Neurology

“Fast MRI,” which allows scans to be taken quickly without sedation, is a “reasonable alternative” to screen certain younger children for traumatic brain injury, a new study found.

gorodenkoff/Getty Images

The fast MRI option has “the potential to eliminate ionizing radiation exposure for thousands of children each year,” the study authors wrote in Pediatrics. “The ability to complete imaging in about 6 minutes, without the need for anesthesia or sedation, suggests that fast MRI is appropriate even in acute settings, where patient throughput is a priority.”

Daniel M. Lindberg, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associates wrote that children make between 600,000 and 1.6 million ED visits in the United States each year for evaluation of possible traumatic brain injury (TBI). While the incidence of clinically significant injury from TBI is low, 20%-70% of these children are exposed to potentially dangerous radiation as they undergo CT.

The new study focuses on fast MRI. Unlike traditional MRI, it doesn’t require children to remain motionless – typically with the help of sedation – to be scanned.

The researchers performed fast MRI in 223 children aged younger than 6 years (median age, 12.6 months; interquartile range, 4.7-32.6) who sought emergency care at a level 1 pediatric trauma center from 2015 to 2018. They had all had CT scans performed.

CT identified TBI in 111 (50%) of the subjects, while fast MRI identified it in 103 (sensitivity, 92.8%; 95% confidence interval, 86.3-96.8). Fast MRI missed six participants with isolated skull fractures and two with subarachnoid hemorrhage; CT missed five participants with subdural hematomas, parenchymal contusions, and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

While the researchers hoped for a higher sensitivity level, they wrote that “we feel that the benefit of avoiding radiation exposure outweighs the concern for missed injury.”

In a commentary, Brett Burstein, MDCM, PhD, MPH, and Christine Saint-Martin, MDCM, MSc, of Montreal Children’s Hospital and McGill University Health Center, also in Montreal, wrote that the study is “well conducted.”

However, they noted that “the reported feasibility reflects a highly selected cohort of stable patients in whom fast MRI is already likely to succeed. Feasibility results in a more generalizable population of head-injured children cannot be extrapolated.”

And, they added, “fast MRI was unavailable for 65 of 299 consenting, eligible patients because of lack of overnight staffing. Although not included among the outcome definitions of imaging time, this would be an important ‘feasibility’ consideration in most centers.”

Dr. Burstein and Dr. Saint-Martin wrote that “centers migrating toward this modality for neuroimaging children with head injuries should still use clinical judgment and highly sensitive, validated clinical decision rules when determining the need for any neuroimaging for head-injured children.”

The study was funded by the Colorado Traumatic Brain Injury Trust Fund (MindSource) and the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Lindberg DM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0419; Burstein B, Saint-Martin C. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2387.

“Fast MRI,” which allows scans to be taken quickly without sedation, is a “reasonable alternative” to screen certain younger children for traumatic brain injury, a new study found.

gorodenkoff/Getty Images

The fast MRI option has “the potential to eliminate ionizing radiation exposure for thousands of children each year,” the study authors wrote in Pediatrics. “The ability to complete imaging in about 6 minutes, without the need for anesthesia or sedation, suggests that fast MRI is appropriate even in acute settings, where patient throughput is a priority.”

Daniel M. Lindberg, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associates wrote that children make between 600,000 and 1.6 million ED visits in the United States each year for evaluation of possible traumatic brain injury (TBI). While the incidence of clinically significant injury from TBI is low, 20%-70% of these children are exposed to potentially dangerous radiation as they undergo CT.

The new study focuses on fast MRI. Unlike traditional MRI, it doesn’t require children to remain motionless – typically with the help of sedation – to be scanned.

The researchers performed fast MRI in 223 children aged younger than 6 years (median age, 12.6 months; interquartile range, 4.7-32.6) who sought emergency care at a level 1 pediatric trauma center from 2015 to 2018. They had all had CT scans performed.

CT identified TBI in 111 (50%) of the subjects, while fast MRI identified it in 103 (sensitivity, 92.8%; 95% confidence interval, 86.3-96.8). Fast MRI missed six participants with isolated skull fractures and two with subarachnoid hemorrhage; CT missed five participants with subdural hematomas, parenchymal contusions, and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

While the researchers hoped for a higher sensitivity level, they wrote that “we feel that the benefit of avoiding radiation exposure outweighs the concern for missed injury.”

In a commentary, Brett Burstein, MDCM, PhD, MPH, and Christine Saint-Martin, MDCM, MSc, of Montreal Children’s Hospital and McGill University Health Center, also in Montreal, wrote that the study is “well conducted.”

However, they noted that “the reported feasibility reflects a highly selected cohort of stable patients in whom fast MRI is already likely to succeed. Feasibility results in a more generalizable population of head-injured children cannot be extrapolated.”

And, they added, “fast MRI was unavailable for 65 of 299 consenting, eligible patients because of lack of overnight staffing. Although not included among the outcome definitions of imaging time, this would be an important ‘feasibility’ consideration in most centers.”

Dr. Burstein and Dr. Saint-Martin wrote that “centers migrating toward this modality for neuroimaging children with head injuries should still use clinical judgment and highly sensitive, validated clinical decision rules when determining the need for any neuroimaging for head-injured children.”

The study was funded by the Colorado Traumatic Brain Injury Trust Fund (MindSource) and the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Lindberg DM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0419; Burstein B, Saint-Martin C. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2387.

“Fast MRI,” which allows scans to be taken quickly without sedation, is a “reasonable alternative” to screen certain younger children for traumatic brain injury, a new study found.

gorodenkoff/Getty Images

The fast MRI option has “the potential to eliminate ionizing radiation exposure for thousands of children each year,” the study authors wrote in Pediatrics. “The ability to complete imaging in about 6 minutes, without the need for anesthesia or sedation, suggests that fast MRI is appropriate even in acute settings, where patient throughput is a priority.”

Daniel M. Lindberg, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associates wrote that children make between 600,000 and 1.6 million ED visits in the United States each year for evaluation of possible traumatic brain injury (TBI). While the incidence of clinically significant injury from TBI is low, 20%-70% of these children are exposed to potentially dangerous radiation as they undergo CT.

The new study focuses on fast MRI. Unlike traditional MRI, it doesn’t require children to remain motionless – typically with the help of sedation – to be scanned.

The researchers performed fast MRI in 223 children aged younger than 6 years (median age, 12.6 months; interquartile range, 4.7-32.6) who sought emergency care at a level 1 pediatric trauma center from 2015 to 2018. They had all had CT scans performed.

CT identified TBI in 111 (50%) of the subjects, while fast MRI identified it in 103 (sensitivity, 92.8%; 95% confidence interval, 86.3-96.8). Fast MRI missed six participants with isolated skull fractures and two with subarachnoid hemorrhage; CT missed five participants with subdural hematomas, parenchymal contusions, and subarachnoid hemorrhage.

While the researchers hoped for a higher sensitivity level, they wrote that “we feel that the benefit of avoiding radiation exposure outweighs the concern for missed injury.”

In a commentary, Brett Burstein, MDCM, PhD, MPH, and Christine Saint-Martin, MDCM, MSc, of Montreal Children’s Hospital and McGill University Health Center, also in Montreal, wrote that the study is “well conducted.”

However, they noted that “the reported feasibility reflects a highly selected cohort of stable patients in whom fast MRI is already likely to succeed. Feasibility results in a more generalizable population of head-injured children cannot be extrapolated.”

And, they added, “fast MRI was unavailable for 65 of 299 consenting, eligible patients because of lack of overnight staffing. Although not included among the outcome definitions of imaging time, this would be an important ‘feasibility’ consideration in most centers.”

Dr. Burstein and Dr. Saint-Martin wrote that “centers migrating toward this modality for neuroimaging children with head injuries should still use clinical judgment and highly sensitive, validated clinical decision rules when determining the need for any neuroimaging for head-injured children.”

The study was funded by the Colorado Traumatic Brain Injury Trust Fund (MindSource) and the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Lindberg DM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0419; Burstein B, Saint-Martin C. Pediatrics. 2019 Sep 18. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2387.

STOCKHOLM – Just under half of a small cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who discontinued disease modifying therapy (DMT) showed signs of relapse or disease progression on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients who were younger had a higher probability of relapse, according to data presented at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Of 49 patients who had been on DMT for at least 5 years and had shown no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) during that time, 26 continued to have NEDA through at least 5 years of follow-up, explained Tobias Monschein, MD, of the department of neurology at the Medical University of Vienna.

The cohort of patients had all been taking either interferon beta or glatiramer acetate after a first clinical episode leading to an initial diagnosis of MS. Patients all met Barkhof criteria for MS diagnosis on MRI, and all but six patients had oligoclonal bands found on examination of cerebrospinal fluid.

All patients in the cohort thus met criteria for clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and MS under the 2017 revisions to the McDonald diagnostic criteria. “To our knowledge, this is the first study determining the risk of disease recurrence in a homogenous cohort of patients with CIS,” reported Dr. Monschein and collaborators.

Before stopping DMT, patients had to show at least 5 years of NEDA status; at that point, patients were offered the opportunity to discontinue medication. The decision to stop or continue taking a DMT was left to individual patient choice, Dr. Monschein said in an interview.

The cohort of patients who decided to discontinue DMT was seen yearly; they received a clinical examination that included expanded disability status scale (EDSS) rating. Patients also received an annual MRI.

Age at DMT discontinuation was predictive of remaining disease free, found Dr. Monschein and collaborators. The 26 patients who continued disease free after DMT discontinuation were a mean 29.7 years old, while patients who had disease recurrence were a mean 22.7 years old.

Looking at age as a dichotomous variable, the investigators found that the 16 patients who were 40 years or older when they stopped DMT had an 18.8% risk of MS recurrence, while the 33 patients younger than 40 years at the time of ceasing DMT had a 60.6% risk of recurrence.

Age, in fact, was the only patient, disease, or therapy characteristic that Dr. Monschein and colleagues found predictive of relapse: “Gender, type of DMT, treatment duration, and CIS symptom did not differ significantly between groups,” they reported.

The data “should not encourage patients to generally stop DMTs after a long NEDA period,” they noted.

In the context of shared patient decision-making, though, the data can inform discussion with patients who wish to discontinue DMTS after long disease-free periods, Dr. Monschein said.

“Physicians should encourage younger people to stay on DMTS despite long lasting NEDA status while in patients [older than] 40 years stopping DMTs together with regular clinical and radiological monitoring could be a reasonable option,” he and his colleagues advised.

Dr. Monschein reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
 

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Monschein T et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P654.

STOCKHOLM – Just under half of a small cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who discontinued disease modifying therapy (DMT) showed signs of relapse or disease progression on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients who were younger had a higher probability of relapse, according to data presented at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Of 49 patients who had been on DMT for at least 5 years and had shown no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) during that time, 26 continued to have NEDA through at least 5 years of follow-up, explained Tobias Monschein, MD, of the department of neurology at the Medical University of Vienna.

The cohort of patients had all been taking either interferon beta or glatiramer acetate after a first clinical episode leading to an initial diagnosis of MS. Patients all met Barkhof criteria for MS diagnosis on MRI, and all but six patients had oligoclonal bands found on examination of cerebrospinal fluid.

All patients in the cohort thus met criteria for clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and MS under the 2017 revisions to the McDonald diagnostic criteria. “To our knowledge, this is the first study determining the risk of disease recurrence in a homogenous cohort of patients with CIS,” reported Dr. Monschein and collaborators.

Before stopping DMT, patients had to show at least 5 years of NEDA status; at that point, patients were offered the opportunity to discontinue medication. The decision to stop or continue taking a DMT was left to individual patient choice, Dr. Monschein said in an interview.

The cohort of patients who decided to discontinue DMT was seen yearly; they received a clinical examination that included expanded disability status scale (EDSS) rating. Patients also received an annual MRI.

Age at DMT discontinuation was predictive of remaining disease free, found Dr. Monschein and collaborators. The 26 patients who continued disease free after DMT discontinuation were a mean 29.7 years old, while patients who had disease recurrence were a mean 22.7 years old.

Looking at age as a dichotomous variable, the investigators found that the 16 patients who were 40 years or older when they stopped DMT had an 18.8% risk of MS recurrence, while the 33 patients younger than 40 years at the time of ceasing DMT had a 60.6% risk of recurrence.

Age, in fact, was the only patient, disease, or therapy characteristic that Dr. Monschein and colleagues found predictive of relapse: “Gender, type of DMT, treatment duration, and CIS symptom did not differ significantly between groups,” they reported.

The data “should not encourage patients to generally stop DMTs after a long NEDA period,” they noted.

In the context of shared patient decision-making, though, the data can inform discussion with patients who wish to discontinue DMTS after long disease-free periods, Dr. Monschein said.

“Physicians should encourage younger people to stay on DMTS despite long lasting NEDA status while in patients [older than] 40 years stopping DMTs together with regular clinical and radiological monitoring could be a reasonable option,” he and his colleagues advised.

Dr. Monschein reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
 

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Monschein T et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P654.

STOCKHOLM – Just under half of a small cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who discontinued disease modifying therapy (DMT) showed signs of relapse or disease progression on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients who were younger had a higher probability of relapse, according to data presented at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Of 49 patients who had been on DMT for at least 5 years and had shown no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) during that time, 26 continued to have NEDA through at least 5 years of follow-up, explained Tobias Monschein, MD, of the department of neurology at the Medical University of Vienna.

The cohort of patients had all been taking either interferon beta or glatiramer acetate after a first clinical episode leading to an initial diagnosis of MS. Patients all met Barkhof criteria for MS diagnosis on MRI, and all but six patients had oligoclonal bands found on examination of cerebrospinal fluid.

All patients in the cohort thus met criteria for clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and MS under the 2017 revisions to the McDonald diagnostic criteria. “To our knowledge, this is the first study determining the risk of disease recurrence in a homogenous cohort of patients with CIS,” reported Dr. Monschein and collaborators.

Before stopping DMT, patients had to show at least 5 years of NEDA status; at that point, patients were offered the opportunity to discontinue medication. The decision to stop or continue taking a DMT was left to individual patient choice, Dr. Monschein said in an interview.

The cohort of patients who decided to discontinue DMT was seen yearly; they received a clinical examination that included expanded disability status scale (EDSS) rating. Patients also received an annual MRI.

Age at DMT discontinuation was predictive of remaining disease free, found Dr. Monschein and collaborators. The 26 patients who continued disease free after DMT discontinuation were a mean 29.7 years old, while patients who had disease recurrence were a mean 22.7 years old.

Looking at age as a dichotomous variable, the investigators found that the 16 patients who were 40 years or older when they stopped DMT had an 18.8% risk of MS recurrence, while the 33 patients younger than 40 years at the time of ceasing DMT had a 60.6% risk of recurrence.

Age, in fact, was the only patient, disease, or therapy characteristic that Dr. Monschein and colleagues found predictive of relapse: “Gender, type of DMT, treatment duration, and CIS symptom did not differ significantly between groups,” they reported.

The data “should not encourage patients to generally stop DMTs after a long NEDA period,” they noted.

In the context of shared patient decision-making, though, the data can inform discussion with patients who wish to discontinue DMTS after long disease-free periods, Dr. Monschein said.

“Physicians should encourage younger people to stay on DMTS despite long lasting NEDA status while in patients [older than] 40 years stopping DMTs together with regular clinical and radiological monitoring could be a reasonable option,” he and his colleagues advised.

Dr. Monschein reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.
 

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Monschein T et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract P654.

STOCKHOLM – Children with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are initially treated with one of the newer disease-modifying therapies experienced significantly better disease activity control in terms of clinical and radiologic outcomes, compared with those started on an injectable drug in a large, observational, cohort study conducted by the U.S. Network of Pediatric MS Centers.

This was the first-ever comparative effectiveness study of initial disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in children with MS. The take-home message was clear: “This study supports the use of newer DMTs early in the course of pediatric MS,” Kristen M. Krysko, MD, said in presenting the results at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

The study was conducted because she and her coinvestigators in the network have noted increasing use of newer DMTs, even as first-line initial treatment, in the setting of pediatric MS. This represents a break with the traditional approach, which entails starting with one of the injectables – either an interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate – because of their more favorable safety profile, then escalating therapy by switching to a newer, more potent agent in the event of a disease breakthrough, explained Dr. Krysko, a clinical fellow in neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Until now, there has been only limited evidence on how the newer DMTs stack up in comparison with the injectables in a pediatric MS population. The chief supporting evidence for the harder-hitting initial approach, Dr. Krysko said, has come from a randomized clinical trial in 215 children showing that fingolimod had a lower relapse rate and better MRI outcomes, compared with interferon beta-1a, during 2 years of follow-up, but at the cost of a higher rate of serious adverse events (N Engl J Med. 2018;379[11]:1017-27).

Dr. Krysko presented a prospective study conducted at 12 sites participating in the network. It included 741 children, 85% of whom had MS, with clinically isolated syndrome in the remainder. For 197 patients, the first MS treatment was an injectable. The other 544 children were started on a newer DMT, most often dimethyl fumarate, rituximab, natalizumab, or fingolimod, with a smattering of patients on teriflunomide or ocrelizumab. Patients averaged roughly a 1-year disease history at the time they went on their first DMT and were then followed for a mean of 1.5-1.8 years on that drug.

The primary outcome was the propensity score–matched, annualized relapse rate during follow-up: The annualized rate was 0.2 in the group on newer DMTs, compared with 0.47 with the injectables. The propensity score matching was used because patients were not randomized by treatment. The propensity scores attempted to neutralize potential confounders, including differences in patient demographics, baseline disease activity, and severity of a first pretreatment relapse, she explained.

The between-group difference in adjusted annualized relapse rate was statistically significant. It translated to a 55% reduction in relative risk favoring children on a newer DMT. Moreover, the number needed to treat was impressively low, at 3.7.

“This can be interpreted as [needing] to treat 3.7 individuals with newer rather than injectable DMTs to prevent one relapse,” Dr. Krysko observed.

Secondary endpoints focused on brain MRI findings. The median time to development of new or enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions was 2.79 years with the newer DMTs, compared with 0.42 years with the injectables. The adjusted risk of developing such lesions was reduced by 49% with the newer DMTs.

Similarly, the median time to development of gadolinium-enhancing lesions was 2.25 years with the injectables and had not yet been reached in patients on newer DMTs when the study closed in January 2019.

“Many children on the newer DMTs never experienced a new gadolinium-positive lesion on follow-up,” she noted.

The adjusted risk of developing a new gadolinium-enhancing lesion was 62% lower in the newer-DMT group.

In terms of the safety of the newer DMTs, there were no surprises: The adverse-event profiles mirrored those that have been examined far more extensively in adults, according to Dr. Krysko.

The newer DMTs included oral agents as well as drugs given by intravenous infusion. The IV agents generally resulted in better disease control, compared with the oral agents, as one would expect, she said. The patient numbers were not sufficient to break down the results on an individual drug basis, however, even though this was a relatively large study.

Asked if these study results warranted a sweeping change in clinical practice – a move away from the conventional escalation treatment strategy in children in favor of upfront use of the newer, more effective DMTs – Dr. Krysko said that was tempting in light of a few recent studies in adults showing that even the first treatment can affect important long-term outcomes, including conversion to secondary progressive MS. However, she said she’d like to see additional studies in children that are focused on safety before making widespread changes in treatment strategy, especially because the pediatric MS network study did not include many very young children.

The study was sponsored by the Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Kysko reported having no financial conflicts in regard to the study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Krysko KM et al. ECTRIMS 2019, abstract 249.

STOCKHOLM – Children with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are initially treated with one of the newer disease-modifying therapies experienced significantly better disease activity control in terms of clinical and radiologic outcomes, compared with those started on an injectable drug in a large, observational, cohort study conducted by the U.S. Network of Pediatric MS Centers.

This was the first-ever comparative effectiveness study of initial disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in children with MS. The take-home message was clear: “This study supports the use of newer DMTs early in the course of pediatric MS,” Kristen M. Krysko, MD, said in presenting the results at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

The study was conducted because she and her coinvestigators in the network have noted increasing use of newer DMTs, even as first-line initial treatment, in the setting of pediatric MS. This represents a break with the traditional approach, which entails starting with one of the injectables – either an interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate – because of their more favorable safety profile, then escalating therapy by switching to a newer, more potent agent in the event of a disease breakthrough, explained Dr. Krysko, a clinical fellow in neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Until now, there has been only limited evidence on how the newer DMTs stack up in comparison with the injectables in a pediatric MS population. The chief supporting evidence for the harder-hitting initial approach, Dr. Krysko said, has come from a randomized clinical trial in 215 children showing that fingolimod had a lower relapse rate and better MRI outcomes, compared with interferon beta-1a, during 2 years of follow-up, but at the cost of a higher rate of serious adverse events (N Engl J Med. 2018;379[11]:1017-27).

Dr. Krysko presented a prospective study conducted at 12 sites participating in the network. It included 741 children, 85% of whom had MS, with clinically isolated syndrome in the remainder. For 197 patients, the first MS treatment was an injectable. The other 544 children were started on a newer DMT, most often dimethyl fumarate, rituximab, natalizumab, or fingolimod, with a smattering of patients on teriflunomide or ocrelizumab. Patients averaged roughly a 1-year disease history at the time they went on their first DMT and were then followed for a mean of 1.5-1.8 years on that drug.

The primary outcome was the propensity score–matched, annualized relapse rate during follow-up: The annualized rate was 0.2 in the group on newer DMTs, compared with 0.47 with the injectables. The propensity score matching was used because patients were not randomized by treatment. The propensity scores attempted to neutralize potential confounders, including differences in patient demographics, baseline disease activity, and severity of a first pretreatment relapse, she explained.

The between-group difference in adjusted annualized relapse rate was statistically significant. It translated to a 55% reduction in relative risk favoring children on a newer DMT. Moreover, the number needed to treat was impressively low, at 3.7.

“This can be interpreted as [needing] to treat 3.7 individuals with newer rather than injectable DMTs to prevent one relapse,” Dr. Krysko observed.

Secondary endpoints focused on brain MRI findings. The median time to development of new or enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions was 2.79 years with the newer DMTs, compared with 0.42 years with the injectables. The adjusted risk of developing such lesions was reduced by 49% with the newer DMTs.

Similarly, the median time to development of gadolinium-enhancing lesions was 2.25 years with the injectables and had not yet been reached in patients on newer DMTs when the study closed in January 2019.

“Many children on the newer DMTs never experienced a new gadolinium-positive lesion on follow-up,” she noted.

The adjusted risk of developing a new gadolinium-enhancing lesion was 62% lower in the newer-DMT group.

In terms of the safety of the newer DMTs, there were no surprises: The adverse-event profiles mirrored those that have been examined far more extensively in adults, according to Dr. Krysko.

The newer DMTs included oral agents as well as drugs given by intravenous infusion. The IV agents generally resulted in better disease control, compared with the oral agents, as one would expect, she said. The patient numbers were not sufficient to break down the results on an individual drug basis, however, even though this was a relatively large study.

Asked if these study results warranted a sweeping change in clinical practice – a move away from the conventional escalation treatment strategy in children in favor of upfront use of the newer, more effective DMTs – Dr. Krysko said that was tempting in light of a few recent studies in adults showing that even the first treatment can affect important long-term outcomes, including conversion to secondary progressive MS. However, she said she’d like to see additional studies in children that are focused on safety before making widespread changes in treatment strategy, especially because the pediatric MS network study did not include many very young children.

The study was sponsored by the Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Kysko reported having no financial conflicts in regard to the study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Krysko KM et al. ECTRIMS 2019, abstract 249.

STOCKHOLM – Children with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are initially treated with one of the newer disease-modifying therapies experienced significantly better disease activity control in terms of clinical and radiologic outcomes, compared with those started on an injectable drug in a large, observational, cohort study conducted by the U.S. Network of Pediatric MS Centers.

This was the first-ever comparative effectiveness study of initial disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in children with MS. The take-home message was clear: “This study supports the use of newer DMTs early in the course of pediatric MS,” Kristen M. Krysko, MD, said in presenting the results at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

The study was conducted because she and her coinvestigators in the network have noted increasing use of newer DMTs, even as first-line initial treatment, in the setting of pediatric MS. This represents a break with the traditional approach, which entails starting with one of the injectables – either an interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate – because of their more favorable safety profile, then escalating therapy by switching to a newer, more potent agent in the event of a disease breakthrough, explained Dr. Krysko, a clinical fellow in neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Until now, there has been only limited evidence on how the newer DMTs stack up in comparison with the injectables in a pediatric MS population. The chief supporting evidence for the harder-hitting initial approach, Dr. Krysko said, has come from a randomized clinical trial in 215 children showing that fingolimod had a lower relapse rate and better MRI outcomes, compared with interferon beta-1a, during 2 years of follow-up, but at the cost of a higher rate of serious adverse events (N Engl J Med. 2018;379[11]:1017-27).

Dr. Krysko presented a prospective study conducted at 12 sites participating in the network. It included 741 children, 85% of whom had MS, with clinically isolated syndrome in the remainder. For 197 patients, the first MS treatment was an injectable. The other 544 children were started on a newer DMT, most often dimethyl fumarate, rituximab, natalizumab, or fingolimod, with a smattering of patients on teriflunomide or ocrelizumab. Patients averaged roughly a 1-year disease history at the time they went on their first DMT and were then followed for a mean of 1.5-1.8 years on that drug.

The primary outcome was the propensity score–matched, annualized relapse rate during follow-up: The annualized rate was 0.2 in the group on newer DMTs, compared with 0.47 with the injectables. The propensity score matching was used because patients were not randomized by treatment. The propensity scores attempted to neutralize potential confounders, including differences in patient demographics, baseline disease activity, and severity of a first pretreatment relapse, she explained.

The between-group difference in adjusted annualized relapse rate was statistically significant. It translated to a 55% reduction in relative risk favoring children on a newer DMT. Moreover, the number needed to treat was impressively low, at 3.7.

“This can be interpreted as [needing] to treat 3.7 individuals with newer rather than injectable DMTs to prevent one relapse,” Dr. Krysko observed.

Secondary endpoints focused on brain MRI findings. The median time to development of new or enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions was 2.79 years with the newer DMTs, compared with 0.42 years with the injectables. The adjusted risk of developing such lesions was reduced by 49% with the newer DMTs.

Similarly, the median time to development of gadolinium-enhancing lesions was 2.25 years with the injectables and had not yet been reached in patients on newer DMTs when the study closed in January 2019.

“Many children on the newer DMTs never experienced a new gadolinium-positive lesion on follow-up,” she noted.

The adjusted risk of developing a new gadolinium-enhancing lesion was 62% lower in the newer-DMT group.

In terms of the safety of the newer DMTs, there were no surprises: The adverse-event profiles mirrored those that have been examined far more extensively in adults, according to Dr. Krysko.

The newer DMTs included oral agents as well as drugs given by intravenous infusion. The IV agents generally resulted in better disease control, compared with the oral agents, as one would expect, she said. The patient numbers were not sufficient to break down the results on an individual drug basis, however, even though this was a relatively large study.

Asked if these study results warranted a sweeping change in clinical practice – a move away from the conventional escalation treatment strategy in children in favor of upfront use of the newer, more effective DMTs – Dr. Krysko said that was tempting in light of a few recent studies in adults showing that even the first treatment can affect important long-term outcomes, including conversion to secondary progressive MS. However, she said she’d like to see additional studies in children that are focused on safety before making widespread changes in treatment strategy, especially because the pediatric MS network study did not include many very young children.

The study was sponsored by the Multiple Sclerosis Society. Dr. Kysko reported having no financial conflicts in regard to the study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Krysko KM et al. ECTRIMS 2019, abstract 249.

STOCKHOLM – Radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) converted to multiple sclerosis (MS) within 10 years of an initial abnormal MRI in 51% of patients in a large international cohort, Christine Lebrun-Frenay, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She and her coinvestigators in the Radiologically Isolated Syndrome Consortium identified four significant risk factors for conversion. The likelihood of developing MS rose stepwise with the number of risk factors present at baseline such that patients possessing all four risk factors had an 87% conversion rate by 10 years.

The four significant risk factors that emerged from multivariate analysis were being age 37 years or younger at the time of the initial abnormal MRI, having spinal cord lesions on MRI, being cerebrospinal fluid positive for oligoclonal immunoglobulin bands and/or an elevated IgG index, and having infratentorial brain lesions on MRI.

Patients with none or one of the risk factors at baseline had a 29% conversion rate at 10 years. That risk climbed to 54% with two risk factors and 68% with any three, according to Dr. Lebrun-Frenay, head of the inflammatory neurologic disorders clinical research unit and MS Center at the University of Nice (France).

The new 10-year results expand upon the previously reported outcomes involving 5 years of prospective follow-up in the initial cohort of 451 RIS patients at participating MS centers in the United States, three European countries, and Turkey. At 5 years, 34% of subjects had converted to MS as defined by a first acute symptomatic clinical event involving CNS demyelination or 12 months of a progressive neurologic deficit (PLoS One. 2014 Mar 5;9[3]:e90509).

Of note, 17% of patients were treated off label with MS disease-modifying therapies, including natalizumab, injectables, or fingolimod, while they still had RIS, she noted.

RIS was defined on the basis of an incidentally identified CNS white-matter lesion meeting the 2009 Okuda criteria (Neurology. 2009 Mar 3;72[9]:800-5), which remain the only validated criteria for RIS.

Fourteen patients converted from RIS to primary progressive MS, indicating the existence of a previously unrecognized presymptomatic phase for this form of the disease.

The mounting conversions from RIS to MS over time suggest that RIS is part of the MS spectrum. In light of the RIS Consortium’s 10-year findings, Dr. Lebrun-Frenay and colleagues strongly recommended yearly monitoring of patients with RIS via a clinical visit including a neurologic examination and possibly a cognitive evaluation, as well as brain and spinal cord MRI scans.

Based on the observed conversion trajectory between 5 and 10 years, Dr. Lebrun-Frenay speculated that with further prospective follow-up eventually all of the RIS patients will develop MS. Despite this, she did not recommend prescribing disease-modifying therapies for these asymptomatic RIS patients. Dr. Lebrun-Frenay noted that there are two ongoing major randomized, phase 3, placebo-controlled clinical trials addressing this very question: the ARISE study of dimethyl fumarate in the United States, and the TERIS study of teriflunomide in Europe.

“It hasn’t been demonstrated yet that to give an active drug at this early stage is useful, so we have to wait a little bit for the results of these ongoing trials. I think we have to believe in evidence-based medicine. After all, 5 or 6 years ago we didn’t have any diagnostic criteria for RIS. We didn’t have any knowledge of this syndrome. Now we have to wait for maybe 2 years. It’s not too long to wait for the answer,” she said.

Dr. Lebrun-Frenay serves as a consultant to more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies but reported having no financial conflicts regarding the RIS Consortium study, which is being conducted without commercial support.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lebrun-Frenay C et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 97.

STOCKHOLM – Radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) converted to multiple sclerosis (MS) within 10 years of an initial abnormal MRI in 51% of patients in a large international cohort, Christine Lebrun-Frenay, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She and her coinvestigators in the Radiologically Isolated Syndrome Consortium identified four significant risk factors for conversion. The likelihood of developing MS rose stepwise with the number of risk factors present at baseline such that patients possessing all four risk factors had an 87% conversion rate by 10 years.

The four significant risk factors that emerged from multivariate analysis were being age 37 years or younger at the time of the initial abnormal MRI, having spinal cord lesions on MRI, being cerebrospinal fluid positive for oligoclonal immunoglobulin bands and/or an elevated IgG index, and having infratentorial brain lesions on MRI.

Patients with none or one of the risk factors at baseline had a 29% conversion rate at 10 years. That risk climbed to 54% with two risk factors and 68% with any three, according to Dr. Lebrun-Frenay, head of the inflammatory neurologic disorders clinical research unit and MS Center at the University of Nice (France).

The new 10-year results expand upon the previously reported outcomes involving 5 years of prospective follow-up in the initial cohort of 451 RIS patients at participating MS centers in the United States, three European countries, and Turkey. At 5 years, 34% of subjects had converted to MS as defined by a first acute symptomatic clinical event involving CNS demyelination or 12 months of a progressive neurologic deficit (PLoS One. 2014 Mar 5;9[3]:e90509).

Of note, 17% of patients were treated off label with MS disease-modifying therapies, including natalizumab, injectables, or fingolimod, while they still had RIS, she noted.

RIS was defined on the basis of an incidentally identified CNS white-matter lesion meeting the 2009 Okuda criteria (Neurology. 2009 Mar 3;72[9]:800-5), which remain the only validated criteria for RIS.

Fourteen patients converted from RIS to primary progressive MS, indicating the existence of a previously unrecognized presymptomatic phase for this form of the disease.

The mounting conversions from RIS to MS over time suggest that RIS is part of the MS spectrum. In light of the RIS Consortium’s 10-year findings, Dr. Lebrun-Frenay and colleagues strongly recommended yearly monitoring of patients with RIS via a clinical visit including a neurologic examination and possibly a cognitive evaluation, as well as brain and spinal cord MRI scans.

Based on the observed conversion trajectory between 5 and 10 years, Dr. Lebrun-Frenay speculated that with further prospective follow-up eventually all of the RIS patients will develop MS. Despite this, she did not recommend prescribing disease-modifying therapies for these asymptomatic RIS patients. Dr. Lebrun-Frenay noted that there are two ongoing major randomized, phase 3, placebo-controlled clinical trials addressing this very question: the ARISE study of dimethyl fumarate in the United States, and the TERIS study of teriflunomide in Europe.

“It hasn’t been demonstrated yet that to give an active drug at this early stage is useful, so we have to wait a little bit for the results of these ongoing trials. I think we have to believe in evidence-based medicine. After all, 5 or 6 years ago we didn’t have any diagnostic criteria for RIS. We didn’t have any knowledge of this syndrome. Now we have to wait for maybe 2 years. It’s not too long to wait for the answer,” she said.

Dr. Lebrun-Frenay serves as a consultant to more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies but reported having no financial conflicts regarding the RIS Consortium study, which is being conducted without commercial support.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lebrun-Frenay C et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 97.

STOCKHOLM – Radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) converted to multiple sclerosis (MS) within 10 years of an initial abnormal MRI in 51% of patients in a large international cohort, Christine Lebrun-Frenay, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She and her coinvestigators in the Radiologically Isolated Syndrome Consortium identified four significant risk factors for conversion. The likelihood of developing MS rose stepwise with the number of risk factors present at baseline such that patients possessing all four risk factors had an 87% conversion rate by 10 years.

The four significant risk factors that emerged from multivariate analysis were being age 37 years or younger at the time of the initial abnormal MRI, having spinal cord lesions on MRI, being cerebrospinal fluid positive for oligoclonal immunoglobulin bands and/or an elevated IgG index, and having infratentorial brain lesions on MRI.

Patients with none or one of the risk factors at baseline had a 29% conversion rate at 10 years. That risk climbed to 54% with two risk factors and 68% with any three, according to Dr. Lebrun-Frenay, head of the inflammatory neurologic disorders clinical research unit and MS Center at the University of Nice (France).

The new 10-year results expand upon the previously reported outcomes involving 5 years of prospective follow-up in the initial cohort of 451 RIS patients at participating MS centers in the United States, three European countries, and Turkey. At 5 years, 34% of subjects had converted to MS as defined by a first acute symptomatic clinical event involving CNS demyelination or 12 months of a progressive neurologic deficit (PLoS One. 2014 Mar 5;9[3]:e90509).

Of note, 17% of patients were treated off label with MS disease-modifying therapies, including natalizumab, injectables, or fingolimod, while they still had RIS, she noted.

RIS was defined on the basis of an incidentally identified CNS white-matter lesion meeting the 2009 Okuda criteria (Neurology. 2009 Mar 3;72[9]:800-5), which remain the only validated criteria for RIS.

Fourteen patients converted from RIS to primary progressive MS, indicating the existence of a previously unrecognized presymptomatic phase for this form of the disease.

The mounting conversions from RIS to MS over time suggest that RIS is part of the MS spectrum. In light of the RIS Consortium’s 10-year findings, Dr. Lebrun-Frenay and colleagues strongly recommended yearly monitoring of patients with RIS via a clinical visit including a neurologic examination and possibly a cognitive evaluation, as well as brain and spinal cord MRI scans.

Based on the observed conversion trajectory between 5 and 10 years, Dr. Lebrun-Frenay speculated that with further prospective follow-up eventually all of the RIS patients will develop MS. Despite this, she did not recommend prescribing disease-modifying therapies for these asymptomatic RIS patients. Dr. Lebrun-Frenay noted that there are two ongoing major randomized, phase 3, placebo-controlled clinical trials addressing this very question: the ARISE study of dimethyl fumarate in the United States, and the TERIS study of teriflunomide in Europe.

“It hasn’t been demonstrated yet that to give an active drug at this early stage is useful, so we have to wait a little bit for the results of these ongoing trials. I think we have to believe in evidence-based medicine. After all, 5 or 6 years ago we didn’t have any diagnostic criteria for RIS. We didn’t have any knowledge of this syndrome. Now we have to wait for maybe 2 years. It’s not too long to wait for the answer,” she said.

Dr. Lebrun-Frenay serves as a consultant to more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies but reported having no financial conflicts regarding the RIS Consortium study, which is being conducted without commercial support.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lebrun-Frenay C et al. ECTRIMS 2019, Abstract 97.

STOCKHOLM – Pooled data from several national multiple sclerosis (MS) registries indicate that continuous exposure to disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for more than 10 years reduces the risk of confirmed disability progression (CDP), according to an investigation presented at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Using several confirmation points for Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression (e.g., 12 months and 24 months), researchers detected a clear gradient of treatment effect. Identification of the most reliable outcome definitions will require further investigations, they said.

“The ultimate goal of MS treatment is the prevention of long-term disability accumulation,” said Giuseppe Lucisano, a biostatistician at the Center for Outcomes Research and Clinical Epidemiology in Pescara, Italy. “Continuous DMT exposure can impact long-term disability accumulation in MS, but it has not been definitively demonstrated yet.”

Registries and clinical databases provide the opportunity to collect longitudinal data for treated and untreated patients as a means of investigating questions such as this one, the researchers said. The Danish, Italian, and Swedish national MS registries, MSBase, and the Observatoire of MS (OFSEP) merged their data in the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data (BMSD) Network, which includes approximately 150,000 patients and more than 470,000 EDSS evaluations. The result is a large dataset suitable for long-term longitudinal studies.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Laffaldano P et al. ECTRIMS 2019. Abstract: 94.

STOCKHOLM – Pooled data from several national multiple sclerosis (MS) registries indicate that continuous exposure to disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for more than 10 years reduces the risk of confirmed disability progression (CDP), according to an investigation presented at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Using several confirmation points for Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression (e.g., 12 months and 24 months), researchers detected a clear gradient of treatment effect. Identification of the most reliable outcome definitions will require further investigations, they said.

“The ultimate goal of MS treatment is the prevention of long-term disability accumulation,” said Giuseppe Lucisano, a biostatistician at the Center for Outcomes Research and Clinical Epidemiology in Pescara, Italy. “Continuous DMT exposure can impact long-term disability accumulation in MS, but it has not been definitively demonstrated yet.”

Registries and clinical databases provide the opportunity to collect longitudinal data for treated and untreated patients as a means of investigating questions such as this one, the researchers said. The Danish, Italian, and Swedish national MS registries, MSBase, and the Observatoire of MS (OFSEP) merged their data in the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data (BMSD) Network, which includes approximately 150,000 patients and more than 470,000 EDSS evaluations. The result is a large dataset suitable for long-term longitudinal studies.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Laffaldano P et al. ECTRIMS 2019. Abstract: 94.

STOCKHOLM – Pooled data from several national multiple sclerosis (MS) registries indicate that continuous exposure to disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for more than 10 years reduces the risk of confirmed disability progression (CDP), according to an investigation presented at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

Using several confirmation points for Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression (e.g., 12 months and 24 months), researchers detected a clear gradient of treatment effect. Identification of the most reliable outcome definitions will require further investigations, they said.

“The ultimate goal of MS treatment is the prevention of long-term disability accumulation,” said Giuseppe Lucisano, a biostatistician at the Center for Outcomes Research and Clinical Epidemiology in Pescara, Italy. “Continuous DMT exposure can impact long-term disability accumulation in MS, but it has not been definitively demonstrated yet.”

Registries and clinical databases provide the opportunity to collect longitudinal data for treated and untreated patients as a means of investigating questions such as this one, the researchers said. The Danish, Italian, and Swedish national MS registries, MSBase, and the Observatoire of MS (OFSEP) merged their data in the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data (BMSD) Network, which includes approximately 150,000 patients and more than 470,000 EDSS evaluations. The result is a large dataset suitable for long-term longitudinal studies.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Laffaldano P et al. ECTRIMS 2019. Abstract: 94.

Oral administration of vamorolone, a first-in-class investigational steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, may benefit patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), data from an open-label study suggest.

Jonathan Cohen/Binghamton University

Daily treatment with vamorolone at doses of 2.0 mg/kg per day and 6.0 mg/kg per day suggested possible efficacy in a 24-week study, researchers said. The exploratory study included 48 boys who had completed a phase 2a trial.

The treatment was safe and well tolerated, and patients who received 2.0 mg/kg per day had significantly improved muscle function, as assessed by time to stand, compared with natural history controls, according to the results, which were published in Neurology.

In addition, the novel drug may reduce “safety concerns typically seen with traditional glucocorticoids,” wrote Eric P. Hoffman, PhD, and coauthors. Dr. Hoffman is president and CEO of ReveraGen BioPharma in Rockville, Md., which is developing the drug, and associate dean for research in the school of pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences at Binghamton (N.Y.) University.

In preclinical studies, vamorolone retained anti-inflammatory efficacy while reducing adverse effects, compared with prednisolone, in a manner that is “consistent with vamorolone blocking [nuclear factor-kappa beta]–associated proinflammatory signals as a ligand/receptor monomeric state instead of the traditional molecular models of ligand/receptor dimeric complexes,” the authors said.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hoffman EP et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008168.

Oral administration of vamorolone, a first-in-class investigational steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, may benefit patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), data from an open-label study suggest.

Jonathan Cohen/Binghamton University

Daily treatment with vamorolone at doses of 2.0 mg/kg per day and 6.0 mg/kg per day suggested possible efficacy in a 24-week study, researchers said. The exploratory study included 48 boys who had completed a phase 2a trial.

The treatment was safe and well tolerated, and patients who received 2.0 mg/kg per day had significantly improved muscle function, as assessed by time to stand, compared with natural history controls, according to the results, which were published in Neurology.

In addition, the novel drug may reduce “safety concerns typically seen with traditional glucocorticoids,” wrote Eric P. Hoffman, PhD, and coauthors. Dr. Hoffman is president and CEO of ReveraGen BioPharma in Rockville, Md., which is developing the drug, and associate dean for research in the school of pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences at Binghamton (N.Y.) University.

In preclinical studies, vamorolone retained anti-inflammatory efficacy while reducing adverse effects, compared with prednisolone, in a manner that is “consistent with vamorolone blocking [nuclear factor-kappa beta]–associated proinflammatory signals as a ligand/receptor monomeric state instead of the traditional molecular models of ligand/receptor dimeric complexes,” the authors said.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hoffman EP et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008168.

Oral administration of vamorolone, a first-in-class investigational steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, may benefit patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), data from an open-label study suggest.

Jonathan Cohen/Binghamton University

Daily treatment with vamorolone at doses of 2.0 mg/kg per day and 6.0 mg/kg per day suggested possible efficacy in a 24-week study, researchers said. The exploratory study included 48 boys who had completed a phase 2a trial.

The treatment was safe and well tolerated, and patients who received 2.0 mg/kg per day had significantly improved muscle function, as assessed by time to stand, compared with natural history controls, according to the results, which were published in Neurology.

In addition, the novel drug may reduce “safety concerns typically seen with traditional glucocorticoids,” wrote Eric P. Hoffman, PhD, and coauthors. Dr. Hoffman is president and CEO of ReveraGen BioPharma in Rockville, Md., which is developing the drug, and associate dean for research in the school of pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences at Binghamton (N.Y.) University.

In preclinical studies, vamorolone retained anti-inflammatory efficacy while reducing adverse effects, compared with prednisolone, in a manner that is “consistent with vamorolone blocking [nuclear factor-kappa beta]–associated proinflammatory signals as a ligand/receptor monomeric state instead of the traditional molecular models of ligand/receptor dimeric complexes,” the authors said.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hoffman EP et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 26. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008168.

A prosthetic leg that elicits the sensation of knee motion and the feeling of the sole of the foot touching the ground may improve walking performance and reduce phantom limb pain, according to a proof-of-concept study with two patients.

Huntstock/thinkstockphotos

With the bionic leg system, the patients performed better during clinically important tests indoors and outdoors, study author Stanisa Raspopovic, PhD, explained during a press briefing about the research. The findings were published in Nature Medicine.

The results indicate that the use of sensory feedback “could be common practice” in prosthetic devices in the future, he said. Dr. Raspopovic is a researcher at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich and a founder of SensArs Neuroprosthetics, which is based in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Neural prosthetics allow the nervous system and external devices to interact. These brain-machine interfaces may improve quality of life for patients with brain or spinal cord injuries, degenerative disease, or loss of limbs.

“Conventional leg prostheses do not convey sensory information about motion or interaction with the ground to above-knee amputees, thereby reducing confidence and walking speed in the users,” the study authors wrote. Users may also have high levels of mental and physical fatigue, and the lack of physiologic feedback from the extremity to the brain may contribute to the generation of phantom limb pain.

To evaluate whether neural sensory feedback restoration could address these issues, investigators conducted a study with two patients who had undergone transfemoral amputations as a result of traumatic events. The patients were implanted with four intraneural stimulation electrodes in the remaining tibial nerve. The prosthetic leg device included sensors to represent foot touch and pressure and knee joint angle. The sensors transmitted sensory signals to the nervous system through the stimulation electrodes in the tibial nerve.

When the patients walked outdoors over a path traced in the sand, “participants’ speeds were significantly higher when sensory feedback was provided,” the authors wrote. One participant walked 3.56 m/min faster, and the other walked 5.68 m/min faster.

The participants also rated their confidence in the prosthesis on a scale from 0 to 10. For patient 1, self-rated confidence improved from 4.85 to 7.71 with the device. Patient 2 reported a confidence level that climbed from 2.7 to 5.55.

When tested indoors, both patients reached a 0.5 km/hour higher speed on the treadmill when stimulation was provided and both had a lower mean rate of oxygen uptake during the sensory feedback trials, the study authors reported.

Levels of phantom limb pain also decreased significantly after 10-minute stimulation sessions, but not during control sessions.

Longer studies with more patients are required, and fully implantable devices without transcutaneous cables need to be developed, the authors wrote.

Grants from the European Research Council, European Commission, and Swiss National Science Foundation funded the research. Dr. Raspopovic and two coauthors hold shares of SensArs Neuroprosthetics, a start-up company dealing with the commercialization of neurocontrolled artificial limbs.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Petrini FM et al. Nat Med. 2019 Sep 9. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0567-3.

A prosthetic leg that elicits the sensation of knee motion and the feeling of the sole of the foot touching the ground may improve walking performance and reduce phantom limb pain, according to a proof-of-concept study with two patients.

Huntstock/thinkstockphotos

With the bionic leg system, the patients performed better during clinically important tests indoors and outdoors, study author Stanisa Raspopovic, PhD, explained during a press briefing about the research. The findings were published in Nature Medicine.

The results indicate that the use of sensory feedback “could be common practice” in prosthetic devices in the future, he said. Dr. Raspopovic is a researcher at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich and a founder of SensArs Neuroprosthetics, which is based in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Neural prosthetics allow the nervous system and external devices to interact. These brain-machine interfaces may improve quality of life for patients with brain or spinal cord injuries, degenerative disease, or loss of limbs.

“Conventional leg prostheses do not convey sensory information about motion or interaction with the ground to above-knee amputees, thereby reducing confidence and walking speed in the users,” the study authors wrote. Users may also have high levels of mental and physical fatigue, and the lack of physiologic feedback from the extremity to the brain may contribute to the generation of phantom limb pain.

To evaluate whether neural sensory feedback restoration could address these issues, investigators conducted a study with two patients who had undergone transfemoral amputations as a result of traumatic events. The patients were implanted with four intraneural stimulation electrodes in the remaining tibial nerve. The prosthetic leg device included sensors to represent foot touch and pressure and knee joint angle. The sensors transmitted sensory signals to the nervous system through the stimulation electrodes in the tibial nerve.

When the patients walked outdoors over a path traced in the sand, “participants’ speeds were significantly higher when sensory feedback was provided,” the authors wrote. One participant walked 3.56 m/min faster, and the other walked 5.68 m/min faster.

The participants also rated their confidence in the prosthesis on a scale from 0 to 10. For patient 1, self-rated confidence improved from 4.85 to 7.71 with the device. Patient 2 reported a confidence level that climbed from 2.7 to 5.55.

When tested indoors, both patients reached a 0.5 km/hour higher speed on the treadmill when stimulation was provided and both had a lower mean rate of oxygen uptake during the sensory feedback trials, the study authors reported.

Levels of phantom limb pain also decreased significantly after 10-minute stimulation sessions, but not during control sessions.

Longer studies with more patients are required, and fully implantable devices without transcutaneous cables need to be developed, the authors wrote.

Grants from the European Research Council, European Commission, and Swiss National Science Foundation funded the research. Dr. Raspopovic and two coauthors hold shares of SensArs Neuroprosthetics, a start-up company dealing with the commercialization of neurocontrolled artificial limbs.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Petrini FM et al. Nat Med. 2019 Sep 9. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0567-3.

A prosthetic leg that elicits the sensation of knee motion and the feeling of the sole of the foot touching the ground may improve walking performance and reduce phantom limb pain, according to a proof-of-concept study with two patients.

Huntstock/thinkstockphotos

With the bionic leg system, the patients performed better during clinically important tests indoors and outdoors, study author Stanisa Raspopovic, PhD, explained during a press briefing about the research. The findings were published in Nature Medicine.

The results indicate that the use of sensory feedback “could be common practice” in prosthetic devices in the future, he said. Dr. Raspopovic is a researcher at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich and a founder of SensArs Neuroprosthetics, which is based in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Neural prosthetics allow the nervous system and external devices to interact. These brain-machine interfaces may improve quality of life for patients with brain or spinal cord injuries, degenerative disease, or loss of limbs.

“Conventional leg prostheses do not convey sensory information about motion or interaction with the ground to above-knee amputees, thereby reducing confidence and walking speed in the users,” the study authors wrote. Users may also have high levels of mental and physical fatigue, and the lack of physiologic feedback from the extremity to the brain may contribute to the generation of phantom limb pain.

To evaluate whether neural sensory feedback restoration could address these issues, investigators conducted a study with two patients who had undergone transfemoral amputations as a result of traumatic events. The patients were implanted with four intraneural stimulation electrodes in the remaining tibial nerve. The prosthetic leg device included sensors to represent foot touch and pressure and knee joint angle. The sensors transmitted sensory signals to the nervous system through the stimulation electrodes in the tibial nerve.

When the patients walked outdoors over a path traced in the sand, “participants’ speeds were significantly higher when sensory feedback was provided,” the authors wrote. One participant walked 3.56 m/min faster, and the other walked 5.68 m/min faster.

The participants also rated their confidence in the prosthesis on a scale from 0 to 10. For patient 1, self-rated confidence improved from 4.85 to 7.71 with the device. Patient 2 reported a confidence level that climbed from 2.7 to 5.55.

When tested indoors, both patients reached a 0.5 km/hour higher speed on the treadmill when stimulation was provided and both had a lower mean rate of oxygen uptake during the sensory feedback trials, the study authors reported.

Levels of phantom limb pain also decreased significantly after 10-minute stimulation sessions, but not during control sessions.

Longer studies with more patients are required, and fully implantable devices without transcutaneous cables need to be developed, the authors wrote.

Grants from the European Research Council, European Commission, and Swiss National Science Foundation funded the research. Dr. Raspopovic and two coauthors hold shares of SensArs Neuroprosthetics, a start-up company dealing with the commercialization of neurocontrolled artificial limbs.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Petrini FM et al. Nat Med. 2019 Sep 9. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0567-3.

Migraines are associated with a significantly greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease and all forms of dementia except vascular dementia, according to research published online Sept. 4 in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

In the Manitoba Study of Health and Aging, a population-based, prospective cohort study, 679 community-dwelling adults with a mean age of 75.9 years were followed for 5 years. Participants screened as cognitively intact at baseline had complete data on migraine history and all covariates at baseline and were assessed for cognitive outcomes 5 years later.

The study showed that a history of migraines was associated with a 2.97-fold greater likelihood of dementia, after adjustment for age, education, and a history of stroke, compared with individuals without a history of migraine. Individuals with Alzheimer’s disease were more than four times more likely to have a history of migraines (odds ratio 4.22).

However, researchers found no significant association between vascular dementia and a history of migraines, either before or after adjusting for confounders but particularly after incorporating a history of stroke into the model.

Lead investigator Suzanne L. Tyas, PhD, associate professor in the School of Public Health and Health Systems at the University of Waterloo, Ont., and coauthors suggested that the association between migraine and dementia was largely driven by the strong association between migraines and Alzheimer’s disease.

“This interpretation is supported by the weaker association for dementia than for Alzheimer’s disease, reflecting a dilution of the association with migraines across all types of dementia including vascular dementia, where a significant association was not found,” the researchers wrote.

The study population was 61.9% female, and no men reporting a history of migraine were diagnosed with dementia. While the study reflected a strong association between migraine and dementia in women, the researchers said they were unable to assess potential gender differences in this association.

Commenting on possible mechanisms behind the association, the authors wrote that there were overlaps underlying the biological mechanisms of migraine and dementia. Vascular risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, heart attack, and stroke are associated with the development of dementia, and a relationship of these risk factors and migraine also has been seen.

“Many of the mechanisms involved in migraine neurophysiology, such as inflammation and reduced cerebral blood flow, are also underlying causes of dementia,” they wrote. “Repeated activation of these pathways in chronic migraineurs has been shown to cause permanent neurological and vascular damage.”

They also observed that the association could be influenced by genetic factors, as individuals with presenilin-1 mutations, which predispose them to Alzheimer’s disease, are more likely to experience migraines or recurrent headaches.

They suggested their findings could inform preventive strategies and treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, as well as interventions such as earlier screening for cognitive decline in individuals who experience migraines.

The study was funded by Manitoba Health and the National Health Research and Development Program of Health Canada. No conflicts of interest were declared.
 

SOURCE: Morton R et al. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2019 Sep 4. doi: 10.1002/gps.5180.

Migraines are associated with a significantly greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease and all forms of dementia except vascular dementia, according to research published online Sept. 4 in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

In the Manitoba Study of Health and Aging, a population-based, prospective cohort study, 679 community-dwelling adults with a mean age of 75.9 years were followed for 5 years. Participants screened as cognitively intact at baseline had complete data on migraine history and all covariates at baseline and were assessed for cognitive outcomes 5 years later.

The study showed that a history of migraines was associated with a 2.97-fold greater likelihood of dementia, after adjustment for age, education, and a history of stroke, compared with individuals without a history of migraine. Individuals with Alzheimer’s disease were more than four times more likely to have a history of migraines (odds ratio 4.22).

However, researchers found no significant association between vascular dementia and a history of migraines, either before or after adjusting for confounders but particularly after incorporating a history of stroke into the model.

Lead investigator Suzanne L. Tyas, PhD, associate professor in the School of Public Health and Health Systems at the University of Waterloo, Ont., and coauthors suggested that the association between migraine and dementia was largely driven by the strong association between migraines and Alzheimer’s disease.

“This interpretation is supported by the weaker association for dementia than for Alzheimer’s disease, reflecting a dilution of the association with migraines across all types of dementia including vascular dementia, where a significant association was not found,” the researchers wrote.

The study population was 61.9% female, and no men reporting a history of migraine were diagnosed with dementia. While the study reflected a strong association between migraine and dementia in women, the researchers said they were unable to assess potential gender differences in this association.

Commenting on possible mechanisms behind the association, the authors wrote that there were overlaps underlying the biological mechanisms of migraine and dementia. Vascular risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, heart attack, and stroke are associated with the development of dementia, and a relationship of these risk factors and migraine also has been seen.

“Many of the mechanisms involved in migraine neurophysiology, such as inflammation and reduced cerebral blood flow, are also underlying causes of dementia,” they wrote. “Repeated activation of these pathways in chronic migraineurs has been shown to cause permanent neurological and vascular damage.”

They also observed that the association could be influenced by genetic factors, as individuals with presenilin-1 mutations, which predispose them to Alzheimer’s disease, are more likely to experience migraines or recurrent headaches.

They suggested their findings could inform preventive strategies and treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, as well as interventions such as earlier screening for cognitive decline in individuals who experience migraines.

The study was funded by Manitoba Health and the National Health Research and Development Program of Health Canada. No conflicts of interest were declared.
 

SOURCE: Morton R et al. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2019 Sep 4. doi: 10.1002/gps.5180.

Migraines are associated with a significantly greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease and all forms of dementia except vascular dementia, according to research published online Sept. 4 in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

In the Manitoba Study of Health and Aging, a population-based, prospective cohort study, 679 community-dwelling adults with a mean age of 75.9 years were followed for 5 years. Participants screened as cognitively intact at baseline had complete data on migraine history and all covariates at baseline and were assessed for cognitive outcomes 5 years later.

The study showed that a history of migraines was associated with a 2.97-fold greater likelihood of dementia, after adjustment for age, education, and a history of stroke, compared with individuals without a history of migraine. Individuals with Alzheimer’s disease were more than four times more likely to have a history of migraines (odds ratio 4.22).

However, researchers found no significant association between vascular dementia and a history of migraines, either before or after adjusting for confounders but particularly after incorporating a history of stroke into the model.

Lead investigator Suzanne L. Tyas, PhD, associate professor in the School of Public Health and Health Systems at the University of Waterloo, Ont., and coauthors suggested that the association between migraine and dementia was largely driven by the strong association between migraines and Alzheimer’s disease.

“This interpretation is supported by the weaker association for dementia than for Alzheimer’s disease, reflecting a dilution of the association with migraines across all types of dementia including vascular dementia, where a significant association was not found,” the researchers wrote.

The study population was 61.9% female, and no men reporting a history of migraine were diagnosed with dementia. While the study reflected a strong association between migraine and dementia in women, the researchers said they were unable to assess potential gender differences in this association.

Commenting on possible mechanisms behind the association, the authors wrote that there were overlaps underlying the biological mechanisms of migraine and dementia. Vascular risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, heart attack, and stroke are associated with the development of dementia, and a relationship of these risk factors and migraine also has been seen.

“Many of the mechanisms involved in migraine neurophysiology, such as inflammation and reduced cerebral blood flow, are also underlying causes of dementia,” they wrote. “Repeated activation of these pathways in chronic migraineurs has been shown to cause permanent neurological and vascular damage.”

They also observed that the association could be influenced by genetic factors, as individuals with presenilin-1 mutations, which predispose them to Alzheimer’s disease, are more likely to experience migraines or recurrent headaches.

They suggested their findings could inform preventive strategies and treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, as well as interventions such as earlier screening for cognitive decline in individuals who experience migraines.

The study was funded by Manitoba Health and the National Health Research and Development Program of Health Canada. No conflicts of interest were declared.
 

SOURCE: Morton R et al. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2019 Sep 4. doi: 10.1002/gps.5180.

More financial reinforcements are arriving in the battle against the opioid crisis, with the Trump administration promising more than $1.8 billion in new funds to help states address the crisis.

Speaking at a Sept. 4 press conference announcing the funding, President Donald Trump said the money will be used “to increase access to medication and medication-assisted treatment and mental health resources, which are critical for ending homelessness and getting people the help they deserve.” The president added that the grants also will help state and local governments obtain high-quality, comprehensive data.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will provide more than $900 million in new funding over the next 3 years to “advance the understanding of the opioid overdose epidemic and to scale-up prevention and response activities,” the Department of Health & Human Services said in a statement announcing the funding.

“This money will help states and local communities track overdose data and develop strategies that save lives,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said during the press conference.

He noted that, when the Trump administration began, overdose data were published with a 12-month lag. That lag has since shortened to 6 months. One of the goals with the new funding is to bring data publishing as close to real time as possible.

Separately, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration awarded $932 million to all 50 states as part of its State Opioid Response grants, which “provide flexible funding to state governments to support prevention, treatment, and recovery services in the ways that meet the needs of their state,” according to the HHS statement.

That flexibility “can mean everything from expanding the use of medication-assisted treatment in criminal justice settings or in rural areas via telemedicine, to youth-focused community-based prevention efforts,” Secretary Azar explained. The funds can also support employment coaching and naloxone distribution, he added.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

More financial reinforcements are arriving in the battle against the opioid crisis, with the Trump administration promising more than $1.8 billion in new funds to help states address the crisis.

Speaking at a Sept. 4 press conference announcing the funding, President Donald Trump said the money will be used “to increase access to medication and medication-assisted treatment and mental health resources, which are critical for ending homelessness and getting people the help they deserve.” The president added that the grants also will help state and local governments obtain high-quality, comprehensive data.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will provide more than $900 million in new funding over the next 3 years to “advance the understanding of the opioid overdose epidemic and to scale-up prevention and response activities,” the Department of Health & Human Services said in a statement announcing the funding.

“This money will help states and local communities track overdose data and develop strategies that save lives,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said during the press conference.

He noted that, when the Trump administration began, overdose data were published with a 12-month lag. That lag has since shortened to 6 months. One of the goals with the new funding is to bring data publishing as close to real time as possible.

Separately, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration awarded $932 million to all 50 states as part of its State Opioid Response grants, which “provide flexible funding to state governments to support prevention, treatment, and recovery services in the ways that meet the needs of their state,” according to the HHS statement.

That flexibility “can mean everything from expanding the use of medication-assisted treatment in criminal justice settings or in rural areas via telemedicine, to youth-focused community-based prevention efforts,” Secretary Azar explained. The funds can also support employment coaching and naloxone distribution, he added.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

More financial reinforcements are arriving in the battle against the opioid crisis, with the Trump administration promising more than $1.8 billion in new funds to help states address the crisis.

Speaking at a Sept. 4 press conference announcing the funding, President Donald Trump said the money will be used “to increase access to medication and medication-assisted treatment and mental health resources, which are critical for ending homelessness and getting people the help they deserve.” The president added that the grants also will help state and local governments obtain high-quality, comprehensive data.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will provide more than $900 million in new funding over the next 3 years to “advance the understanding of the opioid overdose epidemic and to scale-up prevention and response activities,” the Department of Health & Human Services said in a statement announcing the funding.

“This money will help states and local communities track overdose data and develop strategies that save lives,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said during the press conference.

He noted that, when the Trump administration began, overdose data were published with a 12-month lag. That lag has since shortened to 6 months. One of the goals with the new funding is to bring data publishing as close to real time as possible.

Separately, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration awarded $932 million to all 50 states as part of its State Opioid Response grants, which “provide flexible funding to state governments to support prevention, treatment, and recovery services in the ways that meet the needs of their state,” according to the HHS statement.

That flexibility “can mean everything from expanding the use of medication-assisted treatment in criminal justice settings or in rural areas via telemedicine, to youth-focused community-based prevention efforts,” Secretary Azar explained. The funds can also support employment coaching and naloxone distribution, he added.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The “opioid epidemic” has become, perhaps, the most talked-about health crisis of the 21st century. It is a pervasive topic of discussion in the health literature and beyond, written about on the front pages of national newspapers and even mentioned in presidential state-of-the-union addresses.

As practicing physicians, we are all too familiar with the ills of chronic opioid use and have dealt with the implications of the crisis long before the issue attracted the public’s attention. In many ways, we have felt alone in bearing the burdens of caring for patients on chronic controlled substances. Until this point it has been our sacred duty to determine which patients are truly in need of those medications, and which are merely dependent on or – even worse – abusing them.

Health care providers have been largely blamed for the creation of this crisis, but we are not alone. Responsibility must also be shared by the pharmaceutical industry, health insurers, and even the government. Marketing practices, inadequate coverage of pain-relieving procedures and rehabilitation, and poorly-conceived drug policies have created an environment where it has been far too difficult to provide appropriate care for patients with chronic pain. As a result, patients who may have had an alternative to opioids were still started on these medications, and we – their physicians – have been left alone to manage the outcome.

Recently, however, health policy and public awareness have signaled a dramatic shift in the management of long-term pain medication. Suddenly, prevention of opioid use and abuse has become a national priority. Significant legislation has been enacted on national, state, and local levels, and parties who are perceived to be responsible for the crisis are being held to task. For example, in August a landmark legal case was decided in an Oklahoma district court. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals was found guilty of promoting drug addiction through false and misleading marketing and was thus ordered to pay $572 million to the state to fund drug rehabilitation programs. This is likely a harbinger of many more such decisions to come, and the industry as a whole is bracing for the worst.

Physician prescribing practices are also being carefully scrutinized by the DEA, and a significant number of new “checks and balances” have been put in place to address dependence and addiction concerns. Unfortunately, as with all sweeping reform programs, there are good – and not-so-good – aspects to these changes. In many ways, the new tools at our disposal are a powerful way of mitigating drug dependence and diversion while protecting the sanctity of our “prescription pads.” Yet, as with so many other government mandates, we are burdened with the onus of complying with the new mandates for each and every opioid prescription, while our EHRs provide little help. This means more “clicks” for us, which can feel quite burdensome. It doesn’t need to be this way. Below are two straightforward things that can and should occur in order for providers to feel unburdened and to fully embrace the changes.
 

PDMP integration

One of the major ways of controlling prescription opioid abuse is through effective monitoring. Forty-nine of the 50 U.S. states have developed Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), with Missouri being the only holdout (due to the politics of individual privacy concerns and conflation with gun control legislation). Most – though not all – of the states with a PDMP also mandate that physicians query a database prior to prescribing controlled substances. While noble and helpful in principle, querying a PDMP can be cumbersome, and the process is rarely integrated into the EHR workflow. Instead, physicians typically need to login to a separate website and manually transpose patient data to search the database. While most states have offered to subsidize PDMP integration with electronic records, EHR vendors have been very slow to develop the capability, leaving most physicians with no choice but to continue the aforementioned workflow. That is, if they comply at all; many well-meaning physicians have told us that they find themselves too harried to use the PDMP consistently. This reduces the value of these databases and places the physicians at significant risk. In some states, failure to query the database can lead to loss of a doctor’s medical license. It is high time that EHR vendors step up and integrate with every state’s prescription drug database.

Electronic prescribing of controlled substances

The other major milestone in prescription opioid management is the electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS). This received national priority when the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act was signed into federal law in October of 2018. Included in this act is a requirement that, by January of 2021, all controlled substance prescriptions covered under Medicare Part D be sent electronically. Taking this as inspiration, many states and private companies have adopted more aggressive policies, choosing to implement electronic prescription requirements prior to the 2021 deadline. In Pennsylvania, where we practice, an EPCS requirement goes into effect in October of this year (2019). National pharmacy chains have also taken a more proactive approach. Walmart, for example, has decided that it will require EPCS nationwide in all of its stores beginning in January of 2020.

Essentially physicians have no choice – if they plan to continue to prescribe controlled substances, they will need to begin doing so electronically. Unfortunately, this may not be a straightforward process. While most EHRs offer some sort of EPCS solution, it is typically far from user friendly. Setting up EPCS can be costly and incredibly time consuming, and the procedure of actually submitting controlled prescriptions can be onerous and add many extra clicks. If vendors are serious about assisting in solving the opioid crisis, they need to make streamlining the steps of EPCS a high priority.
 

A prescription for success

As with so many other topics we’ve written about, we face an ever-increasing burden to provide quality patient care while complying with cumbersome and often unfunded external mandates. In the case of the opioid crisis, we believe we can do better. Our prescription for success? Streamlined workflow, smarter EHRs, and fewer clicks. There is no question that physicians and patients will benefit from effective implementation of the new tools at our disposal, but we need EHR vendors to step up and help carry the load.

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

The “opioid epidemic” has become, perhaps, the most talked-about health crisis of the 21st century. It is a pervasive topic of discussion in the health literature and beyond, written about on the front pages of national newspapers and even mentioned in presidential state-of-the-union addresses.

As practicing physicians, we are all too familiar with the ills of chronic opioid use and have dealt with the implications of the crisis long before the issue attracted the public’s attention. In many ways, we have felt alone in bearing the burdens of caring for patients on chronic controlled substances. Until this point it has been our sacred duty to determine which patients are truly in need of those medications, and which are merely dependent on or – even worse – abusing them.

Health care providers have been largely blamed for the creation of this crisis, but we are not alone. Responsibility must also be shared by the pharmaceutical industry, health insurers, and even the government. Marketing practices, inadequate coverage of pain-relieving procedures and rehabilitation, and poorly-conceived drug policies have created an environment where it has been far too difficult to provide appropriate care for patients with chronic pain. As a result, patients who may have had an alternative to opioids were still started on these medications, and we – their physicians – have been left alone to manage the outcome.

Recently, however, health policy and public awareness have signaled a dramatic shift in the management of long-term pain medication. Suddenly, prevention of opioid use and abuse has become a national priority. Significant legislation has been enacted on national, state, and local levels, and parties who are perceived to be responsible for the crisis are being held to task. For example, in August a landmark legal case was decided in an Oklahoma district court. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals was found guilty of promoting drug addiction through false and misleading marketing and was thus ordered to pay $572 million to the state to fund drug rehabilitation programs. This is likely a harbinger of many more such decisions to come, and the industry as a whole is bracing for the worst.

Physician prescribing practices are also being carefully scrutinized by the DEA, and a significant number of new “checks and balances” have been put in place to address dependence and addiction concerns. Unfortunately, as with all sweeping reform programs, there are good – and not-so-good – aspects to these changes. In many ways, the new tools at our disposal are a powerful way of mitigating drug dependence and diversion while protecting the sanctity of our “prescription pads.” Yet, as with so many other government mandates, we are burdened with the onus of complying with the new mandates for each and every opioid prescription, while our EHRs provide little help. This means more “clicks” for us, which can feel quite burdensome. It doesn’t need to be this way. Below are two straightforward things that can and should occur in order for providers to feel unburdened and to fully embrace the changes.
 

PDMP integration

One of the major ways of controlling prescription opioid abuse is through effective monitoring. Forty-nine of the 50 U.S. states have developed Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), with Missouri being the only holdout (due to the politics of individual privacy concerns and conflation with gun control legislation). Most – though not all – of the states with a PDMP also mandate that physicians query a database prior to prescribing controlled substances. While noble and helpful in principle, querying a PDMP can be cumbersome, and the process is rarely integrated into the EHR workflow. Instead, physicians typically need to login to a separate website and manually transpose patient data to search the database. While most states have offered to subsidize PDMP integration with electronic records, EHR vendors have been very slow to develop the capability, leaving most physicians with no choice but to continue the aforementioned workflow. That is, if they comply at all; many well-meaning physicians have told us that they find themselves too harried to use the PDMP consistently. This reduces the value of these databases and places the physicians at significant risk. In some states, failure to query the database can lead to loss of a doctor’s medical license. It is high time that EHR vendors step up and integrate with every state’s prescription drug database.

Electronic prescribing of controlled substances

The other major milestone in prescription opioid management is the electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS). This received national priority when the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act was signed into federal law in October of 2018. Included in this act is a requirement that, by January of 2021, all controlled substance prescriptions covered under Medicare Part D be sent electronically. Taking this as inspiration, many states and private companies have adopted more aggressive policies, choosing to implement electronic prescription requirements prior to the 2021 deadline. In Pennsylvania, where we practice, an EPCS requirement goes into effect in October of this year (2019). National pharmacy chains have also taken a more proactive approach. Walmart, for example, has decided that it will require EPCS nationwide in all of its stores beginning in January of 2020.

Essentially physicians have no choice – if they plan to continue to prescribe controlled substances, they will need to begin doing so electronically. Unfortunately, this may not be a straightforward process. While most EHRs offer some sort of EPCS solution, it is typically far from user friendly. Setting up EPCS can be costly and incredibly time consuming, and the procedure of actually submitting controlled prescriptions can be onerous and add many extra clicks. If vendors are serious about assisting in solving the opioid crisis, they need to make streamlining the steps of EPCS a high priority.
 

A prescription for success

As with so many other topics we’ve written about, we face an ever-increasing burden to provide quality patient care while complying with cumbersome and often unfunded external mandates. In the case of the opioid crisis, we believe we can do better. Our prescription for success? Streamlined workflow, smarter EHRs, and fewer clicks. There is no question that physicians and patients will benefit from effective implementation of the new tools at our disposal, but we need EHR vendors to step up and help carry the load.

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

The “opioid epidemic” has become, perhaps, the most talked-about health crisis of the 21st century. It is a pervasive topic of discussion in the health literature and beyond, written about on the front pages of national newspapers and even mentioned in presidential state-of-the-union addresses.

As practicing physicians, we are all too familiar with the ills of chronic opioid use and have dealt with the implications of the crisis long before the issue attracted the public’s attention. In many ways, we have felt alone in bearing the burdens of caring for patients on chronic controlled substances. Until this point it has been our sacred duty to determine which patients are truly in need of those medications, and which are merely dependent on or – even worse – abusing them.

Health care providers have been largely blamed for the creation of this crisis, but we are not alone. Responsibility must also be shared by the pharmaceutical industry, health insurers, and even the government. Marketing practices, inadequate coverage of pain-relieving procedures and rehabilitation, and poorly-conceived drug policies have created an environment where it has been far too difficult to provide appropriate care for patients with chronic pain. As a result, patients who may have had an alternative to opioids were still started on these medications, and we – their physicians – have been left alone to manage the outcome.

Recently, however, health policy and public awareness have signaled a dramatic shift in the management of long-term pain medication. Suddenly, prevention of opioid use and abuse has become a national priority. Significant legislation has been enacted on national, state, and local levels, and parties who are perceived to be responsible for the crisis are being held to task. For example, in August a landmark legal case was decided in an Oklahoma district court. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals was found guilty of promoting drug addiction through false and misleading marketing and was thus ordered to pay $572 million to the state to fund drug rehabilitation programs. This is likely a harbinger of many more such decisions to come, and the industry as a whole is bracing for the worst.

Physician prescribing practices are also being carefully scrutinized by the DEA, and a significant number of new “checks and balances” have been put in place to address dependence and addiction concerns. Unfortunately, as with all sweeping reform programs, there are good – and not-so-good – aspects to these changes. In many ways, the new tools at our disposal are a powerful way of mitigating drug dependence and diversion while protecting the sanctity of our “prescription pads.” Yet, as with so many other government mandates, we are burdened with the onus of complying with the new mandates for each and every opioid prescription, while our EHRs provide little help. This means more “clicks” for us, which can feel quite burdensome. It doesn’t need to be this way. Below are two straightforward things that can and should occur in order for providers to feel unburdened and to fully embrace the changes.
 

PDMP integration

One of the major ways of controlling prescription opioid abuse is through effective monitoring. Forty-nine of the 50 U.S. states have developed Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs), with Missouri being the only holdout (due to the politics of individual privacy concerns and conflation with gun control legislation). Most – though not all – of the states with a PDMP also mandate that physicians query a database prior to prescribing controlled substances. While noble and helpful in principle, querying a PDMP can be cumbersome, and the process is rarely integrated into the EHR workflow. Instead, physicians typically need to login to a separate website and manually transpose patient data to search the database. While most states have offered to subsidize PDMP integration with electronic records, EHR vendors have been very slow to develop the capability, leaving most physicians with no choice but to continue the aforementioned workflow. That is, if they comply at all; many well-meaning physicians have told us that they find themselves too harried to use the PDMP consistently. This reduces the value of these databases and places the physicians at significant risk. In some states, failure to query the database can lead to loss of a doctor’s medical license. It is high time that EHR vendors step up and integrate with every state’s prescription drug database.

Electronic prescribing of controlled substances

The other major milestone in prescription opioid management is the electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS). This received national priority when the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act was signed into federal law in October of 2018. Included in this act is a requirement that, by January of 2021, all controlled substance prescriptions covered under Medicare Part D be sent electronically. Taking this as inspiration, many states and private companies have adopted more aggressive policies, choosing to implement electronic prescription requirements prior to the 2021 deadline. In Pennsylvania, where we practice, an EPCS requirement goes into effect in October of this year (2019). National pharmacy chains have also taken a more proactive approach. Walmart, for example, has decided that it will require EPCS nationwide in all of its stores beginning in January of 2020.

Essentially physicians have no choice – if they plan to continue to prescribe controlled substances, they will need to begin doing so electronically. Unfortunately, this may not be a straightforward process. While most EHRs offer some sort of EPCS solution, it is typically far from user friendly. Setting up EPCS can be costly and incredibly time consuming, and the procedure of actually submitting controlled prescriptions can be onerous and add many extra clicks. If vendors are serious about assisting in solving the opioid crisis, they need to make streamlining the steps of EPCS a high priority.
 

A prescription for success

As with so many other topics we’ve written about, we face an ever-increasing burden to provide quality patient care while complying with cumbersome and often unfunded external mandates. In the case of the opioid crisis, we believe we can do better. Our prescription for success? Streamlined workflow, smarter EHRs, and fewer clicks. There is no question that physicians and patients will benefit from effective implementation of the new tools at our disposal, but we need EHR vendors to step up and help carry the load.

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