Neurology

A significant proportion of community-dwelling older adults with dementia take three or more central nervous system medications despite guidelines that say to avoid this dangerous practice, new research suggests.

Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.

“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
 

Serious risks

Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.

They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”

The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.

They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.

To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.

They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
 

Conservative approach warranted

Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.

There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.

Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.

The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.

Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.

“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.

Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.

In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
 

A major clinical challenge

Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”

Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.

“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.

Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A significant proportion of community-dwelling older adults with dementia take three or more central nervous system medications despite guidelines that say to avoid this dangerous practice, new research suggests.

Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.

“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
 

Serious risks

Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.

They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”

The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.

They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.

To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.

They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
 

Conservative approach warranted

Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.

There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.

Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.

The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.

Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.

“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.

Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.

In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
 

A major clinical challenge

Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”

Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.

“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.

Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A significant proportion of community-dwelling older adults with dementia take three or more central nervous system medications despite guidelines that say to avoid this dangerous practice, new research suggests.

Investigators found that 14% of these individuals were receiving CNS-active polypharmacy, defined as combinations of multiple psychotropic and opioid medications taken for more than 30 days.

“For most patients, the risks of these medications, particularly in combination, are almost certainly greater than the potential benefits,” said Donovan Maust, MD, associate director of the geriatric psychiatry program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was published online March 9 in JAMA.
 

Serious risks

Memory impairment is the cardinal feature of dementia, but behavioral and psychological symptoms, which can include apathy, delusions, and agitation, are common during all stages of illness and cause significant caregiver distress, the researchers noted.

They noted that there is a dearth of high-quality evidence to support prescribing these medications in this patient population, yet “clinicians regularly prescribe psychotropic medications to community-dwelling persons with dementia in rates that far exceed use in the general older adult population.”

The Beers Criteria, from the American Geriatrics Society, advise against the practice of CNS polypharmacy because of the significant increase in risk for falls as well as impaired cognition, cardiac conduction abnormalities, respiratory suppression, and death when polypharmacy involves opioids.

They note that previous studies from Europe of polypharmacy for patients with dementia have not included antiepileptic medications or opioids, so the true extent of CNS-active polypharmacy may be “significantly” underestimated.

To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy with CNS-active medications among community-dwelling older adults with dementia, the researchers analyzed data on prescription fills for nearly 1.2 million community-dwelling Medicare patients with dementia.

The primary outcome was the prevalence of CNS-active polypharmacy in 2018. They defined CNS-active polypharmacy as exposure to three or more medications for more than 30 consecutive days from the following drug classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics, and opioids.

They found that roughly one in seven (13.9%) patients met criteria for CNS-active polypharmacy. Of those receiving a CNS-active polypharmacy regimen, 57.8% had been doing so for longer than 180 days, and 6.8% had been doing so for a year. Nearly 30% of patients were exposed to five or more medications, and 5.2% were exposed to five or more medication classes.
 

Conservative approach warranted

Nearly all (92%) patients taking three or more CNS-active medications were taking an antidepressant, “consistent with their place as the psychotropic class most commonly prescribed both to older adults overall and those with dementia,” the investigators noted.

There is minimal high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression for patients with dementia, they pointed out.

Nearly half (47%) of patients who were taking three or more CNS-active medications received at least one antipsychotic, most often quetiapine. Antipsychotics are not approved for people with dementia but are often prescribed off label for agitation, anxiety, and sleep problems, the researchers noted.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of patients with dementia who were taking three or more CNS drugs were taking an antiepileptic (most commonly, gabapentin); 41%, benzodiazepines; 32%, opioids; and 6%, Z-drugs.

The most common polypharmacy class combination included at least one antidepressant, one antiepileptic, and one antipsychotic. These accounted for 12.9% of polypharmacy days.

Despite limited high-quality evidence of efficacy, the prescribing of psychotropic medications and opioids is “pervasive” for adults with dementia in the United States, the investigators noted.

“Especially given that older adults with dementia might not be able to convey side effects they are experiencing, I think clinicians should be more conservative in how they are prescribing these medications and skeptical about the potential for benefit,” said Dr. Maust.

Regarding study limitations, the researchers noted that prescription medication claims may have led to an overestimation of the exposure to polypharmacy, insofar as the prescriptions may have been filled but not taken or were taken only on an as-needed basis.

In addition, the investigators were unable to determine the appropriateness of the particular combinations used or to examine the specific harms associated with CNS-active polypharmacy.
 

A major clinical challenge

Weighing in on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study is important because polypharmacy is one of the “geriatric giants, and the question is, what do you do about it?”

Dr. Fillit said it is important to conduct a careful medication review for all older patients, “making sure that the use of each drug is appropriate. The most important thing is to define what is the appropriate utilization of these kinds of drugs. That goes for both overutilization or misuse of these drugs and underutilization, where people are undertreated for symptoms that can’t be managed by behavioral management, for example,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Fillit also said the finding that about 14% of dementia patients were receiving three or more of these drugs “may not be an outrageous number, because these patients, especially as they get into moderate and severe stages of disease, can be incredibly difficult to manage.

“Very often, dementia patients have depression, and up to 90% will have agitation and even psychosis during the course of dementia. And many of these patients need these types of drugs,” said Dr. Fillit.

Echoing the authors, Dr. Fillit said a key limitation of the study is not knowing whether the prescribing was appropriate or not.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Maust and Dr. Fillit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children who have higher levels of sun exposure appear to have a substantially lower risk of developing pediatric multiple sclerosis (MS) than children who are less exposed to the sun, research shows. The use of sunscreen does not appear to affect the risk.

“This is the first study, as far as we are aware, to investigate the effect of sun exposure in pediatric MS,” first author Prince Sebastian, of the ANU Medical School, Australian National University, Canberra, said during a presentation at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“In order to reduce the incidence of MS, parents should be encouraged to allow their children to spend at least 30 minutes outdoors in the sun every day, while using adequate sun protection,” Mr. Sebastian said.

“This is especially important for children with a family history of MS,” he said. As the findings show, “you can use adequate sun protection and still get the benefit of sun exposure in terms of MS risk reduction.”

Low sun exposure, exposure to ultraviolet light, and vitamin D have been well established as modifiable risk factors for MS in adults. However, research is lacking on the effect of these factors upon patients younger than 18 years who have pediatric MS, a less common form of the disease. Pediatric MS constitutes about 5% of all MS cases.

To investigate the issue, Mr. Sebastian and colleagues evaluated data on 332 patients with pediatric MS who were between the ages of 4 and 22 years. The patients were enrolled at 16 MS centers around the United States. They were compared by sex and age with 534 control persons aged 3-22 years who did not have MS.

For the patients with MS, the median disease duration was 7.3 months, and 63% were female. The median age of the patients was 15.9 years.

Compared with those who did not have MS, patients with MS were significantly less likely to have been exposed to cigarette smoke (17.8% vs. 14.2%). They were significantly more likely to be overweight (23.8% vs. 14.2%), and the median anti-VCA level was higher (3.7 vs. 2.2).

Those who were exposed to the sun during the most recent summer for a duration of 30 minutes to 1 hour daily, as determined on the basis of self-report or parent report, had a 2.6-fold reduced risk of having MS, compared with those who spent less than 30 minutes outdoors daily (odds ratio, 0.39; P < .05), after adjusting for age, sex, birth season, the child’s skin color, the mother’s education, smoke exposure, being overweight, and Epstein-Barr virus infection.

Sun exposure for 1-2 hours daily was associated with a 7.4-fold reduced risk for MS, compared with exposure of 30 minutes or less (OR, 0.13; P < .001).

The odds were similar for those with 2-3 hours of sun exposure (OR, 0.21; P < .001) and for those with more than 3 hours of daily exposure (OR, 0.14; P < .001), versus less than 30 minutes.

Mr. Sebastian and his team also assessed the role of summer ambient levels of UV light and whether such exposure conferred a similar degree of protection. The risk for MS was lower among those who were exposed to higher summer ambient UV levels than among those exposed to lower levels (OR, 0.80; P = .046).

He noted, “Based on the results, individuals residing in Florida (28° N) would have 20% lower odds of MS, compared with an individual residing in New York (40° N).”

Interestingly, median rates of the use of sun protection were similar for the participants with MS and those without MS (OR, 0.95), suggesting that the use of sunscreen did not reduce the protective effect of sun exposure.

“We predicted that greater use of protection would limit effective sun exposure and would therefore increase MS risk,” Mr. Sebastian said, “but we don’t see that, and it’s probably because someone who uses sun protection likely gets more sun exposure anyway.”

“Our results suggest that you can use adequate sun protection and still get most of the benefit in terms of MS prevention, which is quite encouraging,” he added.

For those with MS, median serum 25(OH)D levels were higher (27.7 ng/mL vs. 23.7 ng/mL; P < .001), but Mr. Sebastian noted that this difference was likely attributable to the use of vitamin D supplementation after an MS diagnosis. An important limitation of the study was a lack of data on supplementation.
 

Stronger effect of frequent sun protection

Previous studies have shown a link between sun exposure and MS. A study published in 2018 compared 2,251 patients with MS with 4,028 control persons who did not have MS. The participants were in Canada, Italy, and Norway.

In that study, for most of the patients with MS, the age of onset was older than 18 years. In that study, there was a nearly 50% increased risk among those with the lowest degree of summer sun exposure in comparison with those who had the highest level of exposure (risk ratio, 1.47).

Contrary to the current study, that study did show an effect of the use of sun protection – those with the lowest degree of sun exposure during summer and winter and the highest use of sun protection had the highest risk for MS. They had a 76% increased risk, compared with those who had the highest degree of sun exposure and the least use of sun protection (RR, 1.76).

Sandra Magalhaes, PhD, of the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, who was first author on that study, noted that the new study of pediatric MS adds valuable evidence on the issue.

“This study is important, as it adds to the etiological literature on MS implicating relevance of sun exposure,” Dr. Magalhaes said.

“We have a number of studies that have demonstrated an important effect of reduced levels of sun exposure and increased risk of MS. However, these studies focus on adult-onset MS populations; rather, the new study adds to the existing literature, as it also implicates sun exposure in etiology of pediatric-onset MS,” she said.

Notably, their previous work, unlike the current study, showed that, among those who experienced low levels of sun exposure, the risk for MS was higher for those who used sunscreen frequently.

“Overall, in their limited time outdoors, use of sunscreen may further increase risk of MS, which makes sense, since limited time outdoors in less sun, adding sun protection means [exposure to] even less sun.”

The findings of both studies support the bulk of research indicating that sun exposure is beneficial with regard to MS.

“There is a need for promoting balanced safe sun practices to reduce disease burden, especially in countries and cultures where children spend a lot of time indoors,” Dr. Magalhaes said. “Sun exposure has a number of important physiological roles, including vitamin D synthesis but also immune system functioning.”

Mr. Sebastian and Dr. Magalhaes have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children who have higher levels of sun exposure appear to have a substantially lower risk of developing pediatric multiple sclerosis (MS) than children who are less exposed to the sun, research shows. The use of sunscreen does not appear to affect the risk.

“This is the first study, as far as we are aware, to investigate the effect of sun exposure in pediatric MS,” first author Prince Sebastian, of the ANU Medical School, Australian National University, Canberra, said during a presentation at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“In order to reduce the incidence of MS, parents should be encouraged to allow their children to spend at least 30 minutes outdoors in the sun every day, while using adequate sun protection,” Mr. Sebastian said.

“This is especially important for children with a family history of MS,” he said. As the findings show, “you can use adequate sun protection and still get the benefit of sun exposure in terms of MS risk reduction.”

Low sun exposure, exposure to ultraviolet light, and vitamin D have been well established as modifiable risk factors for MS in adults. However, research is lacking on the effect of these factors upon patients younger than 18 years who have pediatric MS, a less common form of the disease. Pediatric MS constitutes about 5% of all MS cases.

To investigate the issue, Mr. Sebastian and colleagues evaluated data on 332 patients with pediatric MS who were between the ages of 4 and 22 years. The patients were enrolled at 16 MS centers around the United States. They were compared by sex and age with 534 control persons aged 3-22 years who did not have MS.

For the patients with MS, the median disease duration was 7.3 months, and 63% were female. The median age of the patients was 15.9 years.

Compared with those who did not have MS, patients with MS were significantly less likely to have been exposed to cigarette smoke (17.8% vs. 14.2%). They were significantly more likely to be overweight (23.8% vs. 14.2%), and the median anti-VCA level was higher (3.7 vs. 2.2).

Those who were exposed to the sun during the most recent summer for a duration of 30 minutes to 1 hour daily, as determined on the basis of self-report or parent report, had a 2.6-fold reduced risk of having MS, compared with those who spent less than 30 minutes outdoors daily (odds ratio, 0.39; P < .05), after adjusting for age, sex, birth season, the child’s skin color, the mother’s education, smoke exposure, being overweight, and Epstein-Barr virus infection.

Sun exposure for 1-2 hours daily was associated with a 7.4-fold reduced risk for MS, compared with exposure of 30 minutes or less (OR, 0.13; P < .001).

The odds were similar for those with 2-3 hours of sun exposure (OR, 0.21; P < .001) and for those with more than 3 hours of daily exposure (OR, 0.14; P < .001), versus less than 30 minutes.

Mr. Sebastian and his team also assessed the role of summer ambient levels of UV light and whether such exposure conferred a similar degree of protection. The risk for MS was lower among those who were exposed to higher summer ambient UV levels than among those exposed to lower levels (OR, 0.80; P = .046).

He noted, “Based on the results, individuals residing in Florida (28° N) would have 20% lower odds of MS, compared with an individual residing in New York (40° N).”

Interestingly, median rates of the use of sun protection were similar for the participants with MS and those without MS (OR, 0.95), suggesting that the use of sunscreen did not reduce the protective effect of sun exposure.

“We predicted that greater use of protection would limit effective sun exposure and would therefore increase MS risk,” Mr. Sebastian said, “but we don’t see that, and it’s probably because someone who uses sun protection likely gets more sun exposure anyway.”

“Our results suggest that you can use adequate sun protection and still get most of the benefit in terms of MS prevention, which is quite encouraging,” he added.

For those with MS, median serum 25(OH)D levels were higher (27.7 ng/mL vs. 23.7 ng/mL; P < .001), but Mr. Sebastian noted that this difference was likely attributable to the use of vitamin D supplementation after an MS diagnosis. An important limitation of the study was a lack of data on supplementation.
 

Stronger effect of frequent sun protection

Previous studies have shown a link between sun exposure and MS. A study published in 2018 compared 2,251 patients with MS with 4,028 control persons who did not have MS. The participants were in Canada, Italy, and Norway.

In that study, for most of the patients with MS, the age of onset was older than 18 years. In that study, there was a nearly 50% increased risk among those with the lowest degree of summer sun exposure in comparison with those who had the highest level of exposure (risk ratio, 1.47).

Contrary to the current study, that study did show an effect of the use of sun protection – those with the lowest degree of sun exposure during summer and winter and the highest use of sun protection had the highest risk for MS. They had a 76% increased risk, compared with those who had the highest degree of sun exposure and the least use of sun protection (RR, 1.76).

Sandra Magalhaes, PhD, of the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, who was first author on that study, noted that the new study of pediatric MS adds valuable evidence on the issue.

“This study is important, as it adds to the etiological literature on MS implicating relevance of sun exposure,” Dr. Magalhaes said.

“We have a number of studies that have demonstrated an important effect of reduced levels of sun exposure and increased risk of MS. However, these studies focus on adult-onset MS populations; rather, the new study adds to the existing literature, as it also implicates sun exposure in etiology of pediatric-onset MS,” she said.

Notably, their previous work, unlike the current study, showed that, among those who experienced low levels of sun exposure, the risk for MS was higher for those who used sunscreen frequently.

“Overall, in their limited time outdoors, use of sunscreen may further increase risk of MS, which makes sense, since limited time outdoors in less sun, adding sun protection means [exposure to] even less sun.”

The findings of both studies support the bulk of research indicating that sun exposure is beneficial with regard to MS.

“There is a need for promoting balanced safe sun practices to reduce disease burden, especially in countries and cultures where children spend a lot of time indoors,” Dr. Magalhaes said. “Sun exposure has a number of important physiological roles, including vitamin D synthesis but also immune system functioning.”

Mr. Sebastian and Dr. Magalhaes have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children who have higher levels of sun exposure appear to have a substantially lower risk of developing pediatric multiple sclerosis (MS) than children who are less exposed to the sun, research shows. The use of sunscreen does not appear to affect the risk.

“This is the first study, as far as we are aware, to investigate the effect of sun exposure in pediatric MS,” first author Prince Sebastian, of the ANU Medical School, Australian National University, Canberra, said during a presentation at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

“In order to reduce the incidence of MS, parents should be encouraged to allow their children to spend at least 30 minutes outdoors in the sun every day, while using adequate sun protection,” Mr. Sebastian said.

“This is especially important for children with a family history of MS,” he said. As the findings show, “you can use adequate sun protection and still get the benefit of sun exposure in terms of MS risk reduction.”

Low sun exposure, exposure to ultraviolet light, and vitamin D have been well established as modifiable risk factors for MS in adults. However, research is lacking on the effect of these factors upon patients younger than 18 years who have pediatric MS, a less common form of the disease. Pediatric MS constitutes about 5% of all MS cases.

To investigate the issue, Mr. Sebastian and colleagues evaluated data on 332 patients with pediatric MS who were between the ages of 4 and 22 years. The patients were enrolled at 16 MS centers around the United States. They were compared by sex and age with 534 control persons aged 3-22 years who did not have MS.

For the patients with MS, the median disease duration was 7.3 months, and 63% were female. The median age of the patients was 15.9 years.

Compared with those who did not have MS, patients with MS were significantly less likely to have been exposed to cigarette smoke (17.8% vs. 14.2%). They were significantly more likely to be overweight (23.8% vs. 14.2%), and the median anti-VCA level was higher (3.7 vs. 2.2).

Those who were exposed to the sun during the most recent summer for a duration of 30 minutes to 1 hour daily, as determined on the basis of self-report or parent report, had a 2.6-fold reduced risk of having MS, compared with those who spent less than 30 minutes outdoors daily (odds ratio, 0.39; P < .05), after adjusting for age, sex, birth season, the child’s skin color, the mother’s education, smoke exposure, being overweight, and Epstein-Barr virus infection.

Sun exposure for 1-2 hours daily was associated with a 7.4-fold reduced risk for MS, compared with exposure of 30 minutes or less (OR, 0.13; P < .001).

The odds were similar for those with 2-3 hours of sun exposure (OR, 0.21; P < .001) and for those with more than 3 hours of daily exposure (OR, 0.14; P < .001), versus less than 30 minutes.

Mr. Sebastian and his team also assessed the role of summer ambient levels of UV light and whether such exposure conferred a similar degree of protection. The risk for MS was lower among those who were exposed to higher summer ambient UV levels than among those exposed to lower levels (OR, 0.80; P = .046).

He noted, “Based on the results, individuals residing in Florida (28° N) would have 20% lower odds of MS, compared with an individual residing in New York (40° N).”

Interestingly, median rates of the use of sun protection were similar for the participants with MS and those without MS (OR, 0.95), suggesting that the use of sunscreen did not reduce the protective effect of sun exposure.

“We predicted that greater use of protection would limit effective sun exposure and would therefore increase MS risk,” Mr. Sebastian said, “but we don’t see that, and it’s probably because someone who uses sun protection likely gets more sun exposure anyway.”

“Our results suggest that you can use adequate sun protection and still get most of the benefit in terms of MS prevention, which is quite encouraging,” he added.

For those with MS, median serum 25(OH)D levels were higher (27.7 ng/mL vs. 23.7 ng/mL; P < .001), but Mr. Sebastian noted that this difference was likely attributable to the use of vitamin D supplementation after an MS diagnosis. An important limitation of the study was a lack of data on supplementation.
 

Stronger effect of frequent sun protection

Previous studies have shown a link between sun exposure and MS. A study published in 2018 compared 2,251 patients with MS with 4,028 control persons who did not have MS. The participants were in Canada, Italy, and Norway.

In that study, for most of the patients with MS, the age of onset was older than 18 years. In that study, there was a nearly 50% increased risk among those with the lowest degree of summer sun exposure in comparison with those who had the highest level of exposure (risk ratio, 1.47).

Contrary to the current study, that study did show an effect of the use of sun protection – those with the lowest degree of sun exposure during summer and winter and the highest use of sun protection had the highest risk for MS. They had a 76% increased risk, compared with those who had the highest degree of sun exposure and the least use of sun protection (RR, 1.76).

Sandra Magalhaes, PhD, of the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, who was first author on that study, noted that the new study of pediatric MS adds valuable evidence on the issue.

“This study is important, as it adds to the etiological literature on MS implicating relevance of sun exposure,” Dr. Magalhaes said.

“We have a number of studies that have demonstrated an important effect of reduced levels of sun exposure and increased risk of MS. However, these studies focus on adult-onset MS populations; rather, the new study adds to the existing literature, as it also implicates sun exposure in etiology of pediatric-onset MS,” she said.

Notably, their previous work, unlike the current study, showed that, among those who experienced low levels of sun exposure, the risk for MS was higher for those who used sunscreen frequently.

“Overall, in their limited time outdoors, use of sunscreen may further increase risk of MS, which makes sense, since limited time outdoors in less sun, adding sun protection means [exposure to] even less sun.”

The findings of both studies support the bulk of research indicating that sun exposure is beneficial with regard to MS.

“There is a need for promoting balanced safe sun practices to reduce disease burden, especially in countries and cultures where children spend a lot of time indoors,” Dr. Magalhaes said. “Sun exposure has a number of important physiological roles, including vitamin D synthesis but also immune system functioning.”

Mr. Sebastian and Dr. Magalhaes have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the January 2019 article “Migraine: Expanding our Tx arsenal” (J Fam Pract. 2019;68:10-14,16-24), Table 2: Establishing the differential diagnosis of headache provided information that was incorrectly categorized. The table should not have included “Temporal arteritis” as a trigger for a headache caused by infection. Rather, the table should have listed “Temporal arteritis” among the triggers for a headache caused by an autoimmune disorder. In addition, “Acute and chronic sinusitis” and “Meningitis” should not have been listed as triggers for a headache with an iatrogenic or intoxication cause. Rather, they should have been the only triggers attributed to headaches with an infectious origin. The revised table can be found here.

In the January 2019 article “Migraine: Expanding our Tx arsenal” (J Fam Pract. 2019;68:10-14,16-24), Table 2: Establishing the differential diagnosis of headache provided information that was incorrectly categorized. The table should not have included “Temporal arteritis” as a trigger for a headache caused by infection. Rather, the table should have listed “Temporal arteritis” among the triggers for a headache caused by an autoimmune disorder. In addition, “Acute and chronic sinusitis” and “Meningitis” should not have been listed as triggers for a headache with an iatrogenic or intoxication cause. Rather, they should have been the only triggers attributed to headaches with an infectious origin. The revised table can be found here.

In the January 2019 article “Migraine: Expanding our Tx arsenal” (J Fam Pract. 2019;68:10-14,16-24), Table 2: Establishing the differential diagnosis of headache provided information that was incorrectly categorized. The table should not have included “Temporal arteritis” as a trigger for a headache caused by infection. Rather, the table should have listed “Temporal arteritis” among the triggers for a headache caused by an autoimmune disorder. In addition, “Acute and chronic sinusitis” and “Meningitis” should not have been listed as triggers for a headache with an iatrogenic or intoxication cause. Rather, they should have been the only triggers attributed to headaches with an infectious origin. The revised table can be found here.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics differently, a new study finds, and there are big gaps in how they respond to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

“Hispanics and African Americans develop a more severe disease course and accumulate more MS-related disability over time despite similar sociodemographic backgrounds and similar patterns of DMT use throughout their disease, suggesting that socioeconomic status and access to health care may not be the main determinants of health,” said neurologist Carlos Pérez, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. He spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and in a follow-up interview.

“In addition,” Dr. Pérez said, “therapeutic responses to individual DMTs, as well as tolerance and side-effect profiles, are also variable among racial/ethnic groups.”

The researchers tracked 150 patients with MS at the University of Texas Health Science Center – 50 Whites, 50 African American, and 50 Hispanic – who were age and gender matched. The average age of the subjects was 45, and 74% of those in each group were women.

While educational levels between the groups were similar, African Americans had a much higher rate of lost employment because of disability (38%) than Hispanics (19%) and Whites (15%, P = .02). Fifty-seven patients (38%) needed escalation of therapy, and 63% were African American.

About 30% of subjects switched DMTs because of intolerance/adverse events, and 47% of those were African American. Interferons most commonly caused adverse effects in African Americans (61%), and Whites were the most likely to not tolerate glatiramer acetate (39%) than Hispanics (8%) and African Americans (13%).

What might be behind the disparities? “It is possible that genetic factors may play a greater role than previously thought. A recent study reported that Hispanic and African American patients with MS have higher levels of peripheral blood plasmablasts, which may provide indirect evidence for potential biological mechanisms underlying racial and clinical disparities in MS,” Dr. Pérez said. “These mechanisms appear to involve higher degrees of inflammation in the central nervous system. This may explain why African Americans may respond better to higher-efficacy therapies initially, when inflammatory processes predominate MS-related pathology, rather than at later stages of the disease when inflammation plays a less prominent role. Neurologists should consider higher-efficacy DMT as first line. We have begun to do this in our practice.”

Dr. Pérez said the findings offer other lessons. “Neurologists should consider that Caucasian patients tolerate glatiramer acetate less frequently, compared with other racial groups, and potentially consider using alternative DMTs unless the benefits outweigh the risks, such as during pregnancy.”

He also noted that African Americans treated with oral DMTs at baseline were more likely to develop worsening disability over time. “This argues in favor of infusion therapies as first-line treatment,” he said, adding that more Hispanics with MS were not on treatment – or discontinued treatment – compared with Whites and African Americans.
 

Close patient monitoring is key

Atlanta-area neurologist Mitzi Joi Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study findings, said in an interview that it “adds to the body of real-world evidence to assist understanding of MS in minority populations.”

She noted that African American patients who started on infusions appeared to be more stable. “There are a great deal of questions surrounding starting patients on injectables versus higher-efficacy therapy initially to prevent disability and this may lend credence to the need for closer examination of initial therapy for these patients. It is important to closely monitor patients and consider a switch in DMT if there is any clinical or radiologic progression, especially for African American and Hispanic patients since there is a great deal of data to suggest they may have more aggressive disease.”

Moving forward, more research like this is needed, she said. “Patients did all have insurance and were largely educated, but there could be other social determinants of health – i.e., transportation, lapses in insurance, or technology barriers – that may have led to worse outcomes.”

No study funding was reported, and Dr. Pérez reported no disclosures. Dr. Williams disclosed research support from EMD Serono, Genentech, and Novartis and advisory committee/consultant relationships with AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics differently, a new study finds, and there are big gaps in how they respond to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

“Hispanics and African Americans develop a more severe disease course and accumulate more MS-related disability over time despite similar sociodemographic backgrounds and similar patterns of DMT use throughout their disease, suggesting that socioeconomic status and access to health care may not be the main determinants of health,” said neurologist Carlos Pérez, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. He spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and in a follow-up interview.

“In addition,” Dr. Pérez said, “therapeutic responses to individual DMTs, as well as tolerance and side-effect profiles, are also variable among racial/ethnic groups.”

The researchers tracked 150 patients with MS at the University of Texas Health Science Center – 50 Whites, 50 African American, and 50 Hispanic – who were age and gender matched. The average age of the subjects was 45, and 74% of those in each group were women.

While educational levels between the groups were similar, African Americans had a much higher rate of lost employment because of disability (38%) than Hispanics (19%) and Whites (15%, P = .02). Fifty-seven patients (38%) needed escalation of therapy, and 63% were African American.

About 30% of subjects switched DMTs because of intolerance/adverse events, and 47% of those were African American. Interferons most commonly caused adverse effects in African Americans (61%), and Whites were the most likely to not tolerate glatiramer acetate (39%) than Hispanics (8%) and African Americans (13%).

What might be behind the disparities? “It is possible that genetic factors may play a greater role than previously thought. A recent study reported that Hispanic and African American patients with MS have higher levels of peripheral blood plasmablasts, which may provide indirect evidence for potential biological mechanisms underlying racial and clinical disparities in MS,” Dr. Pérez said. “These mechanisms appear to involve higher degrees of inflammation in the central nervous system. This may explain why African Americans may respond better to higher-efficacy therapies initially, when inflammatory processes predominate MS-related pathology, rather than at later stages of the disease when inflammation plays a less prominent role. Neurologists should consider higher-efficacy DMT as first line. We have begun to do this in our practice.”

Dr. Pérez said the findings offer other lessons. “Neurologists should consider that Caucasian patients tolerate glatiramer acetate less frequently, compared with other racial groups, and potentially consider using alternative DMTs unless the benefits outweigh the risks, such as during pregnancy.”

He also noted that African Americans treated with oral DMTs at baseline were more likely to develop worsening disability over time. “This argues in favor of infusion therapies as first-line treatment,” he said, adding that more Hispanics with MS were not on treatment – or discontinued treatment – compared with Whites and African Americans.
 

Close patient monitoring is key

Atlanta-area neurologist Mitzi Joi Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study findings, said in an interview that it “adds to the body of real-world evidence to assist understanding of MS in minority populations.”

She noted that African American patients who started on infusions appeared to be more stable. “There are a great deal of questions surrounding starting patients on injectables versus higher-efficacy therapy initially to prevent disability and this may lend credence to the need for closer examination of initial therapy for these patients. It is important to closely monitor patients and consider a switch in DMT if there is any clinical or radiologic progression, especially for African American and Hispanic patients since there is a great deal of data to suggest they may have more aggressive disease.”

Moving forward, more research like this is needed, she said. “Patients did all have insurance and were largely educated, but there could be other social determinants of health – i.e., transportation, lapses in insurance, or technology barriers – that may have led to worse outcomes.”

No study funding was reported, and Dr. Pérez reported no disclosures. Dr. Williams disclosed research support from EMD Serono, Genentech, and Novartis and advisory committee/consultant relationships with AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) affects Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics differently, a new study finds, and there are big gaps in how they respond to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

“Hispanics and African Americans develop a more severe disease course and accumulate more MS-related disability over time despite similar sociodemographic backgrounds and similar patterns of DMT use throughout their disease, suggesting that socioeconomic status and access to health care may not be the main determinants of health,” said neurologist Carlos Pérez, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. He spoke at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and in a follow-up interview.

“In addition,” Dr. Pérez said, “therapeutic responses to individual DMTs, as well as tolerance and side-effect profiles, are also variable among racial/ethnic groups.”

The researchers tracked 150 patients with MS at the University of Texas Health Science Center – 50 Whites, 50 African American, and 50 Hispanic – who were age and gender matched. The average age of the subjects was 45, and 74% of those in each group were women.

While educational levels between the groups were similar, African Americans had a much higher rate of lost employment because of disability (38%) than Hispanics (19%) and Whites (15%, P = .02). Fifty-seven patients (38%) needed escalation of therapy, and 63% were African American.

About 30% of subjects switched DMTs because of intolerance/adverse events, and 47% of those were African American. Interferons most commonly caused adverse effects in African Americans (61%), and Whites were the most likely to not tolerate glatiramer acetate (39%) than Hispanics (8%) and African Americans (13%).

What might be behind the disparities? “It is possible that genetic factors may play a greater role than previously thought. A recent study reported that Hispanic and African American patients with MS have higher levels of peripheral blood plasmablasts, which may provide indirect evidence for potential biological mechanisms underlying racial and clinical disparities in MS,” Dr. Pérez said. “These mechanisms appear to involve higher degrees of inflammation in the central nervous system. This may explain why African Americans may respond better to higher-efficacy therapies initially, when inflammatory processes predominate MS-related pathology, rather than at later stages of the disease when inflammation plays a less prominent role. Neurologists should consider higher-efficacy DMT as first line. We have begun to do this in our practice.”

Dr. Pérez said the findings offer other lessons. “Neurologists should consider that Caucasian patients tolerate glatiramer acetate less frequently, compared with other racial groups, and potentially consider using alternative DMTs unless the benefits outweigh the risks, such as during pregnancy.”

He also noted that African Americans treated with oral DMTs at baseline were more likely to develop worsening disability over time. “This argues in favor of infusion therapies as first-line treatment,” he said, adding that more Hispanics with MS were not on treatment – or discontinued treatment – compared with Whites and African Americans.
 

Close patient monitoring is key

Atlanta-area neurologist Mitzi Joi Williams, MD, who was asked to comment on the study findings, said in an interview that it “adds to the body of real-world evidence to assist understanding of MS in minority populations.”

She noted that African American patients who started on infusions appeared to be more stable. “There are a great deal of questions surrounding starting patients on injectables versus higher-efficacy therapy initially to prevent disability and this may lend credence to the need for closer examination of initial therapy for these patients. It is important to closely monitor patients and consider a switch in DMT if there is any clinical or radiologic progression, especially for African American and Hispanic patients since there is a great deal of data to suggest they may have more aggressive disease.”

Moving forward, more research like this is needed, she said. “Patients did all have insurance and were largely educated, but there could be other social determinants of health – i.e., transportation, lapses in insurance, or technology barriers – that may have led to worse outcomes.”

No study funding was reported, and Dr. Pérez reported no disclosures. Dr. Williams disclosed research support from EMD Serono, Genentech, and Novartis and advisory committee/consultant relationships with AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

The risk of perioperative stroke in noncardiac, nonneurologic, nonvascular surgery ranges from 0.1 to 1.9% and is associated with increased mortality.^1,2 Stroke mechanisms include both ischemia (large and small vessel occlusion, cardioembolism, anemic-tissue hypoxia, cerebral hypoperfusion) and hemorrhage.¹ Risk factors for perioperative stroke include prior cerebral vascular accident (CVA), hypertension, aged > 62 years, acute renal insufficiency, dialysis, and recent myocardial infarction (MI).²

Introduction

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020.³ COVID-19 has certainly affected the veteran population; between February and May 2020, more than 60,000 veterans were tested for COVID-19 with a positive rate of about 9%.⁴ While primarily affecting the respiratory system, there are increasing reports of COVID-19 neurologic manifestations: headache, hypogeusia, hyposomia, seizure, encephalitis, and acute stroke.⁵ In an early case series from Wuhan, China, 36% of 214 patients with COVID-19 reported neurologic complications, and acute CVAs were more common in patients with severe (compared to milder) viral disease presentations (5.7% vs 0.8%).⁶ Large vessel stroke was a presenting feature in another report of 5 patients aged < 50 years.⁷

The mechanism of ischemic stroke in the setting of COVID-19 is unclear.⁸ Indeed, stroke and COVID-19 share similar risk factors (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus [DM], older age), and immobile critically ill patients may already be prone to developing stroke.^5,9 However, COVID-19 is associated with arterial and venous thromboembolism, elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, and antiphospholipid antibody production. This prothrombotic state may be linked to cytokine-induced endothelial damage, mononuclear cell activation, tissue factor expression, and ultimately thrombin propagation and platelet activation.⁸

The rates of perioperative stroke may change as more patients with COVID-19 present for surgery, and the anesthesiology care team must prioritize mitigation efforts in high-risk patients, including veterans. Reducing the elevated stroke burden within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a public health priority.¹⁰ We present the case of a veteran with prior CVA and recent positive COVID-19 testing who experienced transient weakness and dysarthria following plastic surgery. The patient discussed provided written Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent for publication of this report.

Case Presentation 

A 75-year-old male veteran presented to the Minneapolis VA Medical Center in Minnesota with chronic left foot ulceration necessitating debridement and flap coverage. His medical history was significant for hypertension, type 2 DM, anemia of chronic disease, and coronary artery disease (left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%). Additionally, he had prior ischemic strokes in the oculomotor nucleus (in 2004 with internuclear ophthalmoplegia) and left ventral medulla (in 2019 with right hemiparesis). During his 2019 poststroke rehabilitation, he was diagnosed with mild neurocognitive deficit not attributable to his strokes. The patient’s medications included amlodipine, lisinopril, atorvastatin, clopidogrel (lifelong for secondary stroke prevention), metformin, and glipizide. The debridement procedure was initially delayed 3 weeks due to positive routine preoperative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal testing, though he reported no respiratory symptoms or fever. During the delay, the primary team prescribed daily oral rivaroxaban for thrombosis prophylaxis in addition to clopidogrel. One week prior to surgery, his repeat COVID-19 test was negative and prophylactic anticoagulation stopped.

On the day of surgery, the patient was hemodynamically stable: heart rate 86 beats/min, blood pressure 167/93 mm Hg (baseline 120-150 mm Hg systolic pressure), respiratory rate 16 breaths/min, oxygen saturation 99% without supplemental oxygen, temperature 97.1 °F. He received amlodipine and clopidogrel, but not lisinopril, that morning. No focal neurologic deficits were appreciated on preoperative examination, and resolution of symptoms related to the 2 prior MIs was confirmed. Preoperative glucose was 163 mg/dL. Femoral and sciatic peripheral nerve blocks were done for postoperative analgesia. A preinduction arterial line was placed and 2 mg of midazolam was administered for anxiolysis. Induction of general anesthesia with oral endotracheal intubation proceeded uneventfully; he was positioned prone.

Given his stroke risk factors, mean arterial pressure was maintained > 70 mm Hg for the duration of surgery. No vasoactive infusions were necessary and no β-blocking agents were administered. Insulin infusion was required; the maximum-recorded glucose was 219 mg/dL. Arterial blood gas samples were routinely drawn; acid-base balance was well maintained, PaO₂ was > 185 mm Hg, and PaCO₂ ranged from 29.4 to 38.5 mm Hg. The patient received 2 units of packed red blood cells for nadir hemoglobin of 7.5 mg/dL. At surgery end, we fully reversed neuromuscular blockade with suggamadex. The patient was returned to a supine position and extubated uneventfully after demonstrating the ability to follow commands.

During postanesthesia care unit (PACU) handoff, the patient exhibited acute speech impairment. He was able to state his name on repetition but seemed confused and sedated. Prompt formal neurology evaluation (stroke code) was sought. Initial National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale score was 8 (1 for level of consciousness, 1 for minor right facial droop, 1 for right arm drift, 3 for right leg with no effort against gravity, 1 for right partial sensory loss, and 1 for mild dysarthria). The patient was oriented only to self. Other findings included mild right facial droop and dysarthria. On a 5-point strength scale, he scored 4 for the right deltoid, biceps, triceps, wrist extensors, right knee flexion, right dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion, 2 for right hip flexion, and ≥ 4 for right knee extension. Positive sensory findings were notable for decreased pin prick sensation on the right limbs.

We obtained emergent head computed tomography (CT) that was negative for acute abnormalities; CT angiography was negative for large vessel occlusion or clinically significant stenosis (Figure). On returning to the PACU from the CT scanner, the patient regained symmetric strength in both arms, right leg was antigravity, and his speech had normalized. Prior to PACU discharge 2 hours later, the patient was back to his prehospitalization neurologic function and NIH stroke scale was 0. Given this rapid clinical resolution, no acute stroke interventions were done, though permissive hypertension was recommended by the neurologist during PACU recovery.

Discussion

We report a veteran with prior stroke and COVID-19 who experienced postoperative speech and motor deficit despite deliberate risk factor mitigation. This case calls for increased vigilance by anesthesia providers to employ proper perioperative stroke management and anticoagulation strategies, and to be prepared for prompt intervention with COVID-19-sensitive practices should the need for advanced airway management or thrombectomy arises.

The exact etiology of the postoperative neurologic deficit in our patient is unknown. The most likely possibility is that this represents poststroke recrudescence (PSR), knowing he had a previous left medullary infarct that presented similarly.¹¹ PSR is a phenomenon in which prior stroke symptoms recur acutely and transiently in the setting of physiologic stressors—also known as locus minoris resistantiae.¹² Triggers include γ aminobutyric acid (GABA) mediating anesthetic agents such as midazolam, opioids (eg, fentanyl or hydromorphone), infection, or relative cerebral hypoperfusion.^11,13,14 The focality of our patient’s presentation favors PSR in the context of brief POD; of note, these entities share similar risk factors.¹⁵ Our patient did indeed receive low-dose preoperative midazolam in the context of mild preoperative neurocognitive deficit, which may have predisposed him to POD.

Conclusions

We discuss a surgical patient with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at elevated stroke risk that experienced recurrence of neurologic deficits postoperatively. This case informs anesthesia providers of the broad differential diagnosis for focal neurological deficits to include PSR and the possible contribution of COVID-19 to elevated acute stroke risk. Perioperative physicians, including VHA practitioners, with knowledge of current COVID-19 practices are primed to coordinate multidisciplinary efforts during stroke codes and ensuring appropriate anticoagulation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank perioperative care teams across the world caring for COVID-19 patients safely.

The risk of perioperative stroke in noncardiac, nonneurologic, nonvascular surgery ranges from 0.1 to 1.9% and is associated with increased mortality.^1,2 Stroke mechanisms include both ischemia (large and small vessel occlusion, cardioembolism, anemic-tissue hypoxia, cerebral hypoperfusion) and hemorrhage.¹ Risk factors for perioperative stroke include prior cerebral vascular accident (CVA), hypertension, aged > 62 years, acute renal insufficiency, dialysis, and recent myocardial infarction (MI).²

Introduction

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020.³ COVID-19 has certainly affected the veteran population; between February and May 2020, more than 60,000 veterans were tested for COVID-19 with a positive rate of about 9%.⁴ While primarily affecting the respiratory system, there are increasing reports of COVID-19 neurologic manifestations: headache, hypogeusia, hyposomia, seizure, encephalitis, and acute stroke.⁵ In an early case series from Wuhan, China, 36% of 214 patients with COVID-19 reported neurologic complications, and acute CVAs were more common in patients with severe (compared to milder) viral disease presentations (5.7% vs 0.8%).⁶ Large vessel stroke was a presenting feature in another report of 5 patients aged < 50 years.⁷

The mechanism of ischemic stroke in the setting of COVID-19 is unclear.⁸ Indeed, stroke and COVID-19 share similar risk factors (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus [DM], older age), and immobile critically ill patients may already be prone to developing stroke.^5,9 However, COVID-19 is associated with arterial and venous thromboembolism, elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, and antiphospholipid antibody production. This prothrombotic state may be linked to cytokine-induced endothelial damage, mononuclear cell activation, tissue factor expression, and ultimately thrombin propagation and platelet activation.⁸

The rates of perioperative stroke may change as more patients with COVID-19 present for surgery, and the anesthesiology care team must prioritize mitigation efforts in high-risk patients, including veterans. Reducing the elevated stroke burden within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a public health priority.¹⁰ We present the case of a veteran with prior CVA and recent positive COVID-19 testing who experienced transient weakness and dysarthria following plastic surgery. The patient discussed provided written Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent for publication of this report.

Case Presentation 

A 75-year-old male veteran presented to the Minneapolis VA Medical Center in Minnesota with chronic left foot ulceration necessitating debridement and flap coverage. His medical history was significant for hypertension, type 2 DM, anemia of chronic disease, and coronary artery disease (left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%). Additionally, he had prior ischemic strokes in the oculomotor nucleus (in 2004 with internuclear ophthalmoplegia) and left ventral medulla (in 2019 with right hemiparesis). During his 2019 poststroke rehabilitation, he was diagnosed with mild neurocognitive deficit not attributable to his strokes. The patient’s medications included amlodipine, lisinopril, atorvastatin, clopidogrel (lifelong for secondary stroke prevention), metformin, and glipizide. The debridement procedure was initially delayed 3 weeks due to positive routine preoperative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal testing, though he reported no respiratory symptoms or fever. During the delay, the primary team prescribed daily oral rivaroxaban for thrombosis prophylaxis in addition to clopidogrel. One week prior to surgery, his repeat COVID-19 test was negative and prophylactic anticoagulation stopped.

On the day of surgery, the patient was hemodynamically stable: heart rate 86 beats/min, blood pressure 167/93 mm Hg (baseline 120-150 mm Hg systolic pressure), respiratory rate 16 breaths/min, oxygen saturation 99% without supplemental oxygen, temperature 97.1 °F. He received amlodipine and clopidogrel, but not lisinopril, that morning. No focal neurologic deficits were appreciated on preoperative examination, and resolution of symptoms related to the 2 prior MIs was confirmed. Preoperative glucose was 163 mg/dL. Femoral and sciatic peripheral nerve blocks were done for postoperative analgesia. A preinduction arterial line was placed and 2 mg of midazolam was administered for anxiolysis. Induction of general anesthesia with oral endotracheal intubation proceeded uneventfully; he was positioned prone.

Given his stroke risk factors, mean arterial pressure was maintained > 70 mm Hg for the duration of surgery. No vasoactive infusions were necessary and no β-blocking agents were administered. Insulin infusion was required; the maximum-recorded glucose was 219 mg/dL. Arterial blood gas samples were routinely drawn; acid-base balance was well maintained, PaO₂ was > 185 mm Hg, and PaCO₂ ranged from 29.4 to 38.5 mm Hg. The patient received 2 units of packed red blood cells for nadir hemoglobin of 7.5 mg/dL. At surgery end, we fully reversed neuromuscular blockade with suggamadex. The patient was returned to a supine position and extubated uneventfully after demonstrating the ability to follow commands.

During postanesthesia care unit (PACU) handoff, the patient exhibited acute speech impairment. He was able to state his name on repetition but seemed confused and sedated. Prompt formal neurology evaluation (stroke code) was sought. Initial National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale score was 8 (1 for level of consciousness, 1 for minor right facial droop, 1 for right arm drift, 3 for right leg with no effort against gravity, 1 for right partial sensory loss, and 1 for mild dysarthria). The patient was oriented only to self. Other findings included mild right facial droop and dysarthria. On a 5-point strength scale, he scored 4 for the right deltoid, biceps, triceps, wrist extensors, right knee flexion, right dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion, 2 for right hip flexion, and ≥ 4 for right knee extension. Positive sensory findings were notable for decreased pin prick sensation on the right limbs.

We obtained emergent head computed tomography (CT) that was negative for acute abnormalities; CT angiography was negative for large vessel occlusion or clinically significant stenosis (Figure). On returning to the PACU from the CT scanner, the patient regained symmetric strength in both arms, right leg was antigravity, and his speech had normalized. Prior to PACU discharge 2 hours later, the patient was back to his prehospitalization neurologic function and NIH stroke scale was 0. Given this rapid clinical resolution, no acute stroke interventions were done, though permissive hypertension was recommended by the neurologist during PACU recovery.

Discussion

We report a veteran with prior stroke and COVID-19 who experienced postoperative speech and motor deficit despite deliberate risk factor mitigation. This case calls for increased vigilance by anesthesia providers to employ proper perioperative stroke management and anticoagulation strategies, and to be prepared for prompt intervention with COVID-19-sensitive practices should the need for advanced airway management or thrombectomy arises.

The exact etiology of the postoperative neurologic deficit in our patient is unknown. The most likely possibility is that this represents poststroke recrudescence (PSR), knowing he had a previous left medullary infarct that presented similarly.¹¹ PSR is a phenomenon in which prior stroke symptoms recur acutely and transiently in the setting of physiologic stressors—also known as locus minoris resistantiae.¹² Triggers include γ aminobutyric acid (GABA) mediating anesthetic agents such as midazolam, opioids (eg, fentanyl or hydromorphone), infection, or relative cerebral hypoperfusion.^11,13,14 The focality of our patient’s presentation favors PSR in the context of brief POD; of note, these entities share similar risk factors.¹⁵ Our patient did indeed receive low-dose preoperative midazolam in the context of mild preoperative neurocognitive deficit, which may have predisposed him to POD.

Conclusions

We discuss a surgical patient with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at elevated stroke risk that experienced recurrence of neurologic deficits postoperatively. This case informs anesthesia providers of the broad differential diagnosis for focal neurological deficits to include PSR and the possible contribution of COVID-19 to elevated acute stroke risk. Perioperative physicians, including VHA practitioners, with knowledge of current COVID-19 practices are primed to coordinate multidisciplinary efforts during stroke codes and ensuring appropriate anticoagulation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank perioperative care teams across the world caring for COVID-19 patients safely.

The risk of perioperative stroke in noncardiac, nonneurologic, nonvascular surgery ranges from 0.1 to 1.9% and is associated with increased mortality.^1,2 Stroke mechanisms include both ischemia (large and small vessel occlusion, cardioembolism, anemic-tissue hypoxia, cerebral hypoperfusion) and hemorrhage.¹ Risk factors for perioperative stroke include prior cerebral vascular accident (CVA), hypertension, aged > 62 years, acute renal insufficiency, dialysis, and recent myocardial infarction (MI).²

Introduction

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020.³ COVID-19 has certainly affected the veteran population; between February and May 2020, more than 60,000 veterans were tested for COVID-19 with a positive rate of about 9%.⁴ While primarily affecting the respiratory system, there are increasing reports of COVID-19 neurologic manifestations: headache, hypogeusia, hyposomia, seizure, encephalitis, and acute stroke.⁵ In an early case series from Wuhan, China, 36% of 214 patients with COVID-19 reported neurologic complications, and acute CVAs were more common in patients with severe (compared to milder) viral disease presentations (5.7% vs 0.8%).⁶ Large vessel stroke was a presenting feature in another report of 5 patients aged < 50 years.⁷

The mechanism of ischemic stroke in the setting of COVID-19 is unclear.⁸ Indeed, stroke and COVID-19 share similar risk factors (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus [DM], older age), and immobile critically ill patients may already be prone to developing stroke.^5,9 However, COVID-19 is associated with arterial and venous thromboembolism, elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, and antiphospholipid antibody production. This prothrombotic state may be linked to cytokine-induced endothelial damage, mononuclear cell activation, tissue factor expression, and ultimately thrombin propagation and platelet activation.⁸

The rates of perioperative stroke may change as more patients with COVID-19 present for surgery, and the anesthesiology care team must prioritize mitigation efforts in high-risk patients, including veterans. Reducing the elevated stroke burden within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a public health priority.¹⁰ We present the case of a veteran with prior CVA and recent positive COVID-19 testing who experienced transient weakness and dysarthria following plastic surgery. The patient discussed provided written Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent for publication of this report.

Case Presentation 

A 75-year-old male veteran presented to the Minneapolis VA Medical Center in Minnesota with chronic left foot ulceration necessitating debridement and flap coverage. His medical history was significant for hypertension, type 2 DM, anemia of chronic disease, and coronary artery disease (left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%). Additionally, he had prior ischemic strokes in the oculomotor nucleus (in 2004 with internuclear ophthalmoplegia) and left ventral medulla (in 2019 with right hemiparesis). During his 2019 poststroke rehabilitation, he was diagnosed with mild neurocognitive deficit not attributable to his strokes. The patient’s medications included amlodipine, lisinopril, atorvastatin, clopidogrel (lifelong for secondary stroke prevention), metformin, and glipizide. The debridement procedure was initially delayed 3 weeks due to positive routine preoperative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal testing, though he reported no respiratory symptoms or fever. During the delay, the primary team prescribed daily oral rivaroxaban for thrombosis prophylaxis in addition to clopidogrel. One week prior to surgery, his repeat COVID-19 test was negative and prophylactic anticoagulation stopped.

On the day of surgery, the patient was hemodynamically stable: heart rate 86 beats/min, blood pressure 167/93 mm Hg (baseline 120-150 mm Hg systolic pressure), respiratory rate 16 breaths/min, oxygen saturation 99% without supplemental oxygen, temperature 97.1 °F. He received amlodipine and clopidogrel, but not lisinopril, that morning. No focal neurologic deficits were appreciated on preoperative examination, and resolution of symptoms related to the 2 prior MIs was confirmed. Preoperative glucose was 163 mg/dL. Femoral and sciatic peripheral nerve blocks were done for postoperative analgesia. A preinduction arterial line was placed and 2 mg of midazolam was administered for anxiolysis. Induction of general anesthesia with oral endotracheal intubation proceeded uneventfully; he was positioned prone.

Given his stroke risk factors, mean arterial pressure was maintained > 70 mm Hg for the duration of surgery. No vasoactive infusions were necessary and no β-blocking agents were administered. Insulin infusion was required; the maximum-recorded glucose was 219 mg/dL. Arterial blood gas samples were routinely drawn; acid-base balance was well maintained, PaO₂ was > 185 mm Hg, and PaCO₂ ranged from 29.4 to 38.5 mm Hg. The patient received 2 units of packed red blood cells for nadir hemoglobin of 7.5 mg/dL. At surgery end, we fully reversed neuromuscular blockade with suggamadex. The patient was returned to a supine position and extubated uneventfully after demonstrating the ability to follow commands.

During postanesthesia care unit (PACU) handoff, the patient exhibited acute speech impairment. He was able to state his name on repetition but seemed confused and sedated. Prompt formal neurology evaluation (stroke code) was sought. Initial National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale score was 8 (1 for level of consciousness, 1 for minor right facial droop, 1 for right arm drift, 3 for right leg with no effort against gravity, 1 for right partial sensory loss, and 1 for mild dysarthria). The patient was oriented only to self. Other findings included mild right facial droop and dysarthria. On a 5-point strength scale, he scored 4 for the right deltoid, biceps, triceps, wrist extensors, right knee flexion, right dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion, 2 for right hip flexion, and ≥ 4 for right knee extension. Positive sensory findings were notable for decreased pin prick sensation on the right limbs.

We obtained emergent head computed tomography (CT) that was negative for acute abnormalities; CT angiography was negative for large vessel occlusion or clinically significant stenosis (Figure). On returning to the PACU from the CT scanner, the patient regained symmetric strength in both arms, right leg was antigravity, and his speech had normalized. Prior to PACU discharge 2 hours later, the patient was back to his prehospitalization neurologic function and NIH stroke scale was 0. Given this rapid clinical resolution, no acute stroke interventions were done, though permissive hypertension was recommended by the neurologist during PACU recovery.

Discussion

We report a veteran with prior stroke and COVID-19 who experienced postoperative speech and motor deficit despite deliberate risk factor mitigation. This case calls for increased vigilance by anesthesia providers to employ proper perioperative stroke management and anticoagulation strategies, and to be prepared for prompt intervention with COVID-19-sensitive practices should the need for advanced airway management or thrombectomy arises.

The exact etiology of the postoperative neurologic deficit in our patient is unknown. The most likely possibility is that this represents poststroke recrudescence (PSR), knowing he had a previous left medullary infarct that presented similarly.¹¹ PSR is a phenomenon in which prior stroke symptoms recur acutely and transiently in the setting of physiologic stressors—also known as locus minoris resistantiae.¹² Triggers include γ aminobutyric acid (GABA) mediating anesthetic agents such as midazolam, opioids (eg, fentanyl or hydromorphone), infection, or relative cerebral hypoperfusion.^11,13,14 The focality of our patient’s presentation favors PSR in the context of brief POD; of note, these entities share similar risk factors.¹⁵ Our patient did indeed receive low-dose preoperative midazolam in the context of mild preoperative neurocognitive deficit, which may have predisposed him to POD.

Conclusions

We discuss a surgical patient with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at elevated stroke risk that experienced recurrence of neurologic deficits postoperatively. This case informs anesthesia providers of the broad differential diagnosis for focal neurological deficits to include PSR and the possible contribution of COVID-19 to elevated acute stroke risk. Perioperative physicians, including VHA practitioners, with knowledge of current COVID-19 practices are primed to coordinate multidisciplinary efforts during stroke codes and ensuring appropriate anticoagulation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank perioperative care teams across the world caring for COVID-19 patients safely.

Infants with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) showed promising signs, including an increased expression of functional survival motor neuron (SMN) protein in the blood, after 1 year of treatment with oral risdiplam (Evrysdi, Genentech), according to results of part 1 of the FIREFISH study.

A boost in SMN expression has been linked to improvements in survival and motor function, which was also observed in exploratory efficacy outcomes in the 2-part, phase 2-3, open-label study.

“No surviving infant was receiving permanent ventilation at month 12, and 7 of the 21 infants were able to sit without support, which is not expected in patients with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy, according to historical experience,” reported the FIREFISH Working Group led by Giovanni Baranello, MD, PhD, from the Dubowitz Neuromuscular Centre, National Institute for Health Research Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health University College London, and Great Ormond Street Hospital Trust, London.

However, “it cannot be stated with confidence that there was clinical benefit of the agent because the exploratory clinical endpoints were analyzed post hoc and can only be qualitatively compared with historical cohorts,” they added.

The findings were published online Feb. 24 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A phase 2-3 open-label study

The study enrolled 21 infants with type 1 SMA, between the ages of 1 and 7 months. The majority (n = 17) were treated for 1 year with high-dose risdiplam, reaching 0.2 mg/kg of body weight per day by the twelfth month. Four infants in a low-dose cohort were treated with 0.08 mg/kg by the twelfth month. The medication was administered once daily orally in infants who were able to swallow, or by feeding tube for those who could not.

The primary outcomes of this first part of the study were safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics (including the blood SMN protein concentration), and selection of the risdiplam dose for part 2 of the study. Exploratory outcomes included event-free survival, defined as being alive without tracheostomy or the use of permanent ventilation for 16 or more hours per day, and the ability to sit without support for at least 5 seconds.

In terms of safety, the study recorded 24 serious adverse events. “The most common serious adverse events were infections of the respiratory tract, and four infants died of respiratory complications; these findings are consistent with the neuromuscular respiratory failure that characterizes spinal muscular atrophy,” the authors reported. “The risdiplam-associated retinal toxic effects that had been previously observed in monkeys were not observed in the current study,” they added.

Regarding SMN protein levels, a median level of 2.1 times the baseline level was observed within 4 weeks after the initiation of treatment in the high-dose cohort, they reported. By 12 months, these median values had increased to 3.0 times and 1.9 times the baseline values in the low-dose and high-dose cohorts, respectively.

Looking at exploratory efficacy outcomes, 90% of infants survived without ventilatory support, and seven infants in the high-dose cohort were able to sit without support for at least 5 seconds. The higher dose of risdiplam (0.2 mg/kg per day) was selected for part 2 of the study.
 

The first oral treatment option

Risdiplam is the third SMA treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “and has the potential to expand access to treatment for people with SMA,” commented Mary Schroth, MD, chief medical officer of Cure SMA, who was not involved in the research. She added that the exploratory outcomes of the FIREFISH study represent “a significant milestone for symptomatic infants with SMA type 1.”

While the other two approved SMA therapies – nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec – have led to improvements in survival and motor function, they are administered either intrathecally or intravenously respectively, while risdiplam is an oral therapy.

Dr. Schroth says there are currently no studies comparing the different SMA treatments. “Cure SMA is actively collecting real-world experience with risdiplam and other SMA treatments through multiple pathways,” she said. “Every individual and family, in collaboration with their health care provider, should discuss SMA treatments and make the decision that is best for them.”

Writing in Neuroscience Insights, a few months after risdiplam’s FDA approval last summer, Ravindra N. Singh MD, from the department of biomedical sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, wrote that, as an orally deliverable small molecule, risdiplam “is a major advancement for the treatment of SMA.”

Now, the FIREFISH study is “welcome news,” he said in an interview. “The results look promising so far,” he added. “I am cautiously optimistic that risdiplam would prove to be a viable alternative to the currently available invasive approaches. However, long-term studies (with appropriate age and sex-matched cohorts) would be needed to fully rule out the potential side effects of the repeated administrations.”

The therapy “is particularly great news for a group of SMA patients that might have tolerability and/or immune response concerns when it comes to nusinersen and gene therapy,” he noted in his article, adding that the ability to store and ship the drug at ambient temperatures, as well as its comparatively low cost are added benefits.

The study was supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Baranello disclosed that he serves as a consultant for AveXis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, and Sarepta Therapeutics, as well as PTC Therapeutics, from whom he also receives speaker honoraria. Dr. Schroth disclosed no personal conflicts and is an employee of Cure SMA. Cure SMA works to develop strategic relationships with corporate partners with the goal of working together to lead the way to a world without SMA. In advancement of that mission, Cure SMA has received funding from multiple corporate sources including Aetna, Biogen, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Genentech, Kaiser Permanente, Novartis Gene Therapies, Scholar Rock, and United HealthCare. Cure SMA has no financial stake in any treatment and does not advocate for one treatment over another. Dr. Singh disclosed that Spinraza (Nusinersen), the first FDA-approved SMA drug, is based on the target (US patent # 7,838,657) that was discovered in his former laboratory at UMASS Medical School, Worcester, Mass.

Infants with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) showed promising signs, including an increased expression of functional survival motor neuron (SMN) protein in the blood, after 1 year of treatment with oral risdiplam (Evrysdi, Genentech), according to results of part 1 of the FIREFISH study.

A boost in SMN expression has been linked to improvements in survival and motor function, which was also observed in exploratory efficacy outcomes in the 2-part, phase 2-3, open-label study.

“No surviving infant was receiving permanent ventilation at month 12, and 7 of the 21 infants were able to sit without support, which is not expected in patients with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy, according to historical experience,” reported the FIREFISH Working Group led by Giovanni Baranello, MD, PhD, from the Dubowitz Neuromuscular Centre, National Institute for Health Research Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health University College London, and Great Ormond Street Hospital Trust, London.

However, “it cannot be stated with confidence that there was clinical benefit of the agent because the exploratory clinical endpoints were analyzed post hoc and can only be qualitatively compared with historical cohorts,” they added.

The findings were published online Feb. 24 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A phase 2-3 open-label study

The study enrolled 21 infants with type 1 SMA, between the ages of 1 and 7 months. The majority (n = 17) were treated for 1 year with high-dose risdiplam, reaching 0.2 mg/kg of body weight per day by the twelfth month. Four infants in a low-dose cohort were treated with 0.08 mg/kg by the twelfth month. The medication was administered once daily orally in infants who were able to swallow, or by feeding tube for those who could not.

The primary outcomes of this first part of the study were safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics (including the blood SMN protein concentration), and selection of the risdiplam dose for part 2 of the study. Exploratory outcomes included event-free survival, defined as being alive without tracheostomy or the use of permanent ventilation for 16 or more hours per day, and the ability to sit without support for at least 5 seconds.

In terms of safety, the study recorded 24 serious adverse events. “The most common serious adverse events were infections of the respiratory tract, and four infants died of respiratory complications; these findings are consistent with the neuromuscular respiratory failure that characterizes spinal muscular atrophy,” the authors reported. “The risdiplam-associated retinal toxic effects that had been previously observed in monkeys were not observed in the current study,” they added.

Regarding SMN protein levels, a median level of 2.1 times the baseline level was observed within 4 weeks after the initiation of treatment in the high-dose cohort, they reported. By 12 months, these median values had increased to 3.0 times and 1.9 times the baseline values in the low-dose and high-dose cohorts, respectively.

Looking at exploratory efficacy outcomes, 90% of infants survived without ventilatory support, and seven infants in the high-dose cohort were able to sit without support for at least 5 seconds. The higher dose of risdiplam (0.2 mg/kg per day) was selected for part 2 of the study.
 

The first oral treatment option

Risdiplam is the third SMA treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “and has the potential to expand access to treatment for people with SMA,” commented Mary Schroth, MD, chief medical officer of Cure SMA, who was not involved in the research. She added that the exploratory outcomes of the FIREFISH study represent “a significant milestone for symptomatic infants with SMA type 1.”

While the other two approved SMA therapies – nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec – have led to improvements in survival and motor function, they are administered either intrathecally or intravenously respectively, while risdiplam is an oral therapy.

Dr. Schroth says there are currently no studies comparing the different SMA treatments. “Cure SMA is actively collecting real-world experience with risdiplam and other SMA treatments through multiple pathways,” she said. “Every individual and family, in collaboration with their health care provider, should discuss SMA treatments and make the decision that is best for them.”

Writing in Neuroscience Insights, a few months after risdiplam’s FDA approval last summer, Ravindra N. Singh MD, from the department of biomedical sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, wrote that, as an orally deliverable small molecule, risdiplam “is a major advancement for the treatment of SMA.”

Now, the FIREFISH study is “welcome news,” he said in an interview. “The results look promising so far,” he added. “I am cautiously optimistic that risdiplam would prove to be a viable alternative to the currently available invasive approaches. However, long-term studies (with appropriate age and sex-matched cohorts) would be needed to fully rule out the potential side effects of the repeated administrations.”

The therapy “is particularly great news for a group of SMA patients that might have tolerability and/or immune response concerns when it comes to nusinersen and gene therapy,” he noted in his article, adding that the ability to store and ship the drug at ambient temperatures, as well as its comparatively low cost are added benefits.

The study was supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Baranello disclosed that he serves as a consultant for AveXis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, and Sarepta Therapeutics, as well as PTC Therapeutics, from whom he also receives speaker honoraria. Dr. Schroth disclosed no personal conflicts and is an employee of Cure SMA. Cure SMA works to develop strategic relationships with corporate partners with the goal of working together to lead the way to a world without SMA. In advancement of that mission, Cure SMA has received funding from multiple corporate sources including Aetna, Biogen, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Genentech, Kaiser Permanente, Novartis Gene Therapies, Scholar Rock, and United HealthCare. Cure SMA has no financial stake in any treatment and does not advocate for one treatment over another. Dr. Singh disclosed that Spinraza (Nusinersen), the first FDA-approved SMA drug, is based on the target (US patent # 7,838,657) that was discovered in his former laboratory at UMASS Medical School, Worcester, Mass.

Infants with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) showed promising signs, including an increased expression of functional survival motor neuron (SMN) protein in the blood, after 1 year of treatment with oral risdiplam (Evrysdi, Genentech), according to results of part 1 of the FIREFISH study.

A boost in SMN expression has been linked to improvements in survival and motor function, which was also observed in exploratory efficacy outcomes in the 2-part, phase 2-3, open-label study.

“No surviving infant was receiving permanent ventilation at month 12, and 7 of the 21 infants were able to sit without support, which is not expected in patients with type 1 spinal muscular atrophy, according to historical experience,” reported the FIREFISH Working Group led by Giovanni Baranello, MD, PhD, from the Dubowitz Neuromuscular Centre, National Institute for Health Research Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health University College London, and Great Ormond Street Hospital Trust, London.

However, “it cannot be stated with confidence that there was clinical benefit of the agent because the exploratory clinical endpoints were analyzed post hoc and can only be qualitatively compared with historical cohorts,” they added.

The findings were published online Feb. 24 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A phase 2-3 open-label study

The study enrolled 21 infants with type 1 SMA, between the ages of 1 and 7 months. The majority (n = 17) were treated for 1 year with high-dose risdiplam, reaching 0.2 mg/kg of body weight per day by the twelfth month. Four infants in a low-dose cohort were treated with 0.08 mg/kg by the twelfth month. The medication was administered once daily orally in infants who were able to swallow, or by feeding tube for those who could not.

The primary outcomes of this first part of the study were safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics (including the blood SMN protein concentration), and selection of the risdiplam dose for part 2 of the study. Exploratory outcomes included event-free survival, defined as being alive without tracheostomy or the use of permanent ventilation for 16 or more hours per day, and the ability to sit without support for at least 5 seconds.

In terms of safety, the study recorded 24 serious adverse events. “The most common serious adverse events were infections of the respiratory tract, and four infants died of respiratory complications; these findings are consistent with the neuromuscular respiratory failure that characterizes spinal muscular atrophy,” the authors reported. “The risdiplam-associated retinal toxic effects that had been previously observed in monkeys were not observed in the current study,” they added.

Regarding SMN protein levels, a median level of 2.1 times the baseline level was observed within 4 weeks after the initiation of treatment in the high-dose cohort, they reported. By 12 months, these median values had increased to 3.0 times and 1.9 times the baseline values in the low-dose and high-dose cohorts, respectively.

Looking at exploratory efficacy outcomes, 90% of infants survived without ventilatory support, and seven infants in the high-dose cohort were able to sit without support for at least 5 seconds. The higher dose of risdiplam (0.2 mg/kg per day) was selected for part 2 of the study.
 

The first oral treatment option

Risdiplam is the third SMA treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “and has the potential to expand access to treatment for people with SMA,” commented Mary Schroth, MD, chief medical officer of Cure SMA, who was not involved in the research. She added that the exploratory outcomes of the FIREFISH study represent “a significant milestone for symptomatic infants with SMA type 1.”

While the other two approved SMA therapies – nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec – have led to improvements in survival and motor function, they are administered either intrathecally or intravenously respectively, while risdiplam is an oral therapy.

Dr. Schroth says there are currently no studies comparing the different SMA treatments. “Cure SMA is actively collecting real-world experience with risdiplam and other SMA treatments through multiple pathways,” she said. “Every individual and family, in collaboration with their health care provider, should discuss SMA treatments and make the decision that is best for them.”

Writing in Neuroscience Insights, a few months after risdiplam’s FDA approval last summer, Ravindra N. Singh MD, from the department of biomedical sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, wrote that, as an orally deliverable small molecule, risdiplam “is a major advancement for the treatment of SMA.”

Now, the FIREFISH study is “welcome news,” he said in an interview. “The results look promising so far,” he added. “I am cautiously optimistic that risdiplam would prove to be a viable alternative to the currently available invasive approaches. However, long-term studies (with appropriate age and sex-matched cohorts) would be needed to fully rule out the potential side effects of the repeated administrations.”

The therapy “is particularly great news for a group of SMA patients that might have tolerability and/or immune response concerns when it comes to nusinersen and gene therapy,” he noted in his article, adding that the ability to store and ship the drug at ambient temperatures, as well as its comparatively low cost are added benefits.

The study was supported by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Baranello disclosed that he serves as a consultant for AveXis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, and Sarepta Therapeutics, as well as PTC Therapeutics, from whom he also receives speaker honoraria. Dr. Schroth disclosed no personal conflicts and is an employee of Cure SMA. Cure SMA works to develop strategic relationships with corporate partners with the goal of working together to lead the way to a world without SMA. In advancement of that mission, Cure SMA has received funding from multiple corporate sources including Aetna, Biogen, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Genentech, Kaiser Permanente, Novartis Gene Therapies, Scholar Rock, and United HealthCare. Cure SMA has no financial stake in any treatment and does not advocate for one treatment over another. Dr. Singh disclosed that Spinraza (Nusinersen), the first FDA-approved SMA drug, is based on the target (US patent # 7,838,657) that was discovered in his former laboratory at UMASS Medical School, Worcester, Mass.

COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, but those who are on disease-modifying therapy (DMT) – or about to begin it – should be cautious about the timing of their shots.

“There’s no reason to think any of the three authorized vaccines are in any way more dangerous in people with MS, or in the context of MS DMTs. It’s only a question of whether certain DMTs will influence the degree of benefit you get from the vaccine,” said Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center for Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, chief of the multiple sclerosis division, and Melissa and Paul Anderson President’s Distinguished Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He spoke at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, and he also answered questions in a follow-up interview.

“The merits of being protected by the COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh any risks that one would consider associated with vaccines and individuals with MS,” said Dr. Bar-Or. “And there’s reason to think that the RNA vaccines may even be safer than prior, more traditional vaccines. They are nonlive, noninactivated vaccines, and there is no risk in terms of interacting with MS.”

Where do DMTs fit in? In an interview, Hesham Abboud, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals of Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland, said there’s reason for caution regarding DMTs that deplete immune cells or entrap them in the lymph nodes. “What is not clearly known is the effect of the fumarates, which do not act through cell depletion but can occasionally deplete immune cells as a side effect. These likely have no negative effect on vaccine efficacy in patients with normal immune cell count but may have a negative effect in those with significant immune cell reduction. Luckily, significant immune cell reduction is rare in patients taking fumarates.”

In addition, he said, “interferons and natalizumab are generally thought to have no impact on vaccine efficacy while glatiramer acetate and teriflunomide are thought to have no or only little impact on vaccines. Most of these concepts are derived from studies of non–COVID-19 vaccines.”

Dr. Bar-Or highlighted specific DMTs. Teriflunomide (Aubagio) “has a relatively mild effect on the immune system and is not thought to be particularly immune suppressive or deplete immune cells,” Dr. Bar-Or said, as shown in a 2015 study he led (Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2015 Feb 12;2[2]:e70). In contrast, a 2020 study, also led by Dr. Bar-Or, showed that nonlive vaccinations given after treatment with ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) – an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody – are “attenuated, compared with untreated or interferon-beta–treated patients, but they can still be expected to be protective.”

Dr. Bar-Or pointed to National MS Society guidelines about the timing of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for patients with MS who are on DMT. In patients with stable MS, the society recommends no adjustments in timing for patients starting or remaining on several DMTs. The list includes teriflunomide, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), and dimethyl fumarate, among others.

Patients shouldn’t start fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), or ozanimod (Zeposia) until 4 weeks or more after their second vaccine dose, the guidelines suggest. Vaccine doses are recommended 3-5 days after the final dose of high-dose steroids. And there are more complicated recommendations regarding a number of other DMTs – ocrelizumab, ofatumumab (Kesimpta), alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), cladribine (Mavenclad), and rituximab (Rituxan).

Dr. Bar-Or cautioned that the guidelines are an imperfect “first pass” and are being updated.

He added that the guidelines are not set in stone: “Scheduling is not always possible in terms of adjusting the vaccine timing. Patients in general are recommended to take the vaccine when it becomes available, as it may be more important for them to get the vaccine than to try to time the vaccine relative to the DMT.”

Guidance regarding the newly authorized Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected soon, said neurologist Barbara Giesser, MD, of Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., in an interview. As for her advice to patients, she said that, “in general, I am recommending that patients get [vaccinated] as soon as it is available to them with adjustment of timing of some DMTs as may be appropriate.”

Dr. Bar-Or has received consulting fees and/or grant support from – or participated as a speaker in events sponsored by – Accure, Atara Biotherapeutics, Biogen, Bristol-Myer Squibb/Celgene/Receptos, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. He also receives research funding from various organizations and agencies. Dr. Abboud reported receiving consulting fees from Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Alexion, and Viela Bio. He receives research support from Novartis, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Giesser reports no disclosures.
 

COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, but those who are on disease-modifying therapy (DMT) – or about to begin it – should be cautious about the timing of their shots.

“There’s no reason to think any of the three authorized vaccines are in any way more dangerous in people with MS, or in the context of MS DMTs. It’s only a question of whether certain DMTs will influence the degree of benefit you get from the vaccine,” said Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center for Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, chief of the multiple sclerosis division, and Melissa and Paul Anderson President’s Distinguished Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He spoke at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, and he also answered questions in a follow-up interview.

“The merits of being protected by the COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh any risks that one would consider associated with vaccines and individuals with MS,” said Dr. Bar-Or. “And there’s reason to think that the RNA vaccines may even be safer than prior, more traditional vaccines. They are nonlive, noninactivated vaccines, and there is no risk in terms of interacting with MS.”

Where do DMTs fit in? In an interview, Hesham Abboud, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals of Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland, said there’s reason for caution regarding DMTs that deplete immune cells or entrap them in the lymph nodes. “What is not clearly known is the effect of the fumarates, which do not act through cell depletion but can occasionally deplete immune cells as a side effect. These likely have no negative effect on vaccine efficacy in patients with normal immune cell count but may have a negative effect in those with significant immune cell reduction. Luckily, significant immune cell reduction is rare in patients taking fumarates.”

In addition, he said, “interferons and natalizumab are generally thought to have no impact on vaccine efficacy while glatiramer acetate and teriflunomide are thought to have no or only little impact on vaccines. Most of these concepts are derived from studies of non–COVID-19 vaccines.”

Dr. Bar-Or highlighted specific DMTs. Teriflunomide (Aubagio) “has a relatively mild effect on the immune system and is not thought to be particularly immune suppressive or deplete immune cells,” Dr. Bar-Or said, as shown in a 2015 study he led (Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2015 Feb 12;2[2]:e70). In contrast, a 2020 study, also led by Dr. Bar-Or, showed that nonlive vaccinations given after treatment with ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) – an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody – are “attenuated, compared with untreated or interferon-beta–treated patients, but they can still be expected to be protective.”

Dr. Bar-Or pointed to National MS Society guidelines about the timing of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for patients with MS who are on DMT. In patients with stable MS, the society recommends no adjustments in timing for patients starting or remaining on several DMTs. The list includes teriflunomide, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), and dimethyl fumarate, among others.

Patients shouldn’t start fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), or ozanimod (Zeposia) until 4 weeks or more after their second vaccine dose, the guidelines suggest. Vaccine doses are recommended 3-5 days after the final dose of high-dose steroids. And there are more complicated recommendations regarding a number of other DMTs – ocrelizumab, ofatumumab (Kesimpta), alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), cladribine (Mavenclad), and rituximab (Rituxan).

Dr. Bar-Or cautioned that the guidelines are an imperfect “first pass” and are being updated.

He added that the guidelines are not set in stone: “Scheduling is not always possible in terms of adjusting the vaccine timing. Patients in general are recommended to take the vaccine when it becomes available, as it may be more important for them to get the vaccine than to try to time the vaccine relative to the DMT.”

Guidance regarding the newly authorized Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected soon, said neurologist Barbara Giesser, MD, of Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., in an interview. As for her advice to patients, she said that, “in general, I am recommending that patients get [vaccinated] as soon as it is available to them with adjustment of timing of some DMTs as may be appropriate.”

Dr. Bar-Or has received consulting fees and/or grant support from – or participated as a speaker in events sponsored by – Accure, Atara Biotherapeutics, Biogen, Bristol-Myer Squibb/Celgene/Receptos, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. He also receives research funding from various organizations and agencies. Dr. Abboud reported receiving consulting fees from Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Alexion, and Viela Bio. He receives research support from Novartis, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Giesser reports no disclosures.
 

COVID-19 vaccines are considered safe for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, but those who are on disease-modifying therapy (DMT) – or about to begin it – should be cautious about the timing of their shots.

“There’s no reason to think any of the three authorized vaccines are in any way more dangerous in people with MS, or in the context of MS DMTs. It’s only a question of whether certain DMTs will influence the degree of benefit you get from the vaccine,” said Amit Bar-Or, MD, director of the Center for Neuroinflammation and Neurotherapeutics, chief of the multiple sclerosis division, and Melissa and Paul Anderson President’s Distinguished Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He spoke at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, and he also answered questions in a follow-up interview.

“The merits of being protected by the COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh any risks that one would consider associated with vaccines and individuals with MS,” said Dr. Bar-Or. “And there’s reason to think that the RNA vaccines may even be safer than prior, more traditional vaccines. They are nonlive, noninactivated vaccines, and there is no risk in terms of interacting with MS.”

Where do DMTs fit in? In an interview, Hesham Abboud, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals of Cleveland and Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland, said there’s reason for caution regarding DMTs that deplete immune cells or entrap them in the lymph nodes. “What is not clearly known is the effect of the fumarates, which do not act through cell depletion but can occasionally deplete immune cells as a side effect. These likely have no negative effect on vaccine efficacy in patients with normal immune cell count but may have a negative effect in those with significant immune cell reduction. Luckily, significant immune cell reduction is rare in patients taking fumarates.”

In addition, he said, “interferons and natalizumab are generally thought to have no impact on vaccine efficacy while glatiramer acetate and teriflunomide are thought to have no or only little impact on vaccines. Most of these concepts are derived from studies of non–COVID-19 vaccines.”

Dr. Bar-Or highlighted specific DMTs. Teriflunomide (Aubagio) “has a relatively mild effect on the immune system and is not thought to be particularly immune suppressive or deplete immune cells,” Dr. Bar-Or said, as shown in a 2015 study he led (Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2015 Feb 12;2[2]:e70). In contrast, a 2020 study, also led by Dr. Bar-Or, showed that nonlive vaccinations given after treatment with ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) – an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody – are “attenuated, compared with untreated or interferon-beta–treated patients, but they can still be expected to be protective.”

Dr. Bar-Or pointed to National MS Society guidelines about the timing of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for patients with MS who are on DMT. In patients with stable MS, the society recommends no adjustments in timing for patients starting or remaining on several DMTs. The list includes teriflunomide, glatiramer acetate (Copaxone), and dimethyl fumarate, among others.

Patients shouldn’t start fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), or ozanimod (Zeposia) until 4 weeks or more after their second vaccine dose, the guidelines suggest. Vaccine doses are recommended 3-5 days after the final dose of high-dose steroids. And there are more complicated recommendations regarding a number of other DMTs – ocrelizumab, ofatumumab (Kesimpta), alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), cladribine (Mavenclad), and rituximab (Rituxan).

Dr. Bar-Or cautioned that the guidelines are an imperfect “first pass” and are being updated.

He added that the guidelines are not set in stone: “Scheduling is not always possible in terms of adjusting the vaccine timing. Patients in general are recommended to take the vaccine when it becomes available, as it may be more important for them to get the vaccine than to try to time the vaccine relative to the DMT.”

Guidance regarding the newly authorized Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected soon, said neurologist Barbara Giesser, MD, of Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, Calif., in an interview. As for her advice to patients, she said that, “in general, I am recommending that patients get [vaccinated] as soon as it is available to them with adjustment of timing of some DMTs as may be appropriate.”

Dr. Bar-Or has received consulting fees and/or grant support from – or participated as a speaker in events sponsored by – Accure, Atara Biotherapeutics, Biogen, Bristol-Myer Squibb/Celgene/Receptos, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer, Janssen/Actelion, Medimmune, Merck/EMD Serono, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. He also receives research funding from various organizations and agencies. Dr. Abboud reported receiving consulting fees from Biogen, Genentech, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Alexion, and Viela Bio. He receives research support from Novartis, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Genentech, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Giesser reports no disclosures.