MDedge Neurology

LOS ANGELES – Endovascular therapy significantly improved functional outcomes and reduced mortality at 90 days, compared with standard thrombolysis alone, new evidence from a large, prospective registry study suggests.

Participants who received both interventions were almost five times more likely to be able to walk independently at 90 days compared with those who received thrombolysis alone.

Despite multiple trials supporting the potential benefits of endovascular therapy for anterior stroke, little prospective research addresses outcomes associated with an ischemic stroke caused by a posterior basilar artery occlusion (BAO).

“Basilar artery occlusion is the ‘orphan’ of the large vessel occlusions,” Raul Gomes Nogueira, MD, PhD, said here at a late-breaking abstract session at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

“They account for about 5% of the large vessel occlusions – but have the most dismal prognosis.” Severe disability and mortality rates associated with BAO, for example, reach an estimated 68% to 78%, he said.

The results, from the EVT for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study (BASILAR), were also simultaneously published in JAMA Neurology.

Prior studies in this patient population are generally single-center, retrospective studies and “the numbers tend to be small,” said Nogueira, who is affiliated with the Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center, Grady Memorial Hospital, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Nogueira and colleagues studied 829 consecutive adults who presented with an acute, symptomatic BAO. They examined a nationwide prospective registry study of people with radiologically confirmed BAO in 47 comprehensive stroke centers across 15 provinces in China.

The median age was 65 years and 74% were men. A total 182 participants received thrombolysis therapy within 6 hours of estimated BAO onset. The 647 people in the dual intervention group also received endovascular therapy within 24 hours.

Standard medical treatment included intravenous rt-PA or urokinase, antiplatelet drugs and systematic anticoagulation alone or in combination. Endovascular therapy included mechanical thrombectomy with stent retrievers and/or thromboaspiration, balloon angioplasty, stenting, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of these interventions.

Interestingly, participants were not randomly assigned, in part because of the favorable outcomes associated with endovascular therapy. “The high number of patients who received [the dual intervention] may suggest the existence of a lack of equipoise among participating centers,” the researchers note.

Key Efficacy Endpoints

A significantly higher proportion of people in the dual treatment group achieved the primary outcome, functional improvement at 90 days, at 32%, compared with 9.3% in the thrombolysis-only group. This endpoint was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 3 or less, which reflects an ability to walk independently. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

The absolute difference between groups was 22.7% (95% confidence interval, 17.1%-28.2%) with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.70 (95% CI, 2.53-8.75; P < .001) in favor of dual intervention.

The number needed to treat for one additional patient to be able to walk unassisted was 4.4.

Other outcomes, including differences in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to 5 to 7 days or discharge, as well as propensity score matching and subgroup analyses, likewise supported the superiority of using both interventions.
 

Safety Outcomes

Nogueira and colleagues also assessed safety. They found that symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) occurred in 45 patients, or 7.1% of the endovascular treatment group. In contrast, only one patient, or 0.5%, of the standard medical treatment alone cohort experienced an ICH. This difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

Mortality at 90 days was significantly lower in the endovascular therapy plus medical therapy group, 46.2%, compared with 71.4% in the standard medical treatment alone group (P < .001).

The absolute difference in mortality was 25.2% (95% CI, 17.6%-2.8%) favoring dual treatment, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.93 (95% CI, 1.95-4.40; P < .001).

Rates of other serious adverse events during the 90-day follow-up period were similar in the two study groups, Nogueira said.

He acknowledged that the nonrandomized design was a limitation of the registry study, adding that “sometimes in life it’s important to acknowledge the best of what can be done. It’s very hard when you have access to thrombectomy to randomize people.”

However, other researchers have attempted or are enrolling people with BAO into trials that randomly assign them to endovascular therapy and standard medical treatment or medical treatment alone.

The BEST trial in China, for example, randomly assigned 131 patients to these groups but was stopped early in September 2017. “The BEST trial was terminated prematurely because of loss of equipoise that led to a high crossover rate and drop in valid recruitment,” the current researchers note.

“The other two trials…are facing the challenge of whether they will achieve their inclusion target,” they add, “because a growing number of stroke centers are unwilling to randomize patients to standard medical treatment alone after the many positive results of trials for endovascular treatment in patients with anterior-circulation stroke.”

The BAOCHE trial from China, for example, is ongoing with approximately 110 patients enrolled so far.

Investigators for the Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS) in the Netherlands just completed enrollment of their 300th and final patient in December 2019.

“We are hopeful BASICS trial will shed additional light,” Nogueira said. The results are expected to be presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference in Vienna in May 2020.
 

More Guidance From MRI?

“With the advent of the stent retrievers and successful recanalization, we know there can be better outcomes for patients. And we know the morbidity and mortality of the basilar artery occlusions are so poor that we tend to want to be aggressive in these cases,” session comoderator Shlee S. Song, MD, director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center and associate professor of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

“I agree that we’ve lost equipoise in this cohort – that we really cannot do a randomized trial anymore. You know if you don’t do anything, 90% of the time there will be a poor outcome,” she added.

This is an important study for showing how BAO patients fare after endovascular treatment, Song said.

One unanswered question from the study is if any of the centers in China used magnetic resonance imaging to help determine the most appropriate candidates for endovascular treatment of these posterior circulation strokes, which is a common practice in the United States, she said.

The study was supported by the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, Chongqing Major Disease Prevention and Control Technology Research Project, Army Medical University Clinical Medical Research Talent Training Program, and Major Clinical Innovation Technology Project of the Second Affiliated Hospital of the Army Military Medical University. Sing had no relevant disclosures. Nogueira’s financial disclosures include working as a consultant for Stryker Neurovascular; as a principal investigator on the Imperative trial and the PROST trial; as a steering committee member for Biogen for the CHARM trial; as an advisory board member for Cerenovus/Neuravi, Phenox, Anaconda, Genentech, Biogen, Prolong Pharmaceuticals and Brainomix; and as an advisory board member with stock options for Viz.ai, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Ceretrieve, Astrocyte Pharmaceuticals, and Cerebrotech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 17.

LOS ANGELES – Endovascular therapy significantly improved functional outcomes and reduced mortality at 90 days, compared with standard thrombolysis alone, new evidence from a large, prospective registry study suggests.

Participants who received both interventions were almost five times more likely to be able to walk independently at 90 days compared with those who received thrombolysis alone.

Despite multiple trials supporting the potential benefits of endovascular therapy for anterior stroke, little prospective research addresses outcomes associated with an ischemic stroke caused by a posterior basilar artery occlusion (BAO).

“Basilar artery occlusion is the ‘orphan’ of the large vessel occlusions,” Raul Gomes Nogueira, MD, PhD, said here at a late-breaking abstract session at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

“They account for about 5% of the large vessel occlusions – but have the most dismal prognosis.” Severe disability and mortality rates associated with BAO, for example, reach an estimated 68% to 78%, he said.

The results, from the EVT for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study (BASILAR), were also simultaneously published in JAMA Neurology.

Prior studies in this patient population are generally single-center, retrospective studies and “the numbers tend to be small,” said Nogueira, who is affiliated with the Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center, Grady Memorial Hospital, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Nogueira and colleagues studied 829 consecutive adults who presented with an acute, symptomatic BAO. They examined a nationwide prospective registry study of people with radiologically confirmed BAO in 47 comprehensive stroke centers across 15 provinces in China.

The median age was 65 years and 74% were men. A total 182 participants received thrombolysis therapy within 6 hours of estimated BAO onset. The 647 people in the dual intervention group also received endovascular therapy within 24 hours.

Standard medical treatment included intravenous rt-PA or urokinase, antiplatelet drugs and systematic anticoagulation alone or in combination. Endovascular therapy included mechanical thrombectomy with stent retrievers and/or thromboaspiration, balloon angioplasty, stenting, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of these interventions.

Interestingly, participants were not randomly assigned, in part because of the favorable outcomes associated with endovascular therapy. “The high number of patients who received [the dual intervention] may suggest the existence of a lack of equipoise among participating centers,” the researchers note.

Key Efficacy Endpoints

A significantly higher proportion of people in the dual treatment group achieved the primary outcome, functional improvement at 90 days, at 32%, compared with 9.3% in the thrombolysis-only group. This endpoint was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 3 or less, which reflects an ability to walk independently. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

The absolute difference between groups was 22.7% (95% confidence interval, 17.1%-28.2%) with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.70 (95% CI, 2.53-8.75; P < .001) in favor of dual intervention.

The number needed to treat for one additional patient to be able to walk unassisted was 4.4.

Other outcomes, including differences in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to 5 to 7 days or discharge, as well as propensity score matching and subgroup analyses, likewise supported the superiority of using both interventions.
 

Safety Outcomes

Nogueira and colleagues also assessed safety. They found that symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) occurred in 45 patients, or 7.1% of the endovascular treatment group. In contrast, only one patient, or 0.5%, of the standard medical treatment alone cohort experienced an ICH. This difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

Mortality at 90 days was significantly lower in the endovascular therapy plus medical therapy group, 46.2%, compared with 71.4% in the standard medical treatment alone group (P < .001).

The absolute difference in mortality was 25.2% (95% CI, 17.6%-2.8%) favoring dual treatment, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.93 (95% CI, 1.95-4.40; P < .001).

Rates of other serious adverse events during the 90-day follow-up period were similar in the two study groups, Nogueira said.

He acknowledged that the nonrandomized design was a limitation of the registry study, adding that “sometimes in life it’s important to acknowledge the best of what can be done. It’s very hard when you have access to thrombectomy to randomize people.”

However, other researchers have attempted or are enrolling people with BAO into trials that randomly assign them to endovascular therapy and standard medical treatment or medical treatment alone.

The BEST trial in China, for example, randomly assigned 131 patients to these groups but was stopped early in September 2017. “The BEST trial was terminated prematurely because of loss of equipoise that led to a high crossover rate and drop in valid recruitment,” the current researchers note.

“The other two trials…are facing the challenge of whether they will achieve their inclusion target,” they add, “because a growing number of stroke centers are unwilling to randomize patients to standard medical treatment alone after the many positive results of trials for endovascular treatment in patients with anterior-circulation stroke.”

The BAOCHE trial from China, for example, is ongoing with approximately 110 patients enrolled so far.

Investigators for the Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS) in the Netherlands just completed enrollment of their 300th and final patient in December 2019.

“We are hopeful BASICS trial will shed additional light,” Nogueira said. The results are expected to be presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference in Vienna in May 2020.
 

More Guidance From MRI?

“With the advent of the stent retrievers and successful recanalization, we know there can be better outcomes for patients. And we know the morbidity and mortality of the basilar artery occlusions are so poor that we tend to want to be aggressive in these cases,” session comoderator Shlee S. Song, MD, director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center and associate professor of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

“I agree that we’ve lost equipoise in this cohort – that we really cannot do a randomized trial anymore. You know if you don’t do anything, 90% of the time there will be a poor outcome,” she added.

This is an important study for showing how BAO patients fare after endovascular treatment, Song said.

One unanswered question from the study is if any of the centers in China used magnetic resonance imaging to help determine the most appropriate candidates for endovascular treatment of these posterior circulation strokes, which is a common practice in the United States, she said.

The study was supported by the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, Chongqing Major Disease Prevention and Control Technology Research Project, Army Medical University Clinical Medical Research Talent Training Program, and Major Clinical Innovation Technology Project of the Second Affiliated Hospital of the Army Military Medical University. Sing had no relevant disclosures. Nogueira’s financial disclosures include working as a consultant for Stryker Neurovascular; as a principal investigator on the Imperative trial and the PROST trial; as a steering committee member for Biogen for the CHARM trial; as an advisory board member for Cerenovus/Neuravi, Phenox, Anaconda, Genentech, Biogen, Prolong Pharmaceuticals and Brainomix; and as an advisory board member with stock options for Viz.ai, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Ceretrieve, Astrocyte Pharmaceuticals, and Cerebrotech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 17.

LOS ANGELES – Endovascular therapy significantly improved functional outcomes and reduced mortality at 90 days, compared with standard thrombolysis alone, new evidence from a large, prospective registry study suggests.

Participants who received both interventions were almost five times more likely to be able to walk independently at 90 days compared with those who received thrombolysis alone.

Despite multiple trials supporting the potential benefits of endovascular therapy for anterior stroke, little prospective research addresses outcomes associated with an ischemic stroke caused by a posterior basilar artery occlusion (BAO).

“Basilar artery occlusion is the ‘orphan’ of the large vessel occlusions,” Raul Gomes Nogueira, MD, PhD, said here at a late-breaking abstract session at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

“They account for about 5% of the large vessel occlusions – but have the most dismal prognosis.” Severe disability and mortality rates associated with BAO, for example, reach an estimated 68% to 78%, he said.

The results, from the EVT for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study (BASILAR), were also simultaneously published in JAMA Neurology.

Prior studies in this patient population are generally single-center, retrospective studies and “the numbers tend to be small,” said Nogueira, who is affiliated with the Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center, Grady Memorial Hospital, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Nogueira and colleagues studied 829 consecutive adults who presented with an acute, symptomatic BAO. They examined a nationwide prospective registry study of people with radiologically confirmed BAO in 47 comprehensive stroke centers across 15 provinces in China.

The median age was 65 years and 74% were men. A total 182 participants received thrombolysis therapy within 6 hours of estimated BAO onset. The 647 people in the dual intervention group also received endovascular therapy within 24 hours.

Standard medical treatment included intravenous rt-PA or urokinase, antiplatelet drugs and systematic anticoagulation alone or in combination. Endovascular therapy included mechanical thrombectomy with stent retrievers and/or thromboaspiration, balloon angioplasty, stenting, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of these interventions.

Interestingly, participants were not randomly assigned, in part because of the favorable outcomes associated with endovascular therapy. “The high number of patients who received [the dual intervention] may suggest the existence of a lack of equipoise among participating centers,” the researchers note.

Key Efficacy Endpoints

A significantly higher proportion of people in the dual treatment group achieved the primary outcome, functional improvement at 90 days, at 32%, compared with 9.3% in the thrombolysis-only group. This endpoint was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 3 or less, which reflects an ability to walk independently. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

The absolute difference between groups was 22.7% (95% confidence interval, 17.1%-28.2%) with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.70 (95% CI, 2.53-8.75; P < .001) in favor of dual intervention.

The number needed to treat for one additional patient to be able to walk unassisted was 4.4.

Other outcomes, including differences in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to 5 to 7 days or discharge, as well as propensity score matching and subgroup analyses, likewise supported the superiority of using both interventions.
 

Safety Outcomes

Nogueira and colleagues also assessed safety. They found that symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) occurred in 45 patients, or 7.1% of the endovascular treatment group. In contrast, only one patient, or 0.5%, of the standard medical treatment alone cohort experienced an ICH. This difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

Mortality at 90 days was significantly lower in the endovascular therapy plus medical therapy group, 46.2%, compared with 71.4% in the standard medical treatment alone group (P < .001).

The absolute difference in mortality was 25.2% (95% CI, 17.6%-2.8%) favoring dual treatment, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.93 (95% CI, 1.95-4.40; P < .001).

Rates of other serious adverse events during the 90-day follow-up period were similar in the two study groups, Nogueira said.

He acknowledged that the nonrandomized design was a limitation of the registry study, adding that “sometimes in life it’s important to acknowledge the best of what can be done. It’s very hard when you have access to thrombectomy to randomize people.”

However, other researchers have attempted or are enrolling people with BAO into trials that randomly assign them to endovascular therapy and standard medical treatment or medical treatment alone.

The BEST trial in China, for example, randomly assigned 131 patients to these groups but was stopped early in September 2017. “The BEST trial was terminated prematurely because of loss of equipoise that led to a high crossover rate and drop in valid recruitment,” the current researchers note.

“The other two trials…are facing the challenge of whether they will achieve their inclusion target,” they add, “because a growing number of stroke centers are unwilling to randomize patients to standard medical treatment alone after the many positive results of trials for endovascular treatment in patients with anterior-circulation stroke.”

The BAOCHE trial from China, for example, is ongoing with approximately 110 patients enrolled so far.

Investigators for the Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS) in the Netherlands just completed enrollment of their 300th and final patient in December 2019.

“We are hopeful BASICS trial will shed additional light,” Nogueira said. The results are expected to be presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference in Vienna in May 2020.
 

More Guidance From MRI?

“With the advent of the stent retrievers and successful recanalization, we know there can be better outcomes for patients. And we know the morbidity and mortality of the basilar artery occlusions are so poor that we tend to want to be aggressive in these cases,” session comoderator Shlee S. Song, MD, director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center and associate professor of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

“I agree that we’ve lost equipoise in this cohort – that we really cannot do a randomized trial anymore. You know if you don’t do anything, 90% of the time there will be a poor outcome,” she added.

This is an important study for showing how BAO patients fare after endovascular treatment, Song said.

One unanswered question from the study is if any of the centers in China used magnetic resonance imaging to help determine the most appropriate candidates for endovascular treatment of these posterior circulation strokes, which is a common practice in the United States, she said.

The study was supported by the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, Chongqing Major Disease Prevention and Control Technology Research Project, Army Medical University Clinical Medical Research Talent Training Program, and Major Clinical Innovation Technology Project of the Second Affiliated Hospital of the Army Military Medical University. Sing had no relevant disclosures. Nogueira’s financial disclosures include working as a consultant for Stryker Neurovascular; as a principal investigator on the Imperative trial and the PROST trial; as a steering committee member for Biogen for the CHARM trial; as an advisory board member for Cerenovus/Neuravi, Phenox, Anaconda, Genentech, Biogen, Prolong Pharmaceuticals and Brainomix; and as an advisory board member with stock options for Viz.ai, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Ceretrieve, Astrocyte Pharmaceuticals, and Cerebrotech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 17.

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

agallegos@mdedge.com

Neurologists reported being the least happy specialty at work in the Medscape Neurologist Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report 2020. Most reported they did not plan to seek help for their depression and/or burnout, and nearly half said they wouldn’t even participate in a workplace program.

The report found that only 18% of neurologists were very happy at work, and 41% overall identified themselves as burned out. Among reasons for burnout, 61% reported mounting bureaucratic tasks as their top reason, with 40% listing spending too many hours at work.

Coping strategies varied, with isolation from others topping the list at 46%, followed by talking with close friends and family and exercise tied at 40%.

Less than half (46%) claimed there was no impact on patients, but most (65%) don’t intend to seek professional help for depression and/or burnout and haven’t done so in the past. Similarly, 48% reported it’s unlikely they’d participate in a workplace program – in fact, only 33% said they would.

A slideshow laying out the findings in the report is available on Medscape.
 

A closer look at the numbers

Over 15,000 physicians across 29 specialties completed the 10-minute survey in the summer of 2019; 62% were men and most of the group were Baby Boomers (ages 55-73), then Generation X (ages 40-54), and lastly Millennials (ages 25-39). Of the specialties surveyed, neurologists scored lowest in the happiness-at-work category, with only 18% saying they were happy. Neurologists also scored lowest in happiness outside of work (44%). Half the neurologists surveyed said they were burned out, which was slightly more than the surveyed group of physicians in general. The biggest contributors to burnout were bureaucratic tasks, too many hours at work, and lack of control. Most coped by isolating themselves, talking with family members or friends, exercising and sleep. About 65% did not seek help for burnout or depression. The main reasons were being too busy, preferring to deal with it themselves, or feeling that the problem was not significant enough to warrant intervention.

A majority of the neurologists surveyed (70%-80%) are married and 85% say they have a good marriage. Almost half of neurologists take 3-4 weeks of vacation and a third take 1-2 weeks. Neurologists surveyed drive mostly Hondas and Toyotas; 4% drive Teslas and 3% drive Porsches. One third of neurologists exercise two to three times per week and 10% exercise daily. Only 20% have a drink more than four times per week.
 

Looking for solutions

“It is a bit distressing to see how many neurologists are unhappy at work and unhappy even outside of work,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles. Many neurologists claim to be burned out and a small percent report depression. Most do not seek help, do not take care of themselves well enough, and do not vacation or exercise enough, added Dr. Rapoport, who also is a past president of the International Headache Society and is editor in chief of Neurology Reviews.

Dr. Rapoport believes that some studies about this situation should be done by the American Academy of Neurology and other subspecialty organizations (for example, the American Headache Society), and results should be published in the neurology and subspecialty journals. Further work in this area should include suggestions for rectifying the situation and encouraging neurologists to seek help and improve their lifestyle. “I think that one of the ways that headache specialists have avoided burnout and depression is by focusing on one subspecialty area and engaging in different types of activities, such as seeing patients in the office and hospital, giving lectures, traveling to meetings, writing papers, and balancing their professional and personal lives. It appears that we need help as a profession, and we had better help ourselves to get it.”

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Neurologists reported being the least happy specialty at work in the Medscape Neurologist Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report 2020. Most reported they did not plan to seek help for their depression and/or burnout, and nearly half said they wouldn’t even participate in a workplace program.

The report found that only 18% of neurologists were very happy at work, and 41% overall identified themselves as burned out. Among reasons for burnout, 61% reported mounting bureaucratic tasks as their top reason, with 40% listing spending too many hours at work.

Coping strategies varied, with isolation from others topping the list at 46%, followed by talking with close friends and family and exercise tied at 40%.

Less than half (46%) claimed there was no impact on patients, but most (65%) don’t intend to seek professional help for depression and/or burnout and haven’t done so in the past. Similarly, 48% reported it’s unlikely they’d participate in a workplace program – in fact, only 33% said they would.

A slideshow laying out the findings in the report is available on Medscape.
 

A closer look at the numbers

Over 15,000 physicians across 29 specialties completed the 10-minute survey in the summer of 2019; 62% were men and most of the group were Baby Boomers (ages 55-73), then Generation X (ages 40-54), and lastly Millennials (ages 25-39). Of the specialties surveyed, neurologists scored lowest in the happiness-at-work category, with only 18% saying they were happy. Neurologists also scored lowest in happiness outside of work (44%). Half the neurologists surveyed said they were burned out, which was slightly more than the surveyed group of physicians in general. The biggest contributors to burnout were bureaucratic tasks, too many hours at work, and lack of control. Most coped by isolating themselves, talking with family members or friends, exercising and sleep. About 65% did not seek help for burnout or depression. The main reasons were being too busy, preferring to deal with it themselves, or feeling that the problem was not significant enough to warrant intervention.

A majority of the neurologists surveyed (70%-80%) are married and 85% say they have a good marriage. Almost half of neurologists take 3-4 weeks of vacation and a third take 1-2 weeks. Neurologists surveyed drive mostly Hondas and Toyotas; 4% drive Teslas and 3% drive Porsches. One third of neurologists exercise two to three times per week and 10% exercise daily. Only 20% have a drink more than four times per week.
 

Looking for solutions

“It is a bit distressing to see how many neurologists are unhappy at work and unhappy even outside of work,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles. Many neurologists claim to be burned out and a small percent report depression. Most do not seek help, do not take care of themselves well enough, and do not vacation or exercise enough, added Dr. Rapoport, who also is a past president of the International Headache Society and is editor in chief of Neurology Reviews.

Dr. Rapoport believes that some studies about this situation should be done by the American Academy of Neurology and other subspecialty organizations (for example, the American Headache Society), and results should be published in the neurology and subspecialty journals. Further work in this area should include suggestions for rectifying the situation and encouraging neurologists to seek help and improve their lifestyle. “I think that one of the ways that headache specialists have avoided burnout and depression is by focusing on one subspecialty area and engaging in different types of activities, such as seeing patients in the office and hospital, giving lectures, traveling to meetings, writing papers, and balancing their professional and personal lives. It appears that we need help as a profession, and we had better help ourselves to get it.”

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Neurologists reported being the least happy specialty at work in the Medscape Neurologist Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report 2020. Most reported they did not plan to seek help for their depression and/or burnout, and nearly half said they wouldn’t even participate in a workplace program.

The report found that only 18% of neurologists were very happy at work, and 41% overall identified themselves as burned out. Among reasons for burnout, 61% reported mounting bureaucratic tasks as their top reason, with 40% listing spending too many hours at work.

Coping strategies varied, with isolation from others topping the list at 46%, followed by talking with close friends and family and exercise tied at 40%.

Less than half (46%) claimed there was no impact on patients, but most (65%) don’t intend to seek professional help for depression and/or burnout and haven’t done so in the past. Similarly, 48% reported it’s unlikely they’d participate in a workplace program – in fact, only 33% said they would.

A slideshow laying out the findings in the report is available on Medscape.
 

A closer look at the numbers

Over 15,000 physicians across 29 specialties completed the 10-minute survey in the summer of 2019; 62% were men and most of the group were Baby Boomers (ages 55-73), then Generation X (ages 40-54), and lastly Millennials (ages 25-39). Of the specialties surveyed, neurologists scored lowest in the happiness-at-work category, with only 18% saying they were happy. Neurologists also scored lowest in happiness outside of work (44%). Half the neurologists surveyed said they were burned out, which was slightly more than the surveyed group of physicians in general. The biggest contributors to burnout were bureaucratic tasks, too many hours at work, and lack of control. Most coped by isolating themselves, talking with family members or friends, exercising and sleep. About 65% did not seek help for burnout or depression. The main reasons were being too busy, preferring to deal with it themselves, or feeling that the problem was not significant enough to warrant intervention.

A majority of the neurologists surveyed (70%-80%) are married and 85% say they have a good marriage. Almost half of neurologists take 3-4 weeks of vacation and a third take 1-2 weeks. Neurologists surveyed drive mostly Hondas and Toyotas; 4% drive Teslas and 3% drive Porsches. One third of neurologists exercise two to three times per week and 10% exercise daily. Only 20% have a drink more than four times per week.
 

Looking for solutions

“It is a bit distressing to see how many neurologists are unhappy at work and unhappy even outside of work,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles. Many neurologists claim to be burned out and a small percent report depression. Most do not seek help, do not take care of themselves well enough, and do not vacation or exercise enough, added Dr. Rapoport, who also is a past president of the International Headache Society and is editor in chief of Neurology Reviews.

Dr. Rapoport believes that some studies about this situation should be done by the American Academy of Neurology and other subspecialty organizations (for example, the American Headache Society), and results should be published in the neurology and subspecialty journals. Further work in this area should include suggestions for rectifying the situation and encouraging neurologists to seek help and improve their lifestyle. “I think that one of the ways that headache specialists have avoided burnout and depression is by focusing on one subspecialty area and engaging in different types of activities, such as seeing patients in the office and hospital, giving lectures, traveling to meetings, writing papers, and balancing their professional and personal lives. It appears that we need help as a profession, and we had better help ourselves to get it.”

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has deemed the current evidence “insufficient” to make a recommendation in regard to screening for cognitive impairment in adults aged 65 years or older.

“More research is needed on the effect of screening and early detection of cognitive impairment on important patient, caregiver, and societal outcomes, including decision making, advance planning, and caregiver outcomes,” wrote lead author Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and fellow members of the task force. The statement was published in JAMA.

To update a 2014 recommendation from the USPSTF, which also found insufficient evidence to properly assess cognitive screening’s benefits and harms, the task force commissioned a systematic review of studies applicable to community-dwelling older adults who are not exhibiting signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment. For their statement, “cognitive impairment” is defined as mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia.

Ultimately, they determined several factors that limited the overall evidence, including the short duration of most trials and the heterogenous nature of interventions and inconsistencies in outcomes reported. Any evidence that suggested improvements was mostly applicable to patients with moderate dementia, meaning “its applicability to a screen-detected population is uncertain.”
 

Updating 2014 recommendations

Their statement was based on an evidence report, also published in JAMA, in which a team of researchers reviewed 287 studies that included more than 285,000 older adults; 92 of the studies were newly identified, while the other 195 were carried forward from the 2014 recommendation’s review. The researchers sought the answers to five key questions, carrying over the framework from the previous review.

“Despite the accumulation of new data, the conclusions for these key questions are essentially unchanged from the prior review,” wrote lead author Carrie D. Patnode, PhD, of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and coauthors.

Of the questions – which concerned the accuracy of screening instruments; the harms of screening; the harms of interventions; and if screening or interventions improved decision making or outcomes for the patient, family/caregiver, or society – moderate evidence was found to support the accuracy of the instruments, treatment with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for patients with moderate dementia, and psychoeducation interventions for caregivers of patients with moderate dementia. At the same time, there was moderate evidence of adverse effects from acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with moderate dementia.

“I think, eventually, there will be sufficient evidence to justify screening, once we have what I call a tiered approach,” Marwan Sabbagh, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas, said in an interview. “The very near future will include blood tests for Alzheimer’s, or PET scans, or genetics, or something else. Right now, the cognitive screens lack the specificity and sensitivity, and the secondary screening infrastructure that would improve the accuracy doesn’t exist yet.

“I think this is a ‘not now,’ ” he added, “but I wouldn’t say ‘not ever.’ ”

Dr. Patnode and coauthors noted specific limitations in the evidence, including a lack of studies on how screening for and treating cognitive impairment affects decision making. In addition, details like quality of life and institutionalization were inconsistently reported, and “consistent and standardized reporting of results according to meaningful thresholds of clinical significance” would have been valuable across all measures.
 

Clinical implications

The implications of this report’s conclusions are substantial, especially as the rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and dementia becomes a worldwide concern, wrote Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the data does not explicitly support screening, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe noted that it still may have benefits. An estimated 10% of cognitive impairment is caused by at least somewhat reversible causes, and screening could also be used to improve care in medical problems that are worsened by cognitive impairment. To find the true value of these efforts, they wrote, researchers need to design and execute additional clinical trials that “answer many of the important questions surrounding screening and treatment of cognitive impairment.”

“The absence of evidence for benefit may lead to inaction,” they added, noting that clinicians screening should still consider the value of screening on a case-by-case basis in order to keep up with the impact of new disease-modifying therapies for certain neurodegenerative diseases.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in meetings. One member reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The study was funded by the Department of Health & Human Services. One of the authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe reported consulting for, and receiving funding from, various pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and government organizations.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0435; Patnode CD et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22258.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has deemed the current evidence “insufficient” to make a recommendation in regard to screening for cognitive impairment in adults aged 65 years or older.

“More research is needed on the effect of screening and early detection of cognitive impairment on important patient, caregiver, and societal outcomes, including decision making, advance planning, and caregiver outcomes,” wrote lead author Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and fellow members of the task force. The statement was published in JAMA.

To update a 2014 recommendation from the USPSTF, which also found insufficient evidence to properly assess cognitive screening’s benefits and harms, the task force commissioned a systematic review of studies applicable to community-dwelling older adults who are not exhibiting signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment. For their statement, “cognitive impairment” is defined as mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia.

Ultimately, they determined several factors that limited the overall evidence, including the short duration of most trials and the heterogenous nature of interventions and inconsistencies in outcomes reported. Any evidence that suggested improvements was mostly applicable to patients with moderate dementia, meaning “its applicability to a screen-detected population is uncertain.”
 

Updating 2014 recommendations

Their statement was based on an evidence report, also published in JAMA, in which a team of researchers reviewed 287 studies that included more than 285,000 older adults; 92 of the studies were newly identified, while the other 195 were carried forward from the 2014 recommendation’s review. The researchers sought the answers to five key questions, carrying over the framework from the previous review.

“Despite the accumulation of new data, the conclusions for these key questions are essentially unchanged from the prior review,” wrote lead author Carrie D. Patnode, PhD, of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and coauthors.

Of the questions – which concerned the accuracy of screening instruments; the harms of screening; the harms of interventions; and if screening or interventions improved decision making or outcomes for the patient, family/caregiver, or society – moderate evidence was found to support the accuracy of the instruments, treatment with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for patients with moderate dementia, and psychoeducation interventions for caregivers of patients with moderate dementia. At the same time, there was moderate evidence of adverse effects from acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with moderate dementia.

“I think, eventually, there will be sufficient evidence to justify screening, once we have what I call a tiered approach,” Marwan Sabbagh, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas, said in an interview. “The very near future will include blood tests for Alzheimer’s, or PET scans, or genetics, or something else. Right now, the cognitive screens lack the specificity and sensitivity, and the secondary screening infrastructure that would improve the accuracy doesn’t exist yet.

“I think this is a ‘not now,’ ” he added, “but I wouldn’t say ‘not ever.’ ”

Dr. Patnode and coauthors noted specific limitations in the evidence, including a lack of studies on how screening for and treating cognitive impairment affects decision making. In addition, details like quality of life and institutionalization were inconsistently reported, and “consistent and standardized reporting of results according to meaningful thresholds of clinical significance” would have been valuable across all measures.
 

Clinical implications

The implications of this report’s conclusions are substantial, especially as the rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and dementia becomes a worldwide concern, wrote Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the data does not explicitly support screening, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe noted that it still may have benefits. An estimated 10% of cognitive impairment is caused by at least somewhat reversible causes, and screening could also be used to improve care in medical problems that are worsened by cognitive impairment. To find the true value of these efforts, they wrote, researchers need to design and execute additional clinical trials that “answer many of the important questions surrounding screening and treatment of cognitive impairment.”

“The absence of evidence for benefit may lead to inaction,” they added, noting that clinicians screening should still consider the value of screening on a case-by-case basis in order to keep up with the impact of new disease-modifying therapies for certain neurodegenerative diseases.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in meetings. One member reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The study was funded by the Department of Health & Human Services. One of the authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe reported consulting for, and receiving funding from, various pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and government organizations.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0435; Patnode CD et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22258.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has deemed the current evidence “insufficient” to make a recommendation in regard to screening for cognitive impairment in adults aged 65 years or older.

“More research is needed on the effect of screening and early detection of cognitive impairment on important patient, caregiver, and societal outcomes, including decision making, advance planning, and caregiver outcomes,” wrote lead author Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and fellow members of the task force. The statement was published in JAMA.

To update a 2014 recommendation from the USPSTF, which also found insufficient evidence to properly assess cognitive screening’s benefits and harms, the task force commissioned a systematic review of studies applicable to community-dwelling older adults who are not exhibiting signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment. For their statement, “cognitive impairment” is defined as mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia.

Ultimately, they determined several factors that limited the overall evidence, including the short duration of most trials and the heterogenous nature of interventions and inconsistencies in outcomes reported. Any evidence that suggested improvements was mostly applicable to patients with moderate dementia, meaning “its applicability to a screen-detected population is uncertain.”
 

Updating 2014 recommendations

Their statement was based on an evidence report, also published in JAMA, in which a team of researchers reviewed 287 studies that included more than 285,000 older adults; 92 of the studies were newly identified, while the other 195 were carried forward from the 2014 recommendation’s review. The researchers sought the answers to five key questions, carrying over the framework from the previous review.

“Despite the accumulation of new data, the conclusions for these key questions are essentially unchanged from the prior review,” wrote lead author Carrie D. Patnode, PhD, of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and coauthors.

Of the questions – which concerned the accuracy of screening instruments; the harms of screening; the harms of interventions; and if screening or interventions improved decision making or outcomes for the patient, family/caregiver, or society – moderate evidence was found to support the accuracy of the instruments, treatment with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for patients with moderate dementia, and psychoeducation interventions for caregivers of patients with moderate dementia. At the same time, there was moderate evidence of adverse effects from acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with moderate dementia.

“I think, eventually, there will be sufficient evidence to justify screening, once we have what I call a tiered approach,” Marwan Sabbagh, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas, said in an interview. “The very near future will include blood tests for Alzheimer’s, or PET scans, or genetics, or something else. Right now, the cognitive screens lack the specificity and sensitivity, and the secondary screening infrastructure that would improve the accuracy doesn’t exist yet.

“I think this is a ‘not now,’ ” he added, “but I wouldn’t say ‘not ever.’ ”

Dr. Patnode and coauthors noted specific limitations in the evidence, including a lack of studies on how screening for and treating cognitive impairment affects decision making. In addition, details like quality of life and institutionalization were inconsistently reported, and “consistent and standardized reporting of results according to meaningful thresholds of clinical significance” would have been valuable across all measures.
 

Clinical implications

The implications of this report’s conclusions are substantial, especially as the rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and dementia becomes a worldwide concern, wrote Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the data does not explicitly support screening, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe noted that it still may have benefits. An estimated 10% of cognitive impairment is caused by at least somewhat reversible causes, and screening could also be used to improve care in medical problems that are worsened by cognitive impairment. To find the true value of these efforts, they wrote, researchers need to design and execute additional clinical trials that “answer many of the important questions surrounding screening and treatment of cognitive impairment.”

“The absence of evidence for benefit may lead to inaction,” they added, noting that clinicians screening should still consider the value of screening on a case-by-case basis in order to keep up with the impact of new disease-modifying therapies for certain neurodegenerative diseases.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in meetings. One member reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The study was funded by the Department of Health & Human Services. One of the authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe reported consulting for, and receiving funding from, various pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and government organizations.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0435; Patnode CD et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22258.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved eptinezumab-jjmr (Vyepti, Lundbeck), the first intravenous (IV) migraine prevention medication, the company has announced.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug’s approval is based on results from two clinical studies – PROMISE-1 in episodic migraine and PROMISE-2 in chronic migraine.

The recommended dose is 100 mg every 3 months although some patients may benefit from a dose of 300 mg, the company notes. Lundbeck reports that the drug will likely be available in early April.

Roger Cady, MD, vice-president of neurology at Lundbeck, told Medscape Medical News the drug has almost immediate efficacy.

“Because it’s an IV [medication], it has very rapid benefit. In fact, we were able to demonstrate benefit on Day 1. Truly, it is going to impact on the unmet need for patients because of its profile, the way it’s delivered, and its uniqueness,” Cady said.

“Having preventive activity the day following an infusion is really important. We have in our data, if you take that time between the first day and the 28th day, whether they have episodic migraine or chronic migraine, that about 30% of the population had a 75% or more reduction in migraine days through that first month,” he added.

The clinical trial program demonstrated a treatment benefit over placebo that was observed for both doses of Vyepti as early as day 1 post-infusion, and the percentage of patients experiencing a migraine was lower for Vyepti than with placebo for most of the first 7 days, the company reports.

The safety of Vyepti was evaluated in 2076 patients with migraine who received at least one dose of the drug. The most common adverse reactions were nasopharyngitis and hypersensitivity. In PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2, 1.9% of patients treated with Vyepti discontinued treatment as a result of adverse reactions.

“The PROMISE-2 data showed that many patients can achieve reduction in migraine days of at least 75% and experience a sustained migraine improvement through 6 months, which is clinically meaningful to both physicians and patients,” said Peter Goadsby, MD, professor of neurology at King’s College, London, UK, and the University of California, San Francisco, in a press release. “Vyepti is a valuable addition for the treatment of migraine, which can help reduce the burden of this serious disease.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved eptinezumab-jjmr (Vyepti, Lundbeck), the first intravenous (IV) migraine prevention medication, the company has announced.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug’s approval is based on results from two clinical studies – PROMISE-1 in episodic migraine and PROMISE-2 in chronic migraine.

The recommended dose is 100 mg every 3 months although some patients may benefit from a dose of 300 mg, the company notes. Lundbeck reports that the drug will likely be available in early April.

Roger Cady, MD, vice-president of neurology at Lundbeck, told Medscape Medical News the drug has almost immediate efficacy.

“Because it’s an IV [medication], it has very rapid benefit. In fact, we were able to demonstrate benefit on Day 1. Truly, it is going to impact on the unmet need for patients because of its profile, the way it’s delivered, and its uniqueness,” Cady said.

“Having preventive activity the day following an infusion is really important. We have in our data, if you take that time between the first day and the 28th day, whether they have episodic migraine or chronic migraine, that about 30% of the population had a 75% or more reduction in migraine days through that first month,” he added.

The clinical trial program demonstrated a treatment benefit over placebo that was observed for both doses of Vyepti as early as day 1 post-infusion, and the percentage of patients experiencing a migraine was lower for Vyepti than with placebo for most of the first 7 days, the company reports.

The safety of Vyepti was evaluated in 2076 patients with migraine who received at least one dose of the drug. The most common adverse reactions were nasopharyngitis and hypersensitivity. In PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2, 1.9% of patients treated with Vyepti discontinued treatment as a result of adverse reactions.

“The PROMISE-2 data showed that many patients can achieve reduction in migraine days of at least 75% and experience a sustained migraine improvement through 6 months, which is clinically meaningful to both physicians and patients,” said Peter Goadsby, MD, professor of neurology at King’s College, London, UK, and the University of California, San Francisco, in a press release. “Vyepti is a valuable addition for the treatment of migraine, which can help reduce the burden of this serious disease.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved eptinezumab-jjmr (Vyepti, Lundbeck), the first intravenous (IV) migraine prevention medication, the company has announced.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug’s approval is based on results from two clinical studies – PROMISE-1 in episodic migraine and PROMISE-2 in chronic migraine.

The recommended dose is 100 mg every 3 months although some patients may benefit from a dose of 300 mg, the company notes. Lundbeck reports that the drug will likely be available in early April.

Roger Cady, MD, vice-president of neurology at Lundbeck, told Medscape Medical News the drug has almost immediate efficacy.

“Because it’s an IV [medication], it has very rapid benefit. In fact, we were able to demonstrate benefit on Day 1. Truly, it is going to impact on the unmet need for patients because of its profile, the way it’s delivered, and its uniqueness,” Cady said.

“Having preventive activity the day following an infusion is really important. We have in our data, if you take that time between the first day and the 28th day, whether they have episodic migraine or chronic migraine, that about 30% of the population had a 75% or more reduction in migraine days through that first month,” he added.

The clinical trial program demonstrated a treatment benefit over placebo that was observed for both doses of Vyepti as early as day 1 post-infusion, and the percentage of patients experiencing a migraine was lower for Vyepti than with placebo for most of the first 7 days, the company reports.

The safety of Vyepti was evaluated in 2076 patients with migraine who received at least one dose of the drug. The most common adverse reactions were nasopharyngitis and hypersensitivity. In PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2, 1.9% of patients treated with Vyepti discontinued treatment as a result of adverse reactions.

“The PROMISE-2 data showed that many patients can achieve reduction in migraine days of at least 75% and experience a sustained migraine improvement through 6 months, which is clinically meaningful to both physicians and patients,” said Peter Goadsby, MD, professor of neurology at King’s College, London, UK, and the University of California, San Francisco, in a press release. “Vyepti is a valuable addition for the treatment of migraine, which can help reduce the burden of this serious disease.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – A new potential neuroprotectant agent has been found to be beneficial for patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy in a large placebo-controlled trial, but only for those patients who did not also receive thrombolysis.
 

There was no difference between groups on the primary outcome in the main analysis of the trial, lead author Michael Hill, MD, reported.

However, “In our study, we found a dramatic interaction of nerinetide with alteplase. There was a large benefit of nerinetide in patients not given thrombolysis, but in patients who received alteplase, this benefit was completely obliterated,” Dr. Hill said in an interview.

“In patients not treated with thrombolysis, we found a large effect size with a 9.5% absolute improvement in patients having an independent outcome (modified Rankin Score [mRS] 0-2) and a number need to treat of 10 to 11,” he said. “We also found a mortality benefit and a reduction in the size of strokes, with all other secondary outcomes going in the right direction.

“The drug works really well in patients who do not get thrombolysis, but it doesn’t work at all in patients who have had thrombolysis. The thrombolytic appears to break the peptide down so it is inactive,” he added.

“This is the first evidence that neuroprotection is possible in human stroke. This has never been shown before,” Dr. Hill noted. “Many previous clinical trials of potential neuroprotectants have been negative. We think this is a major breakthrough. This is pretty exciting stuff with really tantalizing results.”

Dr. Hill, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented results of the ESCAPE-NA1 trial on Feb. 20 at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2020. The trial was also simultaneously published online (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30258-0).

Endogenous nitric oxide

The new agent – known as NA1 or nerinetide – is a 20-amino-acid peptide with a novel mechanism of action; it inhibits signaling that leads to neuronal excitotoxicity. “It reduces endogenous nitric oxide generated inside the cell during ischemia, which is one of the main biochemical processes contributing to cell death,” Dr. Hill explained. In a primate model of ischemia reperfusion that was published in Nature in 2012, it was highly protective, he added.

The drug is given just once at the time of thrombectomy. It is short lived in the blood but detectable in the brain for up to 24 hours, he said.

The trial included 1,105 patients who had experienced acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion within a 12-hour treatment window and for whom imaging results suitable for thrombectomy were available. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous nerinetide in a single dose of 2.6 mg/kg or saline placebo at the time of thrombectomy.

Patients were stratified by intravenous alteplase treatment and by declared endovascular device choice.

“Shaking up the field”

There is still more work to do, Dr. Hill said. “We don’t fully understand the pharmacology, and we will certainly have to do another trial, but we believe this agent is going to shake the field up. This is a totally new drug, and we have to think carefully about where it could fit in.”

“The obvious first group is those patients who do not receive thrombolysis. This is a large group, as most patients do not present in time for thrombolysis. Then we can work on the biochemistry and see if we can develop a version of nerinetide that is resistant to breakdown by thrombolysis,” he said.

Another possibility would be to withhold thrombolysis and give nerinetide instead. “It may be that thrombolysis is not needed if patients are receiving thrombectomy – this is being suggested now in initial studies,” Hill stated.

They also chose a very select group of patients – those undergoing thrombectomy, who represent only 10% to 15% of stroke patients. “We have to work out how to expand that population,” he said.

Hill noted that there have been many examples in the past of potential neuroprotectant agents that have worked in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion but that failed in humans with acute stroke.

“Until recently, we have not had a reliable ischemia-reperfusion model in humans, but now with endovascular therapy, we have a situation where the blood flow is reliably restored, which is an ideal situation to test new neuroprotectant agents. That may be another factor that has contributed to our positive findings,” he said.

In an accompanying comment in The Lancet, Graeme J. Hankey, MD, of the University of Western Australia, Perth, noted that although endovascular thrombectomy after use of intravenous alteplase improves reperfusion and clinical outcomes for a fifth of patients with ischemic stroke caused by large-artery occlusion, half of patients do not recover an independent lifestyle. Cytoprotection aims to augment the resilience of neurons, neurovascular units, and white matter during ischemia until perfusion is restored (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30316-0).

Dr. Hankey also pointed out that numerous cytoprotection strategies have been reported to reduce brain infarction in preclinical models of ischemic stroke but have not been found to improve clinical outcomes in clinical trials involving patients with ischemic stroke.

The advent of thrombectomy provides an opportunity to reassess cytoprotection as an adjunctive therapy for patients with types of temporary brain ischemia that align more closely with successful preclinical models of ischemia, cytoprotection, and reperfusion, he added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – A new potential neuroprotectant agent has been found to be beneficial for patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy in a large placebo-controlled trial, but only for those patients who did not also receive thrombolysis.
 

There was no difference between groups on the primary outcome in the main analysis of the trial, lead author Michael Hill, MD, reported.

However, “In our study, we found a dramatic interaction of nerinetide with alteplase. There was a large benefit of nerinetide in patients not given thrombolysis, but in patients who received alteplase, this benefit was completely obliterated,” Dr. Hill said in an interview.

“In patients not treated with thrombolysis, we found a large effect size with a 9.5% absolute improvement in patients having an independent outcome (modified Rankin Score [mRS] 0-2) and a number need to treat of 10 to 11,” he said. “We also found a mortality benefit and a reduction in the size of strokes, with all other secondary outcomes going in the right direction.

“The drug works really well in patients who do not get thrombolysis, but it doesn’t work at all in patients who have had thrombolysis. The thrombolytic appears to break the peptide down so it is inactive,” he added.

“This is the first evidence that neuroprotection is possible in human stroke. This has never been shown before,” Dr. Hill noted. “Many previous clinical trials of potential neuroprotectants have been negative. We think this is a major breakthrough. This is pretty exciting stuff with really tantalizing results.”

Dr. Hill, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented results of the ESCAPE-NA1 trial on Feb. 20 at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2020. The trial was also simultaneously published online (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30258-0).

Endogenous nitric oxide

The new agent – known as NA1 or nerinetide – is a 20-amino-acid peptide with a novel mechanism of action; it inhibits signaling that leads to neuronal excitotoxicity. “It reduces endogenous nitric oxide generated inside the cell during ischemia, which is one of the main biochemical processes contributing to cell death,” Dr. Hill explained. In a primate model of ischemia reperfusion that was published in Nature in 2012, it was highly protective, he added.

The drug is given just once at the time of thrombectomy. It is short lived in the blood but detectable in the brain for up to 24 hours, he said.

The trial included 1,105 patients who had experienced acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion within a 12-hour treatment window and for whom imaging results suitable for thrombectomy were available. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous nerinetide in a single dose of 2.6 mg/kg or saline placebo at the time of thrombectomy.

Patients were stratified by intravenous alteplase treatment and by declared endovascular device choice.

“Shaking up the field”

There is still more work to do, Dr. Hill said. “We don’t fully understand the pharmacology, and we will certainly have to do another trial, but we believe this agent is going to shake the field up. This is a totally new drug, and we have to think carefully about where it could fit in.”

“The obvious first group is those patients who do not receive thrombolysis. This is a large group, as most patients do not present in time for thrombolysis. Then we can work on the biochemistry and see if we can develop a version of nerinetide that is resistant to breakdown by thrombolysis,” he said.

Another possibility would be to withhold thrombolysis and give nerinetide instead. “It may be that thrombolysis is not needed if patients are receiving thrombectomy – this is being suggested now in initial studies,” Hill stated.

They also chose a very select group of patients – those undergoing thrombectomy, who represent only 10% to 15% of stroke patients. “We have to work out how to expand that population,” he said.

Hill noted that there have been many examples in the past of potential neuroprotectant agents that have worked in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion but that failed in humans with acute stroke.

“Until recently, we have not had a reliable ischemia-reperfusion model in humans, but now with endovascular therapy, we have a situation where the blood flow is reliably restored, which is an ideal situation to test new neuroprotectant agents. That may be another factor that has contributed to our positive findings,” he said.

In an accompanying comment in The Lancet, Graeme J. Hankey, MD, of the University of Western Australia, Perth, noted that although endovascular thrombectomy after use of intravenous alteplase improves reperfusion and clinical outcomes for a fifth of patients with ischemic stroke caused by large-artery occlusion, half of patients do not recover an independent lifestyle. Cytoprotection aims to augment the resilience of neurons, neurovascular units, and white matter during ischemia until perfusion is restored (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30316-0).

Dr. Hankey also pointed out that numerous cytoprotection strategies have been reported to reduce brain infarction in preclinical models of ischemic stroke but have not been found to improve clinical outcomes in clinical trials involving patients with ischemic stroke.

The advent of thrombectomy provides an opportunity to reassess cytoprotection as an adjunctive therapy for patients with types of temporary brain ischemia that align more closely with successful preclinical models of ischemia, cytoprotection, and reperfusion, he added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – A new potential neuroprotectant agent has been found to be beneficial for patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy in a large placebo-controlled trial, but only for those patients who did not also receive thrombolysis.
 

There was no difference between groups on the primary outcome in the main analysis of the trial, lead author Michael Hill, MD, reported.

However, “In our study, we found a dramatic interaction of nerinetide with alteplase. There was a large benefit of nerinetide in patients not given thrombolysis, but in patients who received alteplase, this benefit was completely obliterated,” Dr. Hill said in an interview.

“In patients not treated with thrombolysis, we found a large effect size with a 9.5% absolute improvement in patients having an independent outcome (modified Rankin Score [mRS] 0-2) and a number need to treat of 10 to 11,” he said. “We also found a mortality benefit and a reduction in the size of strokes, with all other secondary outcomes going in the right direction.

“The drug works really well in patients who do not get thrombolysis, but it doesn’t work at all in patients who have had thrombolysis. The thrombolytic appears to break the peptide down so it is inactive,” he added.

“This is the first evidence that neuroprotection is possible in human stroke. This has never been shown before,” Dr. Hill noted. “Many previous clinical trials of potential neuroprotectants have been negative. We think this is a major breakthrough. This is pretty exciting stuff with really tantalizing results.”

Dr. Hill, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented results of the ESCAPE-NA1 trial on Feb. 20 at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2020. The trial was also simultaneously published online (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30258-0).

Endogenous nitric oxide

The new agent – known as NA1 or nerinetide – is a 20-amino-acid peptide with a novel mechanism of action; it inhibits signaling that leads to neuronal excitotoxicity. “It reduces endogenous nitric oxide generated inside the cell during ischemia, which is one of the main biochemical processes contributing to cell death,” Dr. Hill explained. In a primate model of ischemia reperfusion that was published in Nature in 2012, it was highly protective, he added.

The drug is given just once at the time of thrombectomy. It is short lived in the blood but detectable in the brain for up to 24 hours, he said.

The trial included 1,105 patients who had experienced acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion within a 12-hour treatment window and for whom imaging results suitable for thrombectomy were available. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous nerinetide in a single dose of 2.6 mg/kg or saline placebo at the time of thrombectomy.

Patients were stratified by intravenous alteplase treatment and by declared endovascular device choice.

“Shaking up the field”

There is still more work to do, Dr. Hill said. “We don’t fully understand the pharmacology, and we will certainly have to do another trial, but we believe this agent is going to shake the field up. This is a totally new drug, and we have to think carefully about where it could fit in.”

“The obvious first group is those patients who do not receive thrombolysis. This is a large group, as most patients do not present in time for thrombolysis. Then we can work on the biochemistry and see if we can develop a version of nerinetide that is resistant to breakdown by thrombolysis,” he said.

Another possibility would be to withhold thrombolysis and give nerinetide instead. “It may be that thrombolysis is not needed if patients are receiving thrombectomy – this is being suggested now in initial studies,” Hill stated.

They also chose a very select group of patients – those undergoing thrombectomy, who represent only 10% to 15% of stroke patients. “We have to work out how to expand that population,” he said.

Hill noted that there have been many examples in the past of potential neuroprotectant agents that have worked in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion but that failed in humans with acute stroke.

“Until recently, we have not had a reliable ischemia-reperfusion model in humans, but now with endovascular therapy, we have a situation where the blood flow is reliably restored, which is an ideal situation to test new neuroprotectant agents. That may be another factor that has contributed to our positive findings,” he said.

In an accompanying comment in The Lancet, Graeme J. Hankey, MD, of the University of Western Australia, Perth, noted that although endovascular thrombectomy after use of intravenous alteplase improves reperfusion and clinical outcomes for a fifth of patients with ischemic stroke caused by large-artery occlusion, half of patients do not recover an independent lifestyle. Cytoprotection aims to augment the resilience of neurons, neurovascular units, and white matter during ischemia until perfusion is restored (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30316-0).

Dr. Hankey also pointed out that numerous cytoprotection strategies have been reported to reduce brain infarction in preclinical models of ischemic stroke but have not been found to improve clinical outcomes in clinical trials involving patients with ischemic stroke.

The advent of thrombectomy provides an opportunity to reassess cytoprotection as an adjunctive therapy for patients with types of temporary brain ischemia that align more closely with successful preclinical models of ischemia, cytoprotection, and reperfusion, he added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – Higher case volumes matter for getting better outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients treated with endovascular thrombectomy, according to data from more than 13,000 Medicare patients treated during 2016 and 2017.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

That’s hardly surprising, given that it’s consistent with what’s already been reported for several other types of endovascular and transcatheter procedures: The more cases a center or individual proceduralist performs, the better their patients do. Routine use of endovascular thrombectomy to treat selected acute ischemic stroke patients is a new-enough paradigm that until now few reports have come out that looked at this issue (Stroke. 2019 May;50[5]:1178-83).

The new analysis of Medicare data “is one of the first contemporary studies of the volume-outcome relationship in endovascular thrombectomy,” Laura K. Stein, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The analysis showed that, when the researchers adjusted the Medicare data to better reflect overall case volumes (Medicare patients represent just 59% of all endovascular thrombectomies performed on U.S. acute ischemic stroke patients), the minimum case number for a stroke center to have statistically better in-hospital survival than lower volume centers was 24 cases/year, and 29 cases/year to have a statistically significant higher rate of “good” outcomes than lower-volume centers, reported Dr. Stein, a stroke neurologist with the Mount Sinai Health System in New York. For individual proceduralists, the minimum, adjusted case number to have statistically better acute patient survival was 4 cases/year, and 19 cases/year to have a statistically better rate of good outcomes.

For this analysis, good outcomes were defined as cases when patients left the hospital following their acute care and returned home with either self care or a home health care service, and also patients discharged to rehabilitation. “Bad” outcomes for this analysis were discharges to a skilled nursing facility or hospice, as well as patients who died during their acute hospitalization.

The analyses also showed no plateau to the volume effect for any of the four parameters examined: in-hospital mortality by center and by proceduralist, and the rates of good outcomes by center and by proceduralist. For each of these measures, as case volume increased above the minimum number needed to produce statistically better outcomes, the rate of good outcomes continued to steadily rise and acute mortality continued to steadily fall.

The study run by Dr. Stein and associates used data collected by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services on 13,311 Medicare patients who underwent endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at any of 641 U.S. hospitals and received treatment from any of 2,754 thrombectomy proceduralists. Outcomes rated as good occurred in 56% of the patients. The statistical adjustments that the researchers applied to calculate the incremental effect of increasing case volume took into account the variables of patient age, sex, and comorbidities measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

The analysis also showed that, during this 2-year period, the average number of endovascular thrombectomy cases among Medicare patients was just under 21 cases per center, with a range of 1-160 cases; for individual proceduralists, the average was just under 5 cases, with a range of 1-82 cases.

The 19 case/year volume minimum that the analysis identified for an individual proceduralist to have a statistically significant higher rate of good outcomes, compared with lower-volume proceduralists, came close to the 15 cases/year minimum set by the Joint Commission in 2019 for individual operators at centers seeking accreditation from the Joint Commission as either a Thrombectomy-Capable Stroke Center or a Comprehensive Stroke Center. The CMS has not yet set thrombectomy case-load requirements for centers or operators to qualify for Medicare reimbursements, although CMS has set such standards for other endovascular procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement. When setting such standards, CMS has cited its need to balance the better outcomes produced by higher-volume centers against a societal interest in facilitating access to vital medical services, a balance that Dr. Stein also highlighted in her talk.

“We want to optimize access as well as outcomes for every patient,” she said. “These data support certification volume standards,” but they are “in no way an argument for limiting access based on volume.”

Dr. Stein had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stein LK et al. ISC 2020, Abstract LB11.

LOS ANGELES – Higher case volumes matter for getting better outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients treated with endovascular thrombectomy, according to data from more than 13,000 Medicare patients treated during 2016 and 2017.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

That’s hardly surprising, given that it’s consistent with what’s already been reported for several other types of endovascular and transcatheter procedures: The more cases a center or individual proceduralist performs, the better their patients do. Routine use of endovascular thrombectomy to treat selected acute ischemic stroke patients is a new-enough paradigm that until now few reports have come out that looked at this issue (Stroke. 2019 May;50[5]:1178-83).

The new analysis of Medicare data “is one of the first contemporary studies of the volume-outcome relationship in endovascular thrombectomy,” Laura K. Stein, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The analysis showed that, when the researchers adjusted the Medicare data to better reflect overall case volumes (Medicare patients represent just 59% of all endovascular thrombectomies performed on U.S. acute ischemic stroke patients), the minimum case number for a stroke center to have statistically better in-hospital survival than lower volume centers was 24 cases/year, and 29 cases/year to have a statistically significant higher rate of “good” outcomes than lower-volume centers, reported Dr. Stein, a stroke neurologist with the Mount Sinai Health System in New York. For individual proceduralists, the minimum, adjusted case number to have statistically better acute patient survival was 4 cases/year, and 19 cases/year to have a statistically better rate of good outcomes.

For this analysis, good outcomes were defined as cases when patients left the hospital following their acute care and returned home with either self care or a home health care service, and also patients discharged to rehabilitation. “Bad” outcomes for this analysis were discharges to a skilled nursing facility or hospice, as well as patients who died during their acute hospitalization.

The analyses also showed no plateau to the volume effect for any of the four parameters examined: in-hospital mortality by center and by proceduralist, and the rates of good outcomes by center and by proceduralist. For each of these measures, as case volume increased above the minimum number needed to produce statistically better outcomes, the rate of good outcomes continued to steadily rise and acute mortality continued to steadily fall.

The study run by Dr. Stein and associates used data collected by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services on 13,311 Medicare patients who underwent endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at any of 641 U.S. hospitals and received treatment from any of 2,754 thrombectomy proceduralists. Outcomes rated as good occurred in 56% of the patients. The statistical adjustments that the researchers applied to calculate the incremental effect of increasing case volume took into account the variables of patient age, sex, and comorbidities measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

The analysis also showed that, during this 2-year period, the average number of endovascular thrombectomy cases among Medicare patients was just under 21 cases per center, with a range of 1-160 cases; for individual proceduralists, the average was just under 5 cases, with a range of 1-82 cases.

The 19 case/year volume minimum that the analysis identified for an individual proceduralist to have a statistically significant higher rate of good outcomes, compared with lower-volume proceduralists, came close to the 15 cases/year minimum set by the Joint Commission in 2019 for individual operators at centers seeking accreditation from the Joint Commission as either a Thrombectomy-Capable Stroke Center or a Comprehensive Stroke Center. The CMS has not yet set thrombectomy case-load requirements for centers or operators to qualify for Medicare reimbursements, although CMS has set such standards for other endovascular procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement. When setting such standards, CMS has cited its need to balance the better outcomes produced by higher-volume centers against a societal interest in facilitating access to vital medical services, a balance that Dr. Stein also highlighted in her talk.

“We want to optimize access as well as outcomes for every patient,” she said. “These data support certification volume standards,” but they are “in no way an argument for limiting access based on volume.”

Dr. Stein had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stein LK et al. ISC 2020, Abstract LB11.

LOS ANGELES – Higher case volumes matter for getting better outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients treated with endovascular thrombectomy, according to data from more than 13,000 Medicare patients treated during 2016 and 2017.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

That’s hardly surprising, given that it’s consistent with what’s already been reported for several other types of endovascular and transcatheter procedures: The more cases a center or individual proceduralist performs, the better their patients do. Routine use of endovascular thrombectomy to treat selected acute ischemic stroke patients is a new-enough paradigm that until now few reports have come out that looked at this issue (Stroke. 2019 May;50[5]:1178-83).

The new analysis of Medicare data “is one of the first contemporary studies of the volume-outcome relationship in endovascular thrombectomy,” Laura K. Stein, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The analysis showed that, when the researchers adjusted the Medicare data to better reflect overall case volumes (Medicare patients represent just 59% of all endovascular thrombectomies performed on U.S. acute ischemic stroke patients), the minimum case number for a stroke center to have statistically better in-hospital survival than lower volume centers was 24 cases/year, and 29 cases/year to have a statistically significant higher rate of “good” outcomes than lower-volume centers, reported Dr. Stein, a stroke neurologist with the Mount Sinai Health System in New York. For individual proceduralists, the minimum, adjusted case number to have statistically better acute patient survival was 4 cases/year, and 19 cases/year to have a statistically better rate of good outcomes.

For this analysis, good outcomes were defined as cases when patients left the hospital following their acute care and returned home with either self care or a home health care service, and also patients discharged to rehabilitation. “Bad” outcomes for this analysis were discharges to a skilled nursing facility or hospice, as well as patients who died during their acute hospitalization.

The analyses also showed no plateau to the volume effect for any of the four parameters examined: in-hospital mortality by center and by proceduralist, and the rates of good outcomes by center and by proceduralist. For each of these measures, as case volume increased above the minimum number needed to produce statistically better outcomes, the rate of good outcomes continued to steadily rise and acute mortality continued to steadily fall.

The study run by Dr. Stein and associates used data collected by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services on 13,311 Medicare patients who underwent endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at any of 641 U.S. hospitals and received treatment from any of 2,754 thrombectomy proceduralists. Outcomes rated as good occurred in 56% of the patients. The statistical adjustments that the researchers applied to calculate the incremental effect of increasing case volume took into account the variables of patient age, sex, and comorbidities measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

The analysis also showed that, during this 2-year period, the average number of endovascular thrombectomy cases among Medicare patients was just under 21 cases per center, with a range of 1-160 cases; for individual proceduralists, the average was just under 5 cases, with a range of 1-82 cases.

The 19 case/year volume minimum that the analysis identified for an individual proceduralist to have a statistically significant higher rate of good outcomes, compared with lower-volume proceduralists, came close to the 15 cases/year minimum set by the Joint Commission in 2019 for individual operators at centers seeking accreditation from the Joint Commission as either a Thrombectomy-Capable Stroke Center or a Comprehensive Stroke Center. The CMS has not yet set thrombectomy case-load requirements for centers or operators to qualify for Medicare reimbursements, although CMS has set such standards for other endovascular procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement. When setting such standards, CMS has cited its need to balance the better outcomes produced by higher-volume centers against a societal interest in facilitating access to vital medical services, a balance that Dr. Stein also highlighted in her talk.

“We want to optimize access as well as outcomes for every patient,” she said. “These data support certification volume standards,” but they are “in no way an argument for limiting access based on volume.”

Dr. Stein had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stein LK et al. ISC 2020, Abstract LB11.

A new study suggests that the 0.25-mg/kg dose of the thrombolytic tenecteplase (TNK) is just as good at facilitating reperfusion of the blocked artery in patients with ischemic large-vessel stroke prior to planned thrombectomy as the higher 0.4-mg/kg dose.
 

The EXTEND-IA TNK Part 2 trial was presented today at the American Stroke Association’s International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2020 in Los Angeles and was published online simultaneously (JAMA. 2020 Feb 20. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1511).

“We found the 0.4-mg/kg dose was no better than 0.25 mg/kg. There was absolutely no perceptible difference, so it appears that 0.25 mg/kg is enough,” lead investigator Bruce Campbell, MBBS, PhD, said in an interview.

“Our study was conducted in patients with large-vessel occlusions heading for thrombectomy, but I think the results can be extrapolated to patients with smaller occlusions too,” he added.

The study also showed that one-fifth of patients given tenecteplase experienced reperfusion before thrombectomy was performed. The percentage rose to one-third among patients from rural areas, whose longer times in transport led to an increase in the time between thrombolysis and thrombectomy.

“I think these data are as good as we’re going to get on the optimal dose of TNK. Our endpoint was reperfusion rates – a good, solid biological marker of benefit – but if a difference in clinical outcomes is wanted, that would take a trial of several thousand patients, which is never likely to be done,” said Dr. Campbell, who is from the Department of Neurology at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.

The researchers note that tenecteplase has a practical advantage over alteplase in that it is given as a bolus injection, whereas alteplase is given as bolus followed by a 1-hour infusion.

Results from the first EXTEND-IA TNK study suggested that tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg produced higher reperfusion rates than alteplase (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1573-82). However, the larger NOR-TEST study found no difference in efficacy or safety between a 0.4-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase and alteplase in patients with mild stroke (Lancet Neurol. 2017 Oct;16[10]:781-8).

TNK use in stroke varies around the world. The drug is not licensed for use in stroke anywhere, which Dr. Campbell attributes to a lack of incentive for the manufacturer, Genentech/Boehringer Ingelheim. That company also markets alteplase, the main thrombolytic used in stroke.

But many countries have now included TNK in their stroke guidelines, Dr. Campbell noted. “This has only recently occurred in the U.S., where it has a 2b recommendation, and the dose recommendations are somewhat confusing, advocating 0.25 mg/kg in large-vessel occlusions [as was used in the first EXTEND IA study] and 0.4 mg/kg in non–large vessel occlusions [from the NOR-TEST trial].

“This makes no biological sense whatsoever, recommending a higher dose for smaller occlusions, but that is just a literal translation of the design of the two major studies. I’m hoping our current results will help clarify the dosage issue and that might encourage more use of TNK altogether,” he commented.

For the current study, conducted in Australia and New Zealand, 300 patients who had experienced ischemic large-vessel stroke within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and who were scheduled for endovascular thrombectomy were randomly assigned to receive open-label thrombolysis with tenecteplase 0.4 mg/kg or 0.25 mg/kg.

The primary outcome, reperfusion of greater than 50% of the involved ischemic territory prior to thrombectomy, occurred in 19.3% of both groups. There was also no difference in any of the functional-outcome secondary endpoints or all-cause mortality between the two doses.

“While we didn’t find any extra benefit of the 0.4-mg/kg dose over the 0.25-mg/kg dose, we also didn’t find any extra harm, and this gives us reassurance in the emergency situation if the weight of the patient is overestimated; then we have a window of safety,” Dr. Campbell commented. “While there was a nonsignificant numerical increase in intracranial hemorrhage in the 0.4-mg/kg group, the excess bleeds were caused by puncturing of the vessels during thrombectomy, so I don’t think we can blame the TNK dose for that.

Better reperfusion than with alteplase?

Noting that the original EXTEND-IA TNK study showed higher reperfusion rates with tenecteplase vs alteplase and a trend toward better outcomes on the mRS scale, Campbell reported that a pooled analysis of the TNK results from the current study with those from the first study confirmed these findings.

“We found a doubling in the rate of reperfusion with TNK vs. alteplase, and the [modified Rankin Scale] shift analysis remained positive,” he said.

“I think we say with confidence that TNK is at least as good as alteplase and probably better, but further studies comparing the two agents are ongoing,” he added.

Of note, for the 41 patients from rural areas in the current study, in whom the time from thrombolysis to thrombectomy was longer (152 min vs. 41 min for patients from urban areas), reperfusion rates were higher (34% vs 17%), and there was no difference in dosage between the two groups.

Commenting on these latest results in an interview, Nicola Logallo, MD, of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, who was part of the NOR-TEST trial, said: “There is some evidence supporting the use of TNK 0.4 mg/kg in mild stroke patients, based mainly on the results from the NOR-TEST trial, and the use of TNK 0.25 mg/kg in patients undergoing thrombectomy, based on Dr. Campbell’s previous EXTEND-TNK trial. Dr. Campbell’s new study confirms that probably the higher dose of TNK does not add any advantages in terms of clinical outcome.”

Hemorrhagic complications appear to be similar in the two groups, Dr. Logallo said. “Overall, the 0.25-mg/kg TNK dose could therefore be considered as the most convenient and sensible, at least in patients undergoing thrombectomy. When it comes to the remaining stroke patients receiving thrombolysis, it remains unclear which is the best dose, but studies such as TASTE, NOR-TEST 2, AcT, and ATTEST-2 will hopefully answer this question within the next years.”

Also commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, said the results “confirm that a good proportion of patients given TNK reperfuse before the angiogram and clarifies the dose. This is useful information.”

Dr. Hill said TNK is used routinely in some countries – mainly in Australia and Norway, where the studies have been conducted – but there is now a movement toward use of TNK in North America, too.

“Studies so far suggest that it could be more effective than alteplase, and as it is more fibrin specific, it could be safer. It is also easier to give with a bolus dose, but perhaps the biggest driver might be that it is cheaper than alteplase. Momentum is building, and many leading investigators are now conducting new studies with TNK with several more studies coming out in the next year or so,” Dr. Hill added.

The EXTEND-IA TNK Part 2 trial was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Campbell reports receiving grants from both institutions during the conduct of the study.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study suggests that the 0.25-mg/kg dose of the thrombolytic tenecteplase (TNK) is just as good at facilitating reperfusion of the blocked artery in patients with ischemic large-vessel stroke prior to planned thrombectomy as the higher 0.4-mg/kg dose.
 

The EXTEND-IA TNK Part 2 trial was presented today at the American Stroke Association’s International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2020 in Los Angeles and was published online simultaneously (JAMA. 2020 Feb 20. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1511).

“We found the 0.4-mg/kg dose was no better than 0.25 mg/kg. There was absolutely no perceptible difference, so it appears that 0.25 mg/kg is enough,” lead investigator Bruce Campbell, MBBS, PhD, said in an interview.

“Our study was conducted in patients with large-vessel occlusions heading for thrombectomy, but I think the results can be extrapolated to patients with smaller occlusions too,” he added.

The study also showed that one-fifth of patients given tenecteplase experienced reperfusion before thrombectomy was performed. The percentage rose to one-third among patients from rural areas, whose longer times in transport led to an increase in the time between thrombolysis and thrombectomy.

“I think these data are as good as we’re going to get on the optimal dose of TNK. Our endpoint was reperfusion rates – a good, solid biological marker of benefit – but if a difference in clinical outcomes is wanted, that would take a trial of several thousand patients, which is never likely to be done,” said Dr. Campbell, who is from the Department of Neurology at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.

The researchers note that tenecteplase has a practical advantage over alteplase in that it is given as a bolus injection, whereas alteplase is given as bolus followed by a 1-hour infusion.

Results from the first EXTEND-IA TNK study suggested that tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg produced higher reperfusion rates than alteplase (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1573-82). However, the larger NOR-TEST study found no difference in efficacy or safety between a 0.4-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase and alteplase in patients with mild stroke (Lancet Neurol. 2017 Oct;16[10]:781-8).

TNK use in stroke varies around the world. The drug is not licensed for use in stroke anywhere, which Dr. Campbell attributes to a lack of incentive for the manufacturer, Genentech/Boehringer Ingelheim. That company also markets alteplase, the main thrombolytic used in stroke.

But many countries have now included TNK in their stroke guidelines, Dr. Campbell noted. “This has only recently occurred in the U.S., where it has a 2b recommendation, and the dose recommendations are somewhat confusing, advocating 0.25 mg/kg in large-vessel occlusions [as was used in the first EXTEND IA study] and 0.4 mg/kg in non–large vessel occlusions [from the NOR-TEST trial].

“This makes no biological sense whatsoever, recommending a higher dose for smaller occlusions, but that is just a literal translation of the design of the two major studies. I’m hoping our current results will help clarify the dosage issue and that might encourage more use of TNK altogether,” he commented.

For the current study, conducted in Australia and New Zealand, 300 patients who had experienced ischemic large-vessel stroke within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and who were scheduled for endovascular thrombectomy were randomly assigned to receive open-label thrombolysis with tenecteplase 0.4 mg/kg or 0.25 mg/kg.

The primary outcome, reperfusion of greater than 50% of the involved ischemic territory prior to thrombectomy, occurred in 19.3% of both groups. There was also no difference in any of the functional-outcome secondary endpoints or all-cause mortality between the two doses.

“While we didn’t find any extra benefit of the 0.4-mg/kg dose over the 0.25-mg/kg dose, we also didn’t find any extra harm, and this gives us reassurance in the emergency situation if the weight of the patient is overestimated; then we have a window of safety,” Dr. Campbell commented. “While there was a nonsignificant numerical increase in intracranial hemorrhage in the 0.4-mg/kg group, the excess bleeds were caused by puncturing of the vessels during thrombectomy, so I don’t think we can blame the TNK dose for that.

Better reperfusion than with alteplase?

Noting that the original EXTEND-IA TNK study showed higher reperfusion rates with tenecteplase vs alteplase and a trend toward better outcomes on the mRS scale, Campbell reported that a pooled analysis of the TNK results from the current study with those from the first study confirmed these findings.

“We found a doubling in the rate of reperfusion with TNK vs. alteplase, and the [modified Rankin Scale] shift analysis remained positive,” he said.

“I think we say with confidence that TNK is at least as good as alteplase and probably better, but further studies comparing the two agents are ongoing,” he added.

Of note, for the 41 patients from rural areas in the current study, in whom the time from thrombolysis to thrombectomy was longer (152 min vs. 41 min for patients from urban areas), reperfusion rates were higher (34% vs 17%), and there was no difference in dosage between the two groups.

Commenting on these latest results in an interview, Nicola Logallo, MD, of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, who was part of the NOR-TEST trial, said: “There is some evidence supporting the use of TNK 0.4 mg/kg in mild stroke patients, based mainly on the results from the NOR-TEST trial, and the use of TNK 0.25 mg/kg in patients undergoing thrombectomy, based on Dr. Campbell’s previous EXTEND-TNK trial. Dr. Campbell’s new study confirms that probably the higher dose of TNK does not add any advantages in terms of clinical outcome.”

Hemorrhagic complications appear to be similar in the two groups, Dr. Logallo said. “Overall, the 0.25-mg/kg TNK dose could therefore be considered as the most convenient and sensible, at least in patients undergoing thrombectomy. When it comes to the remaining stroke patients receiving thrombolysis, it remains unclear which is the best dose, but studies such as TASTE, NOR-TEST 2, AcT, and ATTEST-2 will hopefully answer this question within the next years.”

Also commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, said the results “confirm that a good proportion of patients given TNK reperfuse before the angiogram and clarifies the dose. This is useful information.”

Dr. Hill said TNK is used routinely in some countries – mainly in Australia and Norway, where the studies have been conducted – but there is now a movement toward use of TNK in North America, too.

“Studies so far suggest that it could be more effective than alteplase, and as it is more fibrin specific, it could be safer. It is also easier to give with a bolus dose, but perhaps the biggest driver might be that it is cheaper than alteplase. Momentum is building, and many leading investigators are now conducting new studies with TNK with several more studies coming out in the next year or so,” Dr. Hill added.

The EXTEND-IA TNK Part 2 trial was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Campbell reports receiving grants from both institutions during the conduct of the study.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study suggests that the 0.25-mg/kg dose of the thrombolytic tenecteplase (TNK) is just as good at facilitating reperfusion of the blocked artery in patients with ischemic large-vessel stroke prior to planned thrombectomy as the higher 0.4-mg/kg dose.
 

The EXTEND-IA TNK Part 2 trial was presented today at the American Stroke Association’s International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2020 in Los Angeles and was published online simultaneously (JAMA. 2020 Feb 20. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1511).

“We found the 0.4-mg/kg dose was no better than 0.25 mg/kg. There was absolutely no perceptible difference, so it appears that 0.25 mg/kg is enough,” lead investigator Bruce Campbell, MBBS, PhD, said in an interview.

“Our study was conducted in patients with large-vessel occlusions heading for thrombectomy, but I think the results can be extrapolated to patients with smaller occlusions too,” he added.

The study also showed that one-fifth of patients given tenecteplase experienced reperfusion before thrombectomy was performed. The percentage rose to one-third among patients from rural areas, whose longer times in transport led to an increase in the time between thrombolysis and thrombectomy.

“I think these data are as good as we’re going to get on the optimal dose of TNK. Our endpoint was reperfusion rates – a good, solid biological marker of benefit – but if a difference in clinical outcomes is wanted, that would take a trial of several thousand patients, which is never likely to be done,” said Dr. Campbell, who is from the Department of Neurology at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.

The researchers note that tenecteplase has a practical advantage over alteplase in that it is given as a bolus injection, whereas alteplase is given as bolus followed by a 1-hour infusion.

Results from the first EXTEND-IA TNK study suggested that tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg produced higher reperfusion rates than alteplase (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1573-82). However, the larger NOR-TEST study found no difference in efficacy or safety between a 0.4-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase and alteplase in patients with mild stroke (Lancet Neurol. 2017 Oct;16[10]:781-8).

TNK use in stroke varies around the world. The drug is not licensed for use in stroke anywhere, which Dr. Campbell attributes to a lack of incentive for the manufacturer, Genentech/Boehringer Ingelheim. That company also markets alteplase, the main thrombolytic used in stroke.

But many countries have now included TNK in their stroke guidelines, Dr. Campbell noted. “This has only recently occurred in the U.S., where it has a 2b recommendation, and the dose recommendations are somewhat confusing, advocating 0.25 mg/kg in large-vessel occlusions [as was used in the first EXTEND IA study] and 0.4 mg/kg in non–large vessel occlusions [from the NOR-TEST trial].

“This makes no biological sense whatsoever, recommending a higher dose for smaller occlusions, but that is just a literal translation of the design of the two major studies. I’m hoping our current results will help clarify the dosage issue and that might encourage more use of TNK altogether,” he commented.

For the current study, conducted in Australia and New Zealand, 300 patients who had experienced ischemic large-vessel stroke within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and who were scheduled for endovascular thrombectomy were randomly assigned to receive open-label thrombolysis with tenecteplase 0.4 mg/kg or 0.25 mg/kg.

The primary outcome, reperfusion of greater than 50% of the involved ischemic territory prior to thrombectomy, occurred in 19.3% of both groups. There was also no difference in any of the functional-outcome secondary endpoints or all-cause mortality between the two doses.

“While we didn’t find any extra benefit of the 0.4-mg/kg dose over the 0.25-mg/kg dose, we also didn’t find any extra harm, and this gives us reassurance in the emergency situation if the weight of the patient is overestimated; then we have a window of safety,” Dr. Campbell commented. “While there was a nonsignificant numerical increase in intracranial hemorrhage in the 0.4-mg/kg group, the excess bleeds were caused by puncturing of the vessels during thrombectomy, so I don’t think we can blame the TNK dose for that.

Better reperfusion than with alteplase?

Noting that the original EXTEND-IA TNK study showed higher reperfusion rates with tenecteplase vs alteplase and a trend toward better outcomes on the mRS scale, Campbell reported that a pooled analysis of the TNK results from the current study with those from the first study confirmed these findings.

“We found a doubling in the rate of reperfusion with TNK vs. alteplase, and the [modified Rankin Scale] shift analysis remained positive,” he said.

“I think we say with confidence that TNK is at least as good as alteplase and probably better, but further studies comparing the two agents are ongoing,” he added.

Of note, for the 41 patients from rural areas in the current study, in whom the time from thrombolysis to thrombectomy was longer (152 min vs. 41 min for patients from urban areas), reperfusion rates were higher (34% vs 17%), and there was no difference in dosage between the two groups.

Commenting on these latest results in an interview, Nicola Logallo, MD, of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, who was part of the NOR-TEST trial, said: “There is some evidence supporting the use of TNK 0.4 mg/kg in mild stroke patients, based mainly on the results from the NOR-TEST trial, and the use of TNK 0.25 mg/kg in patients undergoing thrombectomy, based on Dr. Campbell’s previous EXTEND-TNK trial. Dr. Campbell’s new study confirms that probably the higher dose of TNK does not add any advantages in terms of clinical outcome.”

Hemorrhagic complications appear to be similar in the two groups, Dr. Logallo said. “Overall, the 0.25-mg/kg TNK dose could therefore be considered as the most convenient and sensible, at least in patients undergoing thrombectomy. When it comes to the remaining stroke patients receiving thrombolysis, it remains unclear which is the best dose, but studies such as TASTE, NOR-TEST 2, AcT, and ATTEST-2 will hopefully answer this question within the next years.”

Also commenting on the study, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, said the results “confirm that a good proportion of patients given TNK reperfuse before the angiogram and clarifies the dose. This is useful information.”

Dr. Hill said TNK is used routinely in some countries – mainly in Australia and Norway, where the studies have been conducted – but there is now a movement toward use of TNK in North America, too.

“Studies so far suggest that it could be more effective than alteplase, and as it is more fibrin specific, it could be safer. It is also easier to give with a bolus dose, but perhaps the biggest driver might be that it is cheaper than alteplase. Momentum is building, and many leading investigators are now conducting new studies with TNK with several more studies coming out in the next year or so,” Dr. Hill added.

The EXTEND-IA TNK Part 2 trial was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Campbell reports receiving grants from both institutions during the conduct of the study.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs are associated with poorer adherence across common neurologic conditions, a new study has found, suggesting that physicians should take patient costs into consideration when choosing which drugs to prescribe.

For their study, published online Feb. 19 in Neurology, Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues looked at claims records from a large national private insurer to identify new cases of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and neuropathy between 2001 and 2016, along with pharmacy records following diagnoses.

The researchers identified more than 52,000 patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids and another 5,000 treated with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the same. They also identified some 20,000 patients with dementia taking cholinesterase inhibitors, and 3,000 with Parkinson’s disease taking dopamine agonists. Dr. Callaghan and colleagues compared patient adherence over 6 months for pairs of drugs in the same class with similar or equal efficacy, but with different costs to the patient.

Such cost differences can be stark: The researchers noted that the average 2016 out-of-pocket cost for 30 days of pregabalin, a drug used in the treatment of peripheral neuropathy, was $65.70, compared with $8.40 for gabapentin. With two common dementia drugs the difference was even more pronounced: $79.30 for rivastigmine compared with $3.10 for donepezil, both cholinesterase inhibitors with similar efficacy and tolerability.

Dr. Callaghan and colleagues found that such cost differences bore significantly on patient adherence. An increase of $50 in patient costs was seen decreasing adherence by 9% for neuropathy patients on gabapentinoids (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.91, 0.89-0.93) and by 12% for dementia patients on cholinesterase inhibitors (adjusted IRR 0.88, 0.86-0.91, P less than .05 for both). Similar price-linked decreases were seen for neuropathy patients on SNRIs and Parkinson’s patients on dopamine agonists, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients saw greater drops in adherence than did white patients associated with the same out-of-pocket cost differences, leading the researchers to note that special care should be taken in prescribing decisions for these populations.

“When choosing among medications with differential [out-of-pocket] costs, prescribing the medication with lower [out-of-pocket] expense will likely improve medication adherence while reducing overall costs,” Dr. Callaghan and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “For example, prescribing gabapentin or venlafaxine to patients with newly diagnosed neuropathy is likely to lead to higher adherence compared with pregabalin or duloxetine, and therefore, there is a higher likelihood of relief from neuropathic pain.” The researchers noted that while combination pills and extended-release formulations may be marketed as a way to increase adherence, the higher out-of-pocket costs of such medicines could offset any adherence benefit.

Dr. Callaghan and his colleagues described as strengths of their study its large sample and statistical approach that “allowed us to best estimate the causal relationship between [out-of-pocket] costs and medication adherence by limiting selection bias, residual confounding, and the confounding inherent to medication choice.” Nonadherence – patients who never filled a prescription after diagnosis – was not captured in the study.

The American Academy of Neurology funded the study. Two of its authors reported financial conflicts of interest in the form of compensation from pharmaceutical or device companies. Its lead author, Dr. Callaghan, reported funding for a device maker and performing medical legal consultations.

SOURCE: Reynolds EL et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 19. doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000009039.

Higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs are associated with poorer adherence across common neurologic conditions, a new study has found, suggesting that physicians should take patient costs into consideration when choosing which drugs to prescribe.

For their study, published online Feb. 19 in Neurology, Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues looked at claims records from a large national private insurer to identify new cases of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and neuropathy between 2001 and 2016, along with pharmacy records following diagnoses.

The researchers identified more than 52,000 patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids and another 5,000 treated with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the same. They also identified some 20,000 patients with dementia taking cholinesterase inhibitors, and 3,000 with Parkinson’s disease taking dopamine agonists. Dr. Callaghan and colleagues compared patient adherence over 6 months for pairs of drugs in the same class with similar or equal efficacy, but with different costs to the patient.

Such cost differences can be stark: The researchers noted that the average 2016 out-of-pocket cost for 30 days of pregabalin, a drug used in the treatment of peripheral neuropathy, was $65.70, compared with $8.40 for gabapentin. With two common dementia drugs the difference was even more pronounced: $79.30 for rivastigmine compared with $3.10 for donepezil, both cholinesterase inhibitors with similar efficacy and tolerability.

Dr. Callaghan and colleagues found that such cost differences bore significantly on patient adherence. An increase of $50 in patient costs was seen decreasing adherence by 9% for neuropathy patients on gabapentinoids (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.91, 0.89-0.93) and by 12% for dementia patients on cholinesterase inhibitors (adjusted IRR 0.88, 0.86-0.91, P less than .05 for both). Similar price-linked decreases were seen for neuropathy patients on SNRIs and Parkinson’s patients on dopamine agonists, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients saw greater drops in adherence than did white patients associated with the same out-of-pocket cost differences, leading the researchers to note that special care should be taken in prescribing decisions for these populations.

“When choosing among medications with differential [out-of-pocket] costs, prescribing the medication with lower [out-of-pocket] expense will likely improve medication adherence while reducing overall costs,” Dr. Callaghan and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “For example, prescribing gabapentin or venlafaxine to patients with newly diagnosed neuropathy is likely to lead to higher adherence compared with pregabalin or duloxetine, and therefore, there is a higher likelihood of relief from neuropathic pain.” The researchers noted that while combination pills and extended-release formulations may be marketed as a way to increase adherence, the higher out-of-pocket costs of such medicines could offset any adherence benefit.

Dr. Callaghan and his colleagues described as strengths of their study its large sample and statistical approach that “allowed us to best estimate the causal relationship between [out-of-pocket] costs and medication adherence by limiting selection bias, residual confounding, and the confounding inherent to medication choice.” Nonadherence – patients who never filled a prescription after diagnosis – was not captured in the study.

The American Academy of Neurology funded the study. Two of its authors reported financial conflicts of interest in the form of compensation from pharmaceutical or device companies. Its lead author, Dr. Callaghan, reported funding for a device maker and performing medical legal consultations.

SOURCE: Reynolds EL et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 19. doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000009039.

Higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs are associated with poorer adherence across common neurologic conditions, a new study has found, suggesting that physicians should take patient costs into consideration when choosing which drugs to prescribe.

For their study, published online Feb. 19 in Neurology, Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues looked at claims records from a large national private insurer to identify new cases of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and neuropathy between 2001 and 2016, along with pharmacy records following diagnoses.

The researchers identified more than 52,000 patients with neuropathy on gabapentinoids and another 5,000 treated with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the same. They also identified some 20,000 patients with dementia taking cholinesterase inhibitors, and 3,000 with Parkinson’s disease taking dopamine agonists. Dr. Callaghan and colleagues compared patient adherence over 6 months for pairs of drugs in the same class with similar or equal efficacy, but with different costs to the patient.

Such cost differences can be stark: The researchers noted that the average 2016 out-of-pocket cost for 30 days of pregabalin, a drug used in the treatment of peripheral neuropathy, was $65.70, compared with $8.40 for gabapentin. With two common dementia drugs the difference was even more pronounced: $79.30 for rivastigmine compared with $3.10 for donepezil, both cholinesterase inhibitors with similar efficacy and tolerability.

Dr. Callaghan and colleagues found that such cost differences bore significantly on patient adherence. An increase of $50 in patient costs was seen decreasing adherence by 9% for neuropathy patients on gabapentinoids (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.91, 0.89-0.93) and by 12% for dementia patients on cholinesterase inhibitors (adjusted IRR 0.88, 0.86-0.91, P less than .05 for both). Similar price-linked decreases were seen for neuropathy patients on SNRIs and Parkinson’s patients on dopamine agonists, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients saw greater drops in adherence than did white patients associated with the same out-of-pocket cost differences, leading the researchers to note that special care should be taken in prescribing decisions for these populations.

“When choosing among medications with differential [out-of-pocket] costs, prescribing the medication with lower [out-of-pocket] expense will likely improve medication adherence while reducing overall costs,” Dr. Callaghan and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “For example, prescribing gabapentin or venlafaxine to patients with newly diagnosed neuropathy is likely to lead to higher adherence compared with pregabalin or duloxetine, and therefore, there is a higher likelihood of relief from neuropathic pain.” The researchers noted that while combination pills and extended-release formulations may be marketed as a way to increase adherence, the higher out-of-pocket costs of such medicines could offset any adherence benefit.

Dr. Callaghan and his colleagues described as strengths of their study its large sample and statistical approach that “allowed us to best estimate the causal relationship between [out-of-pocket] costs and medication adherence by limiting selection bias, residual confounding, and the confounding inherent to medication choice.” Nonadherence – patients who never filled a prescription after diagnosis – was not captured in the study.

The American Academy of Neurology funded the study. Two of its authors reported financial conflicts of interest in the form of compensation from pharmaceutical or device companies. Its lead author, Dr. Callaghan, reported funding for a device maker and performing medical legal consultations.

SOURCE: Reynolds EL et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 19. doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000009039.

LOS ANGELES – Older age, female sex, black race, relative anemia, and a history of cardiovascular disease are associated with greater risk for atrial cardiopathy among people who experienced an embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), new evidence suggests.

Atrial cardiopathy is a suspected cause of ESUS independent of atrial fibrillation. However, clinical predictors to help physicians identify which ESUS patients are at increased risk remain unknown.

The risk for atrial cardiopathy was 34% higher for women versus men with ESUS in this analysis. In addition, black participants had a 29% increased risk, compared with others, and each 10 years of age increased risk for atrial cardiopathy by 30% in an univariable analysis.

“Modest effects of these associations suggest that all ESUS patients, regardless of underlying demographic and risk factors, may have atrial cardiopathy,” principal investigator Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said when presenting results at the 2020 International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.

For this reason, he added, all people with ESUS should be considered for recruitment into the ongoing ARCADIA (AtRial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs In Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke) trial, of which he is one of the principal investigators.

ESUS is a heterogeneous condition, and some patients may be responsive to anticoagulants and some might not, Elkind said. This observation “led us to consider alternative ways for ischemic disease to lead to stroke. We would hypothesize that the underlying atrium can be a risk for stroke by itself.”

Not yet available is the primary efficacy outcome of the multicenter, randomized ARCADIA trial comparing apixaban with aspirin in reducing risk for recurrent stroke of any type. However, Dr. Elkind and colleagues have recruited 1,505 patients to date, enough to analyze factors that predict risk for recurrent stroke among people with evidence of atrial cardiopathy.

All ARCADIA participants are 45 years of age or older and have no history of atrial fibrillation. Atrial cardiopathy was defined by presence of at least one of three biomarkers: N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), P wave terminal force velocity, or evidence of a left atrial diameter of 3 cm/m² or larger on echocardiography.

Of the 1,349 ARCADIA participants eligible for the current analysis, approximately one-third met one or more of these criteria for atrial cardiopathy.

Those with atrial cardiopathy were “more likely to be black and be women, and tended to have shorter time from stroke to screening,” Dr. Elkind said. In addition, heart failure, hypertension, and peripheral artery disease were more common in those with atrial cardiopathy. This group also was more likely to have an elevation in creatinine and lower hemoglobin and hematocrit levels.

“Heart disease, ischemic heart disease and non-hypertensive vascular disease were significant risk factors” for recurrent stroke in the study, Dr. Elkind added.

Elkind said that, surprisingly, there was no independent association between the time to measurement of NT-proBNP and risk, suggesting that this biomarker “does not rise simply in response to stroke, but reflects a stable condition.”

The multicenter ARCADIA trial is recruiting additional participants at 142 sites now, Dr. Elkind said, “and we are still looking for more sites.”

Which comes first?

“He is looking at what the predictors are for cardiopathy in these patients, which is fascinating for all of us,” session moderator Michelle Christina Johansen, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview when asked to comment.

There is always the conundrum of what came first — the chicken or the egg, Johansen said. Do these patients have stroke that then somehow led to a state that predisposes them to have atrial cardiopathy? Or, rather, was it an atrial cardiopathy state independent of atrial fibrillation that then led to stroke?

“That is why looking at predictors in this population is of such interest,” she said. The study could help identify a subgroup of patients at higher risk for atrial cardiopathy and guide clinical decision-making when patients present with ESUS.

“One of the things I found interesting was that he found that atrial cardiopathy patients were older [a mean 69 years]. This was amazing, because ESUS patients in general tend to be younger,” Dr. Johansen said.

“And there is about a 4-5% risk of recurrence with these patients. So. it was interesting that prior stroke or [transient ischemic attack] was not associated.”*

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the BMS-Pfizer Alliance, and Roche provide funding for ARCADIA. Dr. Elkind and Dr. Johansen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Elkind M et al. ISC 2020, Abstract 26.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

*Correction, 4/28/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the risk of recurrence.

LOS ANGELES – Older age, female sex, black race, relative anemia, and a history of cardiovascular disease are associated with greater risk for atrial cardiopathy among people who experienced an embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), new evidence suggests.

Atrial cardiopathy is a suspected cause of ESUS independent of atrial fibrillation. However, clinical predictors to help physicians identify which ESUS patients are at increased risk remain unknown.

The risk for atrial cardiopathy was 34% higher for women versus men with ESUS in this analysis. In addition, black participants had a 29% increased risk, compared with others, and each 10 years of age increased risk for atrial cardiopathy by 30% in an univariable analysis.

“Modest effects of these associations suggest that all ESUS patients, regardless of underlying demographic and risk factors, may have atrial cardiopathy,” principal investigator Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said when presenting results at the 2020 International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.

For this reason, he added, all people with ESUS should be considered for recruitment into the ongoing ARCADIA (AtRial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs In Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke) trial, of which he is one of the principal investigators.

ESUS is a heterogeneous condition, and some patients may be responsive to anticoagulants and some might not, Elkind said. This observation “led us to consider alternative ways for ischemic disease to lead to stroke. We would hypothesize that the underlying atrium can be a risk for stroke by itself.”

Not yet available is the primary efficacy outcome of the multicenter, randomized ARCADIA trial comparing apixaban with aspirin in reducing risk for recurrent stroke of any type. However, Dr. Elkind and colleagues have recruited 1,505 patients to date, enough to analyze factors that predict risk for recurrent stroke among people with evidence of atrial cardiopathy.

All ARCADIA participants are 45 years of age or older and have no history of atrial fibrillation. Atrial cardiopathy was defined by presence of at least one of three biomarkers: N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), P wave terminal force velocity, or evidence of a left atrial diameter of 3 cm/m² or larger on echocardiography.

Of the 1,349 ARCADIA participants eligible for the current analysis, approximately one-third met one or more of these criteria for atrial cardiopathy.

Those with atrial cardiopathy were “more likely to be black and be women, and tended to have shorter time from stroke to screening,” Dr. Elkind said. In addition, heart failure, hypertension, and peripheral artery disease were more common in those with atrial cardiopathy. This group also was more likely to have an elevation in creatinine and lower hemoglobin and hematocrit levels.

“Heart disease, ischemic heart disease and non-hypertensive vascular disease were significant risk factors” for recurrent stroke in the study, Dr. Elkind added.

Elkind said that, surprisingly, there was no independent association between the time to measurement of NT-proBNP and risk, suggesting that this biomarker “does not rise simply in response to stroke, but reflects a stable condition.”

The multicenter ARCADIA trial is recruiting additional participants at 142 sites now, Dr. Elkind said, “and we are still looking for more sites.”

Which comes first?

“He is looking at what the predictors are for cardiopathy in these patients, which is fascinating for all of us,” session moderator Michelle Christina Johansen, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview when asked to comment.

There is always the conundrum of what came first — the chicken or the egg, Johansen said. Do these patients have stroke that then somehow led to a state that predisposes them to have atrial cardiopathy? Or, rather, was it an atrial cardiopathy state independent of atrial fibrillation that then led to stroke?

“That is why looking at predictors in this population is of such interest,” she said. The study could help identify a subgroup of patients at higher risk for atrial cardiopathy and guide clinical decision-making when patients present with ESUS.

“One of the things I found interesting was that he found that atrial cardiopathy patients were older [a mean 69 years]. This was amazing, because ESUS patients in general tend to be younger,” Dr. Johansen said.

“And there is about a 4-5% risk of recurrence with these patients. So. it was interesting that prior stroke or [transient ischemic attack] was not associated.”*

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the BMS-Pfizer Alliance, and Roche provide funding for ARCADIA. Dr. Elkind and Dr. Johansen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Elkind M et al. ISC 2020, Abstract 26.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

*Correction, 4/28/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the risk of recurrence.

LOS ANGELES – Older age, female sex, black race, relative anemia, and a history of cardiovascular disease are associated with greater risk for atrial cardiopathy among people who experienced an embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), new evidence suggests.

Atrial cardiopathy is a suspected cause of ESUS independent of atrial fibrillation. However, clinical predictors to help physicians identify which ESUS patients are at increased risk remain unknown.

The risk for atrial cardiopathy was 34% higher for women versus men with ESUS in this analysis. In addition, black participants had a 29% increased risk, compared with others, and each 10 years of age increased risk for atrial cardiopathy by 30% in an univariable analysis.

“Modest effects of these associations suggest that all ESUS patients, regardless of underlying demographic and risk factors, may have atrial cardiopathy,” principal investigator Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said when presenting results at the 2020 International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.

For this reason, he added, all people with ESUS should be considered for recruitment into the ongoing ARCADIA (AtRial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs In Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke) trial, of which he is one of the principal investigators.

ESUS is a heterogeneous condition, and some patients may be responsive to anticoagulants and some might not, Elkind said. This observation “led us to consider alternative ways for ischemic disease to lead to stroke. We would hypothesize that the underlying atrium can be a risk for stroke by itself.”

Not yet available is the primary efficacy outcome of the multicenter, randomized ARCADIA trial comparing apixaban with aspirin in reducing risk for recurrent stroke of any type. However, Dr. Elkind and colleagues have recruited 1,505 patients to date, enough to analyze factors that predict risk for recurrent stroke among people with evidence of atrial cardiopathy.

All ARCADIA participants are 45 years of age or older and have no history of atrial fibrillation. Atrial cardiopathy was defined by presence of at least one of three biomarkers: N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), P wave terminal force velocity, or evidence of a left atrial diameter of 3 cm/m² or larger on echocardiography.

Of the 1,349 ARCADIA participants eligible for the current analysis, approximately one-third met one or more of these criteria for atrial cardiopathy.

Those with atrial cardiopathy were “more likely to be black and be women, and tended to have shorter time from stroke to screening,” Dr. Elkind said. In addition, heart failure, hypertension, and peripheral artery disease were more common in those with atrial cardiopathy. This group also was more likely to have an elevation in creatinine and lower hemoglobin and hematocrit levels.

“Heart disease, ischemic heart disease and non-hypertensive vascular disease were significant risk factors” for recurrent stroke in the study, Dr. Elkind added.

Elkind said that, surprisingly, there was no independent association between the time to measurement of NT-proBNP and risk, suggesting that this biomarker “does not rise simply in response to stroke, but reflects a stable condition.”

The multicenter ARCADIA trial is recruiting additional participants at 142 sites now, Dr. Elkind said, “and we are still looking for more sites.”

Which comes first?

“He is looking at what the predictors are for cardiopathy in these patients, which is fascinating for all of us,” session moderator Michelle Christina Johansen, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview when asked to comment.

There is always the conundrum of what came first — the chicken or the egg, Johansen said. Do these patients have stroke that then somehow led to a state that predisposes them to have atrial cardiopathy? Or, rather, was it an atrial cardiopathy state independent of atrial fibrillation that then led to stroke?

“That is why looking at predictors in this population is of such interest,” she said. The study could help identify a subgroup of patients at higher risk for atrial cardiopathy and guide clinical decision-making when patients present with ESUS.

“One of the things I found interesting was that he found that atrial cardiopathy patients were older [a mean 69 years]. This was amazing, because ESUS patients in general tend to be younger,” Dr. Johansen said.

“And there is about a 4-5% risk of recurrence with these patients. So. it was interesting that prior stroke or [transient ischemic attack] was not associated.”*

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the BMS-Pfizer Alliance, and Roche provide funding for ARCADIA. Dr. Elkind and Dr. Johansen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Elkind M et al. ISC 2020, Abstract 26.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

*Correction, 4/28/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the risk of recurrence.