls. In all, 58 patients (59%) failed NEDA-3 criteria during follow-up. When Dr. Zimmermann and colleagues conducted Kaplan-Meier analysis, they found that patients with thinner GCIP thickness had a significantly higher risk of failing NEDA-3 criteria (thinnest vs. thickest tertile: hazard ratio, 3.33). A follow-up diagnosis of MS also was significantly more likely among patients with low GCIP thickness (thinnest vs. thickest tertile: HR, 4.05).

In addition, low pRNFL thickness indicated an increased risk of not meeting NEDA-3 criteria (thinnest vs. thickest tertile: HR, 2.46). However, neither INL thickness nor T2-weighted lesion count were associated with failing NEDA-3 criteria. Also, none of the OCT parameters were associated with future disability worsening.

Among the study’s limitations are its small sample size, the relatively short observation time, and the heterogeneity of patients between the two centers, which used different study protocols, said Dr. Zimmermann.

“OCT-assessed GCIP is promising for the early appraisal of future disease activity and might thus be helpful for risk-adjusted patient participation in clinical research,” she said. “It might also be helpful for clinicians for identifying CIS patients with worse prognosis and planning the care.” Dr. Zimmermann and colleagues plan to use advanced imaging techniques in future studies to understand the mechanisms behind the associations they identified. They hope to confirm their findings in a larger cohort and examine whether OCT can predict clinical outcomes such as relapses, disability worsening, and the extent of disease activity.

Dr. Zimmermann had no relevant disclosures and did not report a source of funding for the study.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zimmermann HG et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Baseline measurements of the eye may help neurologists predict future disease activity and diagnosis after the first attack of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), according to research presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. The results suggest that optical coherence tomography (OCT) could support patient monitoring and the initiation of disease-modifying therapy.

“Treatment of early MS [multiple sclerosis] is crucial to prevent neuroaxonal damage and, thus, sustained disability,” said Hanna G. Zimmermann, PhD, a research associate at NeuroCure Clinical Research Center at Charité Universitätsmedizin in Berlin. The ability to identify patients at high risk of future disease activity shortly after disease onset could help optimize patient management and guide the initiation of disease-modifying therapy. Dr. Zimmermann and colleagues investigated whether retinal OCT could predict disease activity in patients with CIS.

The investigators included 97 patients (mean age, 33.6 years; 62.9% female) with CIS in a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. Diagnoses of CIS were based on the 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Patients were enrolled from two German centers within 12 months after a first clinical event. The researchers performed a neurologic examination, cerebral MRI, and retinal OCT for each participant and followed the population for 729 days (median, 664 days).

The primary OCT predictor was ganglion cell and inner plexiform (GCIP) layer thickness, because this parameter is stable and reliable for quantifying neuronal visual system damage in MS, said Dr. Zimmermann. Secondary OCT predictors were peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness and inner nuclear layer (INL) thickness. The investigators only included eyes without a history of optic neuritis in the analysis.

The study’s primary outcome was failing the no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) criteria (no relapses, no disability progression, and no MRI activity). The secondary outcomes were MS diagnosis (according to the 2010 McDonald criteria) and worsening of disability.

At baseline, Dr. Zimmerman and colleagues found no differences in thickness of GCIP and pRNFL between patients and matched healthy controls. In all, 58 patients (59%) failed NEDA-3 criteria during follow-up. When Dr. Zimmermann and colleagues conducted Kaplan-Meier analysis, they found that patients with thinner GCIP thickness had a significantly higher risk of failing NEDA-3 criteria (thinnest vs. thickest tertile: hazard ratio, 3.33). A follow-up diagnosis of MS also was significantly more likely among patients with low GCIP thickness (thinnest vs. thickest tertile: HR, 4.05).

In addition, low pRNFL thickness indicated an increased risk of not meeting NEDA-3 criteria (thinnest vs. thickest tertile: HR, 2.46). However, neither INL thickness nor T2-weighted lesion count were associated with failing NEDA-3 criteria. Also, none of the OCT parameters were associated with future disability worsening.

Among the study’s limitations are its small sample size, the relatively short observation time, and the heterogeneity of patients between the two centers, which used different study protocols, said Dr. Zimmermann.

“OCT-assessed GCIP is promising for the early appraisal of future disease activity and might thus be helpful for risk-adjusted patient participation in clinical research,” she said. “It might also be helpful for clinicians for identifying CIS patients with worse prognosis and planning the care.” Dr. Zimmermann and colleagues plan to use advanced imaging techniques in future studies to understand the mechanisms behind the associations they identified. They hope to confirm their findings in a larger cohort and examine whether OCT can predict clinical outcomes such as relapses, disability worsening, and the extent of disease activity.

Dr. Zimmermann had no relevant disclosures and did not report a source of funding for the study.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zimmermann HG et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2020, Abstract.

This is a lot of paper.

It’s not a chart. Or mortgage forms. Or Family and Medical Leave Act paperwork.

It’s a research protocol for a study I’m involved in.

Now, I understand that research needs detailed protocols. It’s serious business, and when it’s happening at multiple sites they all need to know exactly what the plan is, what steps should be followed, who qualifies and who doesn’t, and so on.

But here’s what irritates me: That huge pile showed up at my office about an hour after all of the same documents were delivered to me by email, as PDFs.

Not only that, but someone had paid a messenger service to get them to me promptly. When I asked why I was told “because it’s the protocol that each site have both paper and digital copies.”

I don’t understand this at all. To me, the whole thing seems pretty wasteful on multiple levels. I’m told there are 28 sites for this study, so there’s a minimum stack of 28 times that one involved. Of course, each site probably has three to five copies (at least). Then, if the protocol is amended in a few months ... you get the idea.

To me this seems ridiculously wasteful. That’s a lot of paper and ink and shipping charges. If the whole thing can be sent digitally for a lot less money, why are they requiring both? If they need a signed signature sheet saying I read it, why not just print up that sheet? It’s one page instead of a huge pile. If I can digitally sign a document to refinance my house, why can’t I do it to acknowledge reading the protocol? I’m more likely to read study data on my iPad, anyway.

Not only that, now I have to store that stack in my office for several years, in spite of also having it on my hard drive.

Obviously, this is just a fraction of research costs, but it’s still money wasted.

The environmental issues of trees, water to make paper, the ink cartridges, and fuel to transport documents are all there, too. I could certainly go on.

I guess the overlying problem is that we’re still between two worlds (paper and digital) and, in spite of the marked shift to the latter, many are still insisting we try to live in both. At some point it gets silly. And costly.

I’m sure we won’t become completely paperless in my career, but there are plenty of ways we can eliminate its often-unnecessary overhead. Money is just the most obvious one.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This is a lot of paper.

It’s not a chart. Or mortgage forms. Or Family and Medical Leave Act paperwork.

It’s a research protocol for a study I’m involved in.

Now, I understand that research needs detailed protocols. It’s serious business, and when it’s happening at multiple sites they all need to know exactly what the plan is, what steps should be followed, who qualifies and who doesn’t, and so on.

But here’s what irritates me: That huge pile showed up at my office about an hour after all of the same documents were delivered to me by email, as PDFs.

Not only that, but someone had paid a messenger service to get them to me promptly. When I asked why I was told “because it’s the protocol that each site have both paper and digital copies.”

I don’t understand this at all. To me, the whole thing seems pretty wasteful on multiple levels. I’m told there are 28 sites for this study, so there’s a minimum stack of 28 times that one involved. Of course, each site probably has three to five copies (at least). Then, if the protocol is amended in a few months ... you get the idea.

To me this seems ridiculously wasteful. That’s a lot of paper and ink and shipping charges. If the whole thing can be sent digitally for a lot less money, why are they requiring both? If they need a signed signature sheet saying I read it, why not just print up that sheet? It’s one page instead of a huge pile. If I can digitally sign a document to refinance my house, why can’t I do it to acknowledge reading the protocol? I’m more likely to read study data on my iPad, anyway.

Not only that, now I have to store that stack in my office for several years, in spite of also having it on my hard drive.

Obviously, this is just a fraction of research costs, but it’s still money wasted.

The environmental issues of trees, water to make paper, the ink cartridges, and fuel to transport documents are all there, too. I could certainly go on.

I guess the overlying problem is that we’re still between two worlds (paper and digital) and, in spite of the marked shift to the latter, many are still insisting we try to live in both. At some point it gets silly. And costly.

I’m sure we won’t become completely paperless in my career, but there are plenty of ways we can eliminate its often-unnecessary overhead. Money is just the most obvious one.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This is a lot of paper.

It’s not a chart. Or mortgage forms. Or Family and Medical Leave Act paperwork.

It’s a research protocol for a study I’m involved in.

Now, I understand that research needs detailed protocols. It’s serious business, and when it’s happening at multiple sites they all need to know exactly what the plan is, what steps should be followed, who qualifies and who doesn’t, and so on.

But here’s what irritates me: That huge pile showed up at my office about an hour after all of the same documents were delivered to me by email, as PDFs.

Not only that, but someone had paid a messenger service to get them to me promptly. When I asked why I was told “because it’s the protocol that each site have both paper and digital copies.”

I don’t understand this at all. To me, the whole thing seems pretty wasteful on multiple levels. I’m told there are 28 sites for this study, so there’s a minimum stack of 28 times that one involved. Of course, each site probably has three to five copies (at least). Then, if the protocol is amended in a few months ... you get the idea.

To me this seems ridiculously wasteful. That’s a lot of paper and ink and shipping charges. If the whole thing can be sent digitally for a lot less money, why are they requiring both? If they need a signed signature sheet saying I read it, why not just print up that sheet? It’s one page instead of a huge pile. If I can digitally sign a document to refinance my house, why can’t I do it to acknowledge reading the protocol? I’m more likely to read study data on my iPad, anyway.

Not only that, now I have to store that stack in my office for several years, in spite of also having it on my hard drive.

Obviously, this is just a fraction of research costs, but it’s still money wasted.

The environmental issues of trees, water to make paper, the ink cartridges, and fuel to transport documents are all there, too. I could certainly go on.

I guess the overlying problem is that we’re still between two worlds (paper and digital) and, in spite of the marked shift to the latter, many are still insisting we try to live in both. At some point it gets silly. And costly.

I’m sure we won’t become completely paperless in my career, but there are plenty of ways we can eliminate its often-unnecessary overhead. Money is just the most obvious one.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

LOS ANGELES – In a subanalysis of the TST (Treat Stroke to Target) trial, restricting analysis to only French participants followed for an average of 5 years demonstrated an even more robust potential to reduce recurrent stroke and other major cardiovascular events by treating patients to an LDL target of below 70 mg/dL. Treating LDL to a mean of 66 mg/dL versus 96 mg/dL was associated with a 26% relative risk reduction for the composite endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, new symptoms requiring urgent coronary or carotid revascularization, and vascular death in an adjusted analysis.

“The results are similar to the main paper but even more spectacular, with no increase in hemorrhagic stroke whatsoever, and positive results on any stroke,” study investigator Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurology and Stroke Centre, Bichat University Hospital, Paris, said.

Dr. Amarenco presented the findings as a late-breaking abstract at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The trial was published simultaneously in the journal Stroke.

In the full TST trial population, risk was reduced by 22% with more-aggressive LDL-lowering treatment, compared with the more lax 90-110 mg/dL target.

The TST cohort included both French and Korean participants. Dr. Amarenco and colleagues focused on the French population in the current study because the group was larger (2,148 vs. 742 Korean participants) and had a longer follow-up, an average of 5.3 years compared to 2.0 years among Korean patients. The initial study had shown “very significant results in the French patients and no apparent effect in Korean patients,” he said. The longer duration of treatment in the French cohort could have contributed to the greater risk reduction, said Dr. Amarenco.

A 2017 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel statement noted that exposure time to lipid-lowering drugs correlates with outcomes. The European Stroke Organization and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines each recommend intensive statin treatment to lower serum lipids following an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin or after a transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, the current researchers noted that the recommendations do not specify specific target numbers.

“Therefore, there is uncertainty about the target levels of LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Aiming at different targets

To learn more, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,073 of the French patients to a target LDL treatment group of 70 mg/dL and another 1,075 to a target range of 90-110 mg/dL. They enrolled participants at 61 sites in France. Mean age was 67 years. All participants had experienced an ischemic stroke within 3 months or a TIA within 15 days of baseline. They presented either with a modified Rankin Scale poststroke score of 0-3 or a TIA that included at least arm and leg motor deficit or speech disturbance that lasted more than 10 minutes.

Investigators could use any type and any dose of statin to reach the respective targets. Statins could be prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with ezetimibe (Zetia) or other agents. The baseline mean LDL cholesterol level was 137 mg/dL in the lower target group and 138 mg/dL in the higher target group, respectively (3.5 mmol/L in both groups). Dr. Amarenco and colleagues measured LDL cholesterol levels at 3 weeks postrandomization and then every 6 months.

A smaller proportion of the lower LDL cholesterol target group experienced the adverse composite outcome, 9.6%, compared with 12.9% of the higher LDL cholesterol target group. This translated to a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P = .015). The absolute risk reduction was 3.3% with a number needed to treat of 30.

An analysis adjusted for covariates showed a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.95; P = .019).

Cerebral infarction and acute cerebral artery revascularization were reduced by 27% (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .046). Cerebral infarction or intracranial hemorrhage (all strokes) were reduced by 28% (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P = .023). In this case, there was an absolute risk reduction of 2.9% and a number needed to treat of 34.

In contrast, MI or urgent coronary revascularization following new symptoms were not significantly reduced (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.67-1.20; P = .18). The investigators also reported nonsignificant results regarding vascular death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.32; P = .32] and all deaths (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74-1.35; P = .99).

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues also tracked adverse events. They found intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 13 (1.2%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL and in 11 (1%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol of 100 ± 10 mg/dL. In this analysis, the hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.53-2.62; P = .70), and the absolute difference was 0.2%.

The investigators also reported that 10.3% of the lower LDL target group vs 13.6% of the higher LDL target group experienced either the primary outcome or intracranial hemorrhage. This translated to a 25% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; P = .021), an absolute risk reduction of 3.3% and a number needed to treat of 30.
 

Avoiding one in four events

Assessing the French participants in the TST trial showed that targeting LDL below 70 mg/dL for more than 5 years avoided more than one in four subsequent major cardiovascular events among adults who experienced a recent ischemic stroke or TIA.

Furthermore, more intense LDL lowering also avoided more than one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or urgent carotid revascularizations following a TIA, as well as one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or hemorrhages (all strokes), compared with the higher LDL target.

“This was obtained without increasing the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with a number needed to treat of 30,” the researchers noted. “In the context of all randomized clinical trials with statin and other lipid-lowering drugs, there is no reason to think that Asian patients do not benefit from statin treatment and from a lower target LDL cholesterol,” the researchers added.

Therefore, they plan to continue assessing the 742 Korean participants until they reach a median of 5 years of follow-up.

Clinically validating results

“My feeling is that these data are highly supportive of a practice that many of us have been using for years without this level of evidence,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, said when asked to comment on the study.

Prior secondary analyses of studies, including research into patients with intracranial atherosclerosis, demonstrated benefit from treating to this lower LDL cholesterol target. “These studies were suggestive enough that many of us were treating patients aggressively with statins,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology and chief of the division of neurology clinical outcomes research and population sciences at Columbia University in New York.

“But this really confirms that [fact] with clinical trial evidence,” said Dr. Elkind, “and I think will be very useful to us as clinicians.”

The results could be used to counsel patients about the potential benefits of statin therapy or to motivate primary care providers to treat patients more aggressively, said Dr. Elkind, who will begin his term as president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association in July.

This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health and from SOS-Attaque Cérébrale Association, with unrestricted grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Merck for French sites and from Pfizer for South Korean sites.

Dr. Amarenco receives research grant support and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Elkind had has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SOURCE: Amarenko P et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 9.

LOS ANGELES – In a subanalysis of the TST (Treat Stroke to Target) trial, restricting analysis to only French participants followed for an average of 5 years demonstrated an even more robust potential to reduce recurrent stroke and other major cardiovascular events by treating patients to an LDL target of below 70 mg/dL. Treating LDL to a mean of 66 mg/dL versus 96 mg/dL was associated with a 26% relative risk reduction for the composite endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, new symptoms requiring urgent coronary or carotid revascularization, and vascular death in an adjusted analysis.

“The results are similar to the main paper but even more spectacular, with no increase in hemorrhagic stroke whatsoever, and positive results on any stroke,” study investigator Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurology and Stroke Centre, Bichat University Hospital, Paris, said.

Dr. Amarenco presented the findings as a late-breaking abstract at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The trial was published simultaneously in the journal Stroke.

In the full TST trial population, risk was reduced by 22% with more-aggressive LDL-lowering treatment, compared with the more lax 90-110 mg/dL target.

The TST cohort included both French and Korean participants. Dr. Amarenco and colleagues focused on the French population in the current study because the group was larger (2,148 vs. 742 Korean participants) and had a longer follow-up, an average of 5.3 years compared to 2.0 years among Korean patients. The initial study had shown “very significant results in the French patients and no apparent effect in Korean patients,” he said. The longer duration of treatment in the French cohort could have contributed to the greater risk reduction, said Dr. Amarenco.

A 2017 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel statement noted that exposure time to lipid-lowering drugs correlates with outcomes. The European Stroke Organization and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines each recommend intensive statin treatment to lower serum lipids following an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin or after a transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, the current researchers noted that the recommendations do not specify specific target numbers.

“Therefore, there is uncertainty about the target levels of LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Aiming at different targets

To learn more, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,073 of the French patients to a target LDL treatment group of 70 mg/dL and another 1,075 to a target range of 90-110 mg/dL. They enrolled participants at 61 sites in France. Mean age was 67 years. All participants had experienced an ischemic stroke within 3 months or a TIA within 15 days of baseline. They presented either with a modified Rankin Scale poststroke score of 0-3 or a TIA that included at least arm and leg motor deficit or speech disturbance that lasted more than 10 minutes.

Investigators could use any type and any dose of statin to reach the respective targets. Statins could be prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with ezetimibe (Zetia) or other agents. The baseline mean LDL cholesterol level was 137 mg/dL in the lower target group and 138 mg/dL in the higher target group, respectively (3.5 mmol/L in both groups). Dr. Amarenco and colleagues measured LDL cholesterol levels at 3 weeks postrandomization and then every 6 months.

A smaller proportion of the lower LDL cholesterol target group experienced the adverse composite outcome, 9.6%, compared with 12.9% of the higher LDL cholesterol target group. This translated to a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P = .015). The absolute risk reduction was 3.3% with a number needed to treat of 30.

An analysis adjusted for covariates showed a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.95; P = .019).

Cerebral infarction and acute cerebral artery revascularization were reduced by 27% (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .046). Cerebral infarction or intracranial hemorrhage (all strokes) were reduced by 28% (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P = .023). In this case, there was an absolute risk reduction of 2.9% and a number needed to treat of 34.

In contrast, MI or urgent coronary revascularization following new symptoms were not significantly reduced (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.67-1.20; P = .18). The investigators also reported nonsignificant results regarding vascular death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.32; P = .32] and all deaths (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74-1.35; P = .99).

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues also tracked adverse events. They found intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 13 (1.2%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL and in 11 (1%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol of 100 ± 10 mg/dL. In this analysis, the hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.53-2.62; P = .70), and the absolute difference was 0.2%.

The investigators also reported that 10.3% of the lower LDL target group vs 13.6% of the higher LDL target group experienced either the primary outcome or intracranial hemorrhage. This translated to a 25% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; P = .021), an absolute risk reduction of 3.3% and a number needed to treat of 30.
 

Avoiding one in four events

Assessing the French participants in the TST trial showed that targeting LDL below 70 mg/dL for more than 5 years avoided more than one in four subsequent major cardiovascular events among adults who experienced a recent ischemic stroke or TIA.

Furthermore, more intense LDL lowering also avoided more than one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or urgent carotid revascularizations following a TIA, as well as one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or hemorrhages (all strokes), compared with the higher LDL target.

“This was obtained without increasing the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with a number needed to treat of 30,” the researchers noted. “In the context of all randomized clinical trials with statin and other lipid-lowering drugs, there is no reason to think that Asian patients do not benefit from statin treatment and from a lower target LDL cholesterol,” the researchers added.

Therefore, they plan to continue assessing the 742 Korean participants until they reach a median of 5 years of follow-up.

Clinically validating results

“My feeling is that these data are highly supportive of a practice that many of us have been using for years without this level of evidence,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, said when asked to comment on the study.

Prior secondary analyses of studies, including research into patients with intracranial atherosclerosis, demonstrated benefit from treating to this lower LDL cholesterol target. “These studies were suggestive enough that many of us were treating patients aggressively with statins,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology and chief of the division of neurology clinical outcomes research and population sciences at Columbia University in New York.

“But this really confirms that [fact] with clinical trial evidence,” said Dr. Elkind, “and I think will be very useful to us as clinicians.”

The results could be used to counsel patients about the potential benefits of statin therapy or to motivate primary care providers to treat patients more aggressively, said Dr. Elkind, who will begin his term as president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association in July.

This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health and from SOS-Attaque Cérébrale Association, with unrestricted grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Merck for French sites and from Pfizer for South Korean sites.

Dr. Amarenco receives research grant support and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Elkind had has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SOURCE: Amarenko P et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 9.

LOS ANGELES – In a subanalysis of the TST (Treat Stroke to Target) trial, restricting analysis to only French participants followed for an average of 5 years demonstrated an even more robust potential to reduce recurrent stroke and other major cardiovascular events by treating patients to an LDL target of below 70 mg/dL. Treating LDL to a mean of 66 mg/dL versus 96 mg/dL was associated with a 26% relative risk reduction for the composite endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, new symptoms requiring urgent coronary or carotid revascularization, and vascular death in an adjusted analysis.

“The results are similar to the main paper but even more spectacular, with no increase in hemorrhagic stroke whatsoever, and positive results on any stroke,” study investigator Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurology and Stroke Centre, Bichat University Hospital, Paris, said.

Dr. Amarenco presented the findings as a late-breaking abstract at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The trial was published simultaneously in the journal Stroke.

In the full TST trial population, risk was reduced by 22% with more-aggressive LDL-lowering treatment, compared with the more lax 90-110 mg/dL target.

The TST cohort included both French and Korean participants. Dr. Amarenco and colleagues focused on the French population in the current study because the group was larger (2,148 vs. 742 Korean participants) and had a longer follow-up, an average of 5.3 years compared to 2.0 years among Korean patients. The initial study had shown “very significant results in the French patients and no apparent effect in Korean patients,” he said. The longer duration of treatment in the French cohort could have contributed to the greater risk reduction, said Dr. Amarenco.

A 2017 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel statement noted that exposure time to lipid-lowering drugs correlates with outcomes. The European Stroke Organization and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines each recommend intensive statin treatment to lower serum lipids following an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin or after a transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, the current researchers noted that the recommendations do not specify specific target numbers.

“Therefore, there is uncertainty about the target levels of LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Aiming at different targets

To learn more, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,073 of the French patients to a target LDL treatment group of 70 mg/dL and another 1,075 to a target range of 90-110 mg/dL. They enrolled participants at 61 sites in France. Mean age was 67 years. All participants had experienced an ischemic stroke within 3 months or a TIA within 15 days of baseline. They presented either with a modified Rankin Scale poststroke score of 0-3 or a TIA that included at least arm and leg motor deficit or speech disturbance that lasted more than 10 minutes.

Investigators could use any type and any dose of statin to reach the respective targets. Statins could be prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with ezetimibe (Zetia) or other agents. The baseline mean LDL cholesterol level was 137 mg/dL in the lower target group and 138 mg/dL in the higher target group, respectively (3.5 mmol/L in both groups). Dr. Amarenco and colleagues measured LDL cholesterol levels at 3 weeks postrandomization and then every 6 months.

A smaller proportion of the lower LDL cholesterol target group experienced the adverse composite outcome, 9.6%, compared with 12.9% of the higher LDL cholesterol target group. This translated to a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P = .015). The absolute risk reduction was 3.3% with a number needed to treat of 30.

An analysis adjusted for covariates showed a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.95; P = .019).

Cerebral infarction and acute cerebral artery revascularization were reduced by 27% (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .046). Cerebral infarction or intracranial hemorrhage (all strokes) were reduced by 28% (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P = .023). In this case, there was an absolute risk reduction of 2.9% and a number needed to treat of 34.

In contrast, MI or urgent coronary revascularization following new symptoms were not significantly reduced (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.67-1.20; P = .18). The investigators also reported nonsignificant results regarding vascular death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.32; P = .32] and all deaths (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74-1.35; P = .99).

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues also tracked adverse events. They found intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 13 (1.2%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL and in 11 (1%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol of 100 ± 10 mg/dL. In this analysis, the hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.53-2.62; P = .70), and the absolute difference was 0.2%.

The investigators also reported that 10.3% of the lower LDL target group vs 13.6% of the higher LDL target group experienced either the primary outcome or intracranial hemorrhage. This translated to a 25% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; P = .021), an absolute risk reduction of 3.3% and a number needed to treat of 30.
 

Avoiding one in four events

Assessing the French participants in the TST trial showed that targeting LDL below 70 mg/dL for more than 5 years avoided more than one in four subsequent major cardiovascular events among adults who experienced a recent ischemic stroke or TIA.

Furthermore, more intense LDL lowering also avoided more than one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or urgent carotid revascularizations following a TIA, as well as one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or hemorrhages (all strokes), compared with the higher LDL target.

“This was obtained without increasing the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with a number needed to treat of 30,” the researchers noted. “In the context of all randomized clinical trials with statin and other lipid-lowering drugs, there is no reason to think that Asian patients do not benefit from statin treatment and from a lower target LDL cholesterol,” the researchers added.

Therefore, they plan to continue assessing the 742 Korean participants until they reach a median of 5 years of follow-up.

Clinically validating results

“My feeling is that these data are highly supportive of a practice that many of us have been using for years without this level of evidence,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, said when asked to comment on the study.

Prior secondary analyses of studies, including research into patients with intracranial atherosclerosis, demonstrated benefit from treating to this lower LDL cholesterol target. “These studies were suggestive enough that many of us were treating patients aggressively with statins,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology and chief of the division of neurology clinical outcomes research and population sciences at Columbia University in New York.

“But this really confirms that [fact] with clinical trial evidence,” said Dr. Elkind, “and I think will be very useful to us as clinicians.”

The results could be used to counsel patients about the potential benefits of statin therapy or to motivate primary care providers to treat patients more aggressively, said Dr. Elkind, who will begin his term as president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association in July.

This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health and from SOS-Attaque Cérébrale Association, with unrestricted grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Merck for French sites and from Pfizer for South Korean sites.

Dr. Amarenco receives research grant support and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Elkind had has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SOURCE: Amarenko P et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 9.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

LAS VEGAS – Clinicians should spend 1 hour with patients who present with a chief complaint of insomnia, rather than rushing to a treatment after a 10- to 15-minute office visit, according to John W. Winkelman, MD, PhD.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Why? Because sleep problems are usually multifactorial, involving psychiatric illness, sleep disorders, medical illness, medication, and poor sleep hygiene/stress,” he said at an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There are usually many contributing problems, and sleep quality is only as strong as the weakest link. Maybe you don’t have an hour [to meet with new patients], but you need to give adequate time, otherwise you’re not going to do justice to the problem.”

During that first visit, Dr. Winkelman recommends establishing and prioritizing goals with the patient. “Ask, ‘what is it that bothers you most about your insomnia? Is it the time awake at night, your total sleep time, or how you feel during the day?’ Because we’re going to use different approaches based on that chief complaint of the insomnia,” said Dr. Winkelman, chief of the Massachusetts General Sleep Disorders Clinical Research Program in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia [CBT-I], for instance, is very good at reducing time awake at night. It won’t increase total sleep time, but it reduces time awake at night dramatically.”

According to the DSM-5, insomnia disorder is marked by dissatisfaction with sleep quality or quantity associated with at least one of the following: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, and early morning awakening. “Just getting up to pee five times a night is not insomnia,” he said. “Just taking an hour and a half to fall asleep at the beginning of the night is not insomnia. There has to be distress or dysfunction related to the sleep disturbance, for a minimum of three times per week for 3 months.”

Most sleep problems are transient, but 25%-30% last more than 1 year. The differential diagnosis for chronic insomnia includes primary psychiatric disorders, medications, substances, restless legs syndrome, sleep schedule disorders, and obstructive sleep apnea.

“In general, we do not order sleep studies in people with insomnia unless we suspect sleep apnea; it’s just a waste of time,” said Dr. Winkelman, who is also a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Indications for polysomnography include loud snoring plus one of the following: daytime sleepiness, witnessed apneas, or refractory hypertension. Other indications include abnormal behaviors or movements during sleep, unexplained excessive daytime sleepiness, and refractory sleep complaints, especially repetitive brief awakenings.

Many common cognitive and behavioral issues can produce or worsen insomnia, including inconsistent bedtimes and wake times. “That irregular schedule wreaks havoc with sleep,” he said. “It messes up the circadian rhythm. Also, homeostatic drive needs to build up: We need to be awake 16 or more hours in order to be sleepy. If people are sleeping until noon on Sundays and then trying to go to bed at their usual time, 10 or 11 at night, they’ve only been awake 10 or 11 hours. That’s why they’re going to have problems falling asleep. Also, a lot of people doze off after dinner in front of the TV. That doesn’t help.”

Spending excessive time in bed can also trigger or worsen insomnia. Dr. Winkelman recommends that people restrict their access to bed to the number of hours it is reasonable to sleep. “I see a lot of people in their 70s and 80s spending 10 hours in bed,” he said. “It doesn’t sound that crazy, but there is no way they’re going to get 10 hours of sleep. It’s physically impossible, so they spend 2 or 3 hours awake at night.” Clock-watching is another no-no. “In the middle of the night you wake up, look at the clock, and say to yourself: ‘Oh my god, I’ve been awake for 3 hours. I have 4 hours left. I need 7 hours. That means I need to go to sleep now!’ ”

An estimated 30%-40% of people with chronic insomnia have a psychiatric disorder. That means “you have to be thorough in your evaluation and act as if you’re doing a structured interview,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Ask about obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, et cetera, so that you understand the complete myriad of psychiatric illnesses, because psychiatric illnesses run in gangs. Comorbidity is generally the rule.”

The first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder is CBT-I, a multicomponent approach that includes time-in-bed restriction, stimulus control, cognitive therapy, relaxation therapy, and sleep hygiene. According to Dr. Winkelman, the cornerstone of CBT-I is time-in-bed restriction. “Many people with insomnia are spending 8.5 hours in bed to get 6.5 hours of sleep,” he said. “What you do is restrict access to bed to 6.5 hours; you initially sleep deprive them. Over the first few weeks, they hate you. After a few weeks when they start sleeping well, you start gradually increasing time in bed, but they rarely get back to the 8.5 hours in bed they were spending beforehand.”

Online CBT-I programs such as Sleepio can also be effective for improving sleep latency and wake after sleep onset, but not for total sleep time (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74[1]:68-75). “Not everybody responds to CBT; 50% don’t respond at a couple of months,” he said. “These are the people you need to think about medication for.”

Medications commonly used for chronic insomnia include benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BzRAs) – temazepam, eszopiclone, triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon are Food and Drug Administration approved – melatonin agonists, orexin antagonists, sedating antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and dopaminergic antagonists. “Each of the agents in these categories has somewhat similar mechanisms of action, and similar efficacy and contraindications,” Dr. Winkelman said. “The best way to divide the benzodiazepine receptor agonists is based on half-life. How long do you want drug on receptor in somebody with insomnia? Probably not much longer than 8 hours. Nevertheless, some psychiatrists love clonazepam, which has a 40-hour half-life. The circumstances under which clonazepam should be used for insomnia are small, such as in people with a daytime anxiety disorder.”

Consider trying triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon for patients who have problems falling asleep, he said, while oxazepam and eszopiclone are sensible options for people who have difficulty falling and staying asleep. Clinical response to BzRAs is common, yet only about half of people who have insomnia remit with one of these agents.

Dr. Winkelman said that patients and physicians often ask him whether BzRAs and other agents used as sleep aids are addictive. Abuse is identified when recurrent use causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems; disability; and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, home, or school. “These are concerns with BzRAs. Misuse and abuse generally occur in younger people. Once you get to 35 years old, misuse rates get very low. In older people, rates of side effects go up.

“Tolerance, physiological and psychological dependence, and nonmedical diversion are also of concern,” he said. However, for the majority of people, BzRA hypnotics are effective and safe.

As for other agents, meta-analyses have demonstrated that melatonin 1-3 mg can help people fall asleep when it’s not being endogenously released. “That’s during the day,” he said. “That might be most relevant for jet lag and for people doing shift work.” Two orexin antagonists on the market for insomnia include suvorexant and lemborexant 10-20 mg. Advantages of these include little abuse liability and few side effects. “In one head-to-head polysomnography study in the elderly, lemborexant was superior to zolpidem 6.25 mg CR on both objective and subjective ability to fall asleep and stay asleep,” Dr. Winkelman said. (JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2[12]:e1918254).

Antidepressants are another treatment option, including mirtazapine 15-30 mg, trazodone 25-100 mg, and amitriptyline and doxepin (10-50 mg). Advantages include little abuse liability, while potential drawbacks include daytime sedation, weight gain, and anticholinergic side effects. Meanwhile, atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine 25-100 mg have long been known to be helpful for sleep. “Advantages are that they’re anxiolytic, they’re mood stabilizing, and there is little abuse liability,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Drawbacks are that they’re probably less effective than BzRAs, they cause daytime sedation, weight gain, risks of extrapyramidal symptoms and glucose and lipid abnormalities.”

Dr. Winkelman said that he uses “a fair amount” of the anticonvulsant gabapentin as a second- or third-line hypnotic agent. “I usually start with 300 mg [at bedtime],” he added. “Drawbacks are that it’s probably less effective than BzRAs; it affects cognition; and can cause daytime sedation, dizziness, and weight gain. There are also concerns about abuse.”

Dr. Winkelman reported that he has received grant/research support from Merck, the RLS Foundation, and Luitpold Pharmaceuticals. He is also a consultant for Advance Medical, Avadel Pharmaceuticals, and UpToDate and is a member of the speakers’ bureau for Luitpold.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

LAS VEGAS – Clinicians should spend 1 hour with patients who present with a chief complaint of insomnia, rather than rushing to a treatment after a 10- to 15-minute office visit, according to John W. Winkelman, MD, PhD.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Why? Because sleep problems are usually multifactorial, involving psychiatric illness, sleep disorders, medical illness, medication, and poor sleep hygiene/stress,” he said at an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There are usually many contributing problems, and sleep quality is only as strong as the weakest link. Maybe you don’t have an hour [to meet with new patients], but you need to give adequate time, otherwise you’re not going to do justice to the problem.”

During that first visit, Dr. Winkelman recommends establishing and prioritizing goals with the patient. “Ask, ‘what is it that bothers you most about your insomnia? Is it the time awake at night, your total sleep time, or how you feel during the day?’ Because we’re going to use different approaches based on that chief complaint of the insomnia,” said Dr. Winkelman, chief of the Massachusetts General Sleep Disorders Clinical Research Program in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia [CBT-I], for instance, is very good at reducing time awake at night. It won’t increase total sleep time, but it reduces time awake at night dramatically.”

According to the DSM-5, insomnia disorder is marked by dissatisfaction with sleep quality or quantity associated with at least one of the following: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, and early morning awakening. “Just getting up to pee five times a night is not insomnia,” he said. “Just taking an hour and a half to fall asleep at the beginning of the night is not insomnia. There has to be distress or dysfunction related to the sleep disturbance, for a minimum of three times per week for 3 months.”

Most sleep problems are transient, but 25%-30% last more than 1 year. The differential diagnosis for chronic insomnia includes primary psychiatric disorders, medications, substances, restless legs syndrome, sleep schedule disorders, and obstructive sleep apnea.

“In general, we do not order sleep studies in people with insomnia unless we suspect sleep apnea; it’s just a waste of time,” said Dr. Winkelman, who is also a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Indications for polysomnography include loud snoring plus one of the following: daytime sleepiness, witnessed apneas, or refractory hypertension. Other indications include abnormal behaviors or movements during sleep, unexplained excessive daytime sleepiness, and refractory sleep complaints, especially repetitive brief awakenings.

Many common cognitive and behavioral issues can produce or worsen insomnia, including inconsistent bedtimes and wake times. “That irregular schedule wreaks havoc with sleep,” he said. “It messes up the circadian rhythm. Also, homeostatic drive needs to build up: We need to be awake 16 or more hours in order to be sleepy. If people are sleeping until noon on Sundays and then trying to go to bed at their usual time, 10 or 11 at night, they’ve only been awake 10 or 11 hours. That’s why they’re going to have problems falling asleep. Also, a lot of people doze off after dinner in front of the TV. That doesn’t help.”

Spending excessive time in bed can also trigger or worsen insomnia. Dr. Winkelman recommends that people restrict their access to bed to the number of hours it is reasonable to sleep. “I see a lot of people in their 70s and 80s spending 10 hours in bed,” he said. “It doesn’t sound that crazy, but there is no way they’re going to get 10 hours of sleep. It’s physically impossible, so they spend 2 or 3 hours awake at night.” Clock-watching is another no-no. “In the middle of the night you wake up, look at the clock, and say to yourself: ‘Oh my god, I’ve been awake for 3 hours. I have 4 hours left. I need 7 hours. That means I need to go to sleep now!’ ”

An estimated 30%-40% of people with chronic insomnia have a psychiatric disorder. That means “you have to be thorough in your evaluation and act as if you’re doing a structured interview,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Ask about obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, et cetera, so that you understand the complete myriad of psychiatric illnesses, because psychiatric illnesses run in gangs. Comorbidity is generally the rule.”

The first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder is CBT-I, a multicomponent approach that includes time-in-bed restriction, stimulus control, cognitive therapy, relaxation therapy, and sleep hygiene. According to Dr. Winkelman, the cornerstone of CBT-I is time-in-bed restriction. “Many people with insomnia are spending 8.5 hours in bed to get 6.5 hours of sleep,” he said. “What you do is restrict access to bed to 6.5 hours; you initially sleep deprive them. Over the first few weeks, they hate you. After a few weeks when they start sleeping well, you start gradually increasing time in bed, but they rarely get back to the 8.5 hours in bed they were spending beforehand.”

Online CBT-I programs such as Sleepio can also be effective for improving sleep latency and wake after sleep onset, but not for total sleep time (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74[1]:68-75). “Not everybody responds to CBT; 50% don’t respond at a couple of months,” he said. “These are the people you need to think about medication for.”

Medications commonly used for chronic insomnia include benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BzRAs) – temazepam, eszopiclone, triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon are Food and Drug Administration approved – melatonin agonists, orexin antagonists, sedating antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and dopaminergic antagonists. “Each of the agents in these categories has somewhat similar mechanisms of action, and similar efficacy and contraindications,” Dr. Winkelman said. “The best way to divide the benzodiazepine receptor agonists is based on half-life. How long do you want drug on receptor in somebody with insomnia? Probably not much longer than 8 hours. Nevertheless, some psychiatrists love clonazepam, which has a 40-hour half-life. The circumstances under which clonazepam should be used for insomnia are small, such as in people with a daytime anxiety disorder.”

Consider trying triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon for patients who have problems falling asleep, he said, while oxazepam and eszopiclone are sensible options for people who have difficulty falling and staying asleep. Clinical response to BzRAs is common, yet only about half of people who have insomnia remit with one of these agents.

Dr. Winkelman said that patients and physicians often ask him whether BzRAs and other agents used as sleep aids are addictive. Abuse is identified when recurrent use causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems; disability; and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, home, or school. “These are concerns with BzRAs. Misuse and abuse generally occur in younger people. Once you get to 35 years old, misuse rates get very low. In older people, rates of side effects go up.

“Tolerance, physiological and psychological dependence, and nonmedical diversion are also of concern,” he said. However, for the majority of people, BzRA hypnotics are effective and safe.

As for other agents, meta-analyses have demonstrated that melatonin 1-3 mg can help people fall asleep when it’s not being endogenously released. “That’s during the day,” he said. “That might be most relevant for jet lag and for people doing shift work.” Two orexin antagonists on the market for insomnia include suvorexant and lemborexant 10-20 mg. Advantages of these include little abuse liability and few side effects. “In one head-to-head polysomnography study in the elderly, lemborexant was superior to zolpidem 6.25 mg CR on both objective and subjective ability to fall asleep and stay asleep,” Dr. Winkelman said. (JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2[12]:e1918254).

Antidepressants are another treatment option, including mirtazapine 15-30 mg, trazodone 25-100 mg, and amitriptyline and doxepin (10-50 mg). Advantages include little abuse liability, while potential drawbacks include daytime sedation, weight gain, and anticholinergic side effects. Meanwhile, atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine 25-100 mg have long been known to be helpful for sleep. “Advantages are that they’re anxiolytic, they’re mood stabilizing, and there is little abuse liability,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Drawbacks are that they’re probably less effective than BzRAs, they cause daytime sedation, weight gain, risks of extrapyramidal symptoms and glucose and lipid abnormalities.”

Dr. Winkelman said that he uses “a fair amount” of the anticonvulsant gabapentin as a second- or third-line hypnotic agent. “I usually start with 300 mg [at bedtime],” he added. “Drawbacks are that it’s probably less effective than BzRAs; it affects cognition; and can cause daytime sedation, dizziness, and weight gain. There are also concerns about abuse.”

Dr. Winkelman reported that he has received grant/research support from Merck, the RLS Foundation, and Luitpold Pharmaceuticals. He is also a consultant for Advance Medical, Avadel Pharmaceuticals, and UpToDate and is a member of the speakers’ bureau for Luitpold.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

LAS VEGAS – Clinicians should spend 1 hour with patients who present with a chief complaint of insomnia, rather than rushing to a treatment after a 10- to 15-minute office visit, according to John W. Winkelman, MD, PhD.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Why? Because sleep problems are usually multifactorial, involving psychiatric illness, sleep disorders, medical illness, medication, and poor sleep hygiene/stress,” he said at an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There are usually many contributing problems, and sleep quality is only as strong as the weakest link. Maybe you don’t have an hour [to meet with new patients], but you need to give adequate time, otherwise you’re not going to do justice to the problem.”

During that first visit, Dr. Winkelman recommends establishing and prioritizing goals with the patient. “Ask, ‘what is it that bothers you most about your insomnia? Is it the time awake at night, your total sleep time, or how you feel during the day?’ Because we’re going to use different approaches based on that chief complaint of the insomnia,” said Dr. Winkelman, chief of the Massachusetts General Sleep Disorders Clinical Research Program in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia [CBT-I], for instance, is very good at reducing time awake at night. It won’t increase total sleep time, but it reduces time awake at night dramatically.”

According to the DSM-5, insomnia disorder is marked by dissatisfaction with sleep quality or quantity associated with at least one of the following: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, and early morning awakening. “Just getting up to pee five times a night is not insomnia,” he said. “Just taking an hour and a half to fall asleep at the beginning of the night is not insomnia. There has to be distress or dysfunction related to the sleep disturbance, for a minimum of three times per week for 3 months.”

Most sleep problems are transient, but 25%-30% last more than 1 year. The differential diagnosis for chronic insomnia includes primary psychiatric disorders, medications, substances, restless legs syndrome, sleep schedule disorders, and obstructive sleep apnea.

“In general, we do not order sleep studies in people with insomnia unless we suspect sleep apnea; it’s just a waste of time,” said Dr. Winkelman, who is also a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Indications for polysomnography include loud snoring plus one of the following: daytime sleepiness, witnessed apneas, or refractory hypertension. Other indications include abnormal behaviors or movements during sleep, unexplained excessive daytime sleepiness, and refractory sleep complaints, especially repetitive brief awakenings.

Many common cognitive and behavioral issues can produce or worsen insomnia, including inconsistent bedtimes and wake times. “That irregular schedule wreaks havoc with sleep,” he said. “It messes up the circadian rhythm. Also, homeostatic drive needs to build up: We need to be awake 16 or more hours in order to be sleepy. If people are sleeping until noon on Sundays and then trying to go to bed at their usual time, 10 or 11 at night, they’ve only been awake 10 or 11 hours. That’s why they’re going to have problems falling asleep. Also, a lot of people doze off after dinner in front of the TV. That doesn’t help.”

Spending excessive time in bed can also trigger or worsen insomnia. Dr. Winkelman recommends that people restrict their access to bed to the number of hours it is reasonable to sleep. “I see a lot of people in their 70s and 80s spending 10 hours in bed,” he said. “It doesn’t sound that crazy, but there is no way they’re going to get 10 hours of sleep. It’s physically impossible, so they spend 2 or 3 hours awake at night.” Clock-watching is another no-no. “In the middle of the night you wake up, look at the clock, and say to yourself: ‘Oh my god, I’ve been awake for 3 hours. I have 4 hours left. I need 7 hours. That means I need to go to sleep now!’ ”

An estimated 30%-40% of people with chronic insomnia have a psychiatric disorder. That means “you have to be thorough in your evaluation and act as if you’re doing a structured interview,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Ask about obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, et cetera, so that you understand the complete myriad of psychiatric illnesses, because psychiatric illnesses run in gangs. Comorbidity is generally the rule.”

The first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder is CBT-I, a multicomponent approach that includes time-in-bed restriction, stimulus control, cognitive therapy, relaxation therapy, and sleep hygiene. According to Dr. Winkelman, the cornerstone of CBT-I is time-in-bed restriction. “Many people with insomnia are spending 8.5 hours in bed to get 6.5 hours of sleep,” he said. “What you do is restrict access to bed to 6.5 hours; you initially sleep deprive them. Over the first few weeks, they hate you. After a few weeks when they start sleeping well, you start gradually increasing time in bed, but they rarely get back to the 8.5 hours in bed they were spending beforehand.”

Online CBT-I programs such as Sleepio can also be effective for improving sleep latency and wake after sleep onset, but not for total sleep time (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74[1]:68-75). “Not everybody responds to CBT; 50% don’t respond at a couple of months,” he said. “These are the people you need to think about medication for.”

Medications commonly used for chronic insomnia include benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BzRAs) – temazepam, eszopiclone, triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon are Food and Drug Administration approved – melatonin agonists, orexin antagonists, sedating antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and dopaminergic antagonists. “Each of the agents in these categories has somewhat similar mechanisms of action, and similar efficacy and contraindications,” Dr. Winkelman said. “The best way to divide the benzodiazepine receptor agonists is based on half-life. How long do you want drug on receptor in somebody with insomnia? Probably not much longer than 8 hours. Nevertheless, some psychiatrists love clonazepam, which has a 40-hour half-life. The circumstances under which clonazepam should be used for insomnia are small, such as in people with a daytime anxiety disorder.”

Consider trying triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon for patients who have problems falling asleep, he said, while oxazepam and eszopiclone are sensible options for people who have difficulty falling and staying asleep. Clinical response to BzRAs is common, yet only about half of people who have insomnia remit with one of these agents.

Dr. Winkelman said that patients and physicians often ask him whether BzRAs and other agents used as sleep aids are addictive. Abuse is identified when recurrent use causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems; disability; and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, home, or school. “These are concerns with BzRAs. Misuse and abuse generally occur in younger people. Once you get to 35 years old, misuse rates get very low. In older people, rates of side effects go up.

“Tolerance, physiological and psychological dependence, and nonmedical diversion are also of concern,” he said. However, for the majority of people, BzRA hypnotics are effective and safe.

As for other agents, meta-analyses have demonstrated that melatonin 1-3 mg can help people fall asleep when it’s not being endogenously released. “That’s during the day,” he said. “That might be most relevant for jet lag and for people doing shift work.” Two orexin antagonists on the market for insomnia include suvorexant and lemborexant 10-20 mg. Advantages of these include little abuse liability and few side effects. “In one head-to-head polysomnography study in the elderly, lemborexant was superior to zolpidem 6.25 mg CR on both objective and subjective ability to fall asleep and stay asleep,” Dr. Winkelman said. (JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2[12]:e1918254).

Antidepressants are another treatment option, including mirtazapine 15-30 mg, trazodone 25-100 mg, and amitriptyline and doxepin (10-50 mg). Advantages include little abuse liability, while potential drawbacks include daytime sedation, weight gain, and anticholinergic side effects. Meanwhile, atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine 25-100 mg have long been known to be helpful for sleep. “Advantages are that they’re anxiolytic, they’re mood stabilizing, and there is little abuse liability,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Drawbacks are that they’re probably less effective than BzRAs, they cause daytime sedation, weight gain, risks of extrapyramidal symptoms and glucose and lipid abnormalities.”

Dr. Winkelman said that he uses “a fair amount” of the anticonvulsant gabapentin as a second- or third-line hypnotic agent. “I usually start with 300 mg [at bedtime],” he added. “Drawbacks are that it’s probably less effective than BzRAs; it affects cognition; and can cause daytime sedation, dizziness, and weight gain. There are also concerns about abuse.”

Dr. Winkelman reported that he has received grant/research support from Merck, the RLS Foundation, and Luitpold Pharmaceuticals. He is also a consultant for Advance Medical, Avadel Pharmaceuticals, and UpToDate and is a member of the speakers’ bureau for Luitpold.

dbrunk@mdedge.com