Neurology

Certain reproductive factors are associated with greater or lower risk of dementia, according to researchers who conducted a large population-based study with UK Biobank data.

Jessica Gong, a PhD candidate at the George Institute for Global Health at University of New South Wales in Australia, and coauthors found a greater dementia risk in women with early and late menarche, women who were younger when they first gave birth, and those who had had a hysterectomy, especially those who had a hysterectomy without concomitant oophorectomy or with a previous oophorectomy.

After controlling for key confounders, the researchers found lower risk of all-cause dementia if women had ever been pregnant, ever had an abortion, had a longer reproductive span, or had later menopause.

Use of oral contraceptive pills was associated with a lower dementia risk, they found.

In this study, there was no evidence that hormone therapy (HT) was associated with dementia risk (hazard ratio, 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.90-1.09], P =.0828).

The analysis, published online April 5 in PLOS Medicine, comprised 273,240 women and 228,957 men without prevalent dementia.

The authors noted that dementia rates are increasing. Globally, 50 million people live with dementia, and the number is expected to triple by 2050, according to Alzheimer’s Disease International.

“Our study identified certain reproductive factors related to shorter exposure to endogenous estrogen were associated with increased risk of dementia, highlighting the susceptibility in dementia risk pertaining to women,” Ms. Gong told this publication.
 

Risk comparison of men and women

Men were included in this study to compare the association between number of children fathered and the risk of all-cause dementia, with the association in their female counterparts.

The U-shaped associations between the number of children and dementia risk were similar for both sexes, suggesting that the risk difference in women may not be associated with factors associated with childbearing

“It may be more related to social and behavioral factors in parenthood, rather than biological factors involved in childbearing,” Ms. Gong said.

Compared with those with two children, for those without children, the multiple adjusted HR (95% CI) was 1.18 (1.04, 1.33) (P = .027) for women and 1.10 (0.98-1.23) P = .164) for men.

For those with four or more children, the HR was 1.14 (0.98, 1.33) (P = .132) for women and 1.26 (1.10-1.45) (P = .003) for men.

Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant professor of neurology with a dual appointment at Brigham and Women’s and Massachusetts General hospitals in Boston, told this publication she found the comparison of dementia risk with number of children in men and women “fascinating.”

She said the argument usually is that if women have had more births, then they have had more estrogen through their body because women get a huge injection of hormones in pregnancy.

“The idea is that the more pregnancies you have the more protected you are. But this study put that on its head, because if men and women are showing increased [dementia] risk in the number of children they have, it suggests there must be something about having the children – not necessarily the circulating hormones – that might be having an impact,” Dr. Buckley said.

“I had never thought to compare the number of children in men. I do find that very interesting,” she said.

As for the lack of a link between HT and dementia risk, in this study she said, she wouldn’t shut the door on that discussion just yet.

She noted the long history of controversy in the field about whether there is a protective factor against dementia for estrogen or whether exposure to estrogen leads to increased risk.

Before the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in the 1990s, she pointed out, there was evidence in many observational studies that women who had longer exposure to estrogen – whether that was earlier age at first period and later age at menopause combined or women had taken hormone therapy at some point, had less risk for dementia.

Dr. Buckley said that in a secondary outcome of WHI, however, “there was increased risk for progression to dementia in women who were taking hormone therapy which essentially flipped the field on its ahead because until that point everybody thought that estrogen was a protective factor.”

She said although this study found no association with dementia, she still thinks HT has a role to play and that it may just need to be better tailored to individuals.

“If you think about it, we have our tailored cocktail of hormones in our body and who’s to say that my hormones are going to be the same as yours? Why should you and I be put on the same hormone therapy and assume that will give us the same outcome? I think we could do a lot better with customization and calibration of hormones to aid in women’s health.”
 

Lifetime approach to dementia

Ms. Gong says future dementia risk-reduction strategies should consider sex-specific risk, and consider the reproductive events that took place in women’s lifespans as well as their entire hormone history when assessing dementia risk, to ensure that the strategies are sex sensitive.

Dr. Buckley agrees: “I don’t think we should ever think about dementia in terms of 65 onwards. We know this disease is insidious and it starts very, very early.”

Regarding limitations, the authors noted that it was a retrospective study that included self-reported measures of reproductive factors, which may be inherently subject to recall bias.

A coauthor does consultant work for Amgen, Freeline, and Kirin outside the submitted work. There were no other relevant financial disclosures.

Certain reproductive factors are associated with greater or lower risk of dementia, according to researchers who conducted a large population-based study with UK Biobank data.

Jessica Gong, a PhD candidate at the George Institute for Global Health at University of New South Wales in Australia, and coauthors found a greater dementia risk in women with early and late menarche, women who were younger when they first gave birth, and those who had had a hysterectomy, especially those who had a hysterectomy without concomitant oophorectomy or with a previous oophorectomy.

After controlling for key confounders, the researchers found lower risk of all-cause dementia if women had ever been pregnant, ever had an abortion, had a longer reproductive span, or had later menopause.

Use of oral contraceptive pills was associated with a lower dementia risk, they found.

In this study, there was no evidence that hormone therapy (HT) was associated with dementia risk (hazard ratio, 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.90-1.09], P =.0828).

The analysis, published online April 5 in PLOS Medicine, comprised 273,240 women and 228,957 men without prevalent dementia.

The authors noted that dementia rates are increasing. Globally, 50 million people live with dementia, and the number is expected to triple by 2050, according to Alzheimer’s Disease International.

“Our study identified certain reproductive factors related to shorter exposure to endogenous estrogen were associated with increased risk of dementia, highlighting the susceptibility in dementia risk pertaining to women,” Ms. Gong told this publication.
 

Risk comparison of men and women

Men were included in this study to compare the association between number of children fathered and the risk of all-cause dementia, with the association in their female counterparts.

The U-shaped associations between the number of children and dementia risk were similar for both sexes, suggesting that the risk difference in women may not be associated with factors associated with childbearing

“It may be more related to social and behavioral factors in parenthood, rather than biological factors involved in childbearing,” Ms. Gong said.

Compared with those with two children, for those without children, the multiple adjusted HR (95% CI) was 1.18 (1.04, 1.33) (P = .027) for women and 1.10 (0.98-1.23) P = .164) for men.

For those with four or more children, the HR was 1.14 (0.98, 1.33) (P = .132) for women and 1.26 (1.10-1.45) (P = .003) for men.

Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant professor of neurology with a dual appointment at Brigham and Women’s and Massachusetts General hospitals in Boston, told this publication she found the comparison of dementia risk with number of children in men and women “fascinating.”

She said the argument usually is that if women have had more births, then they have had more estrogen through their body because women get a huge injection of hormones in pregnancy.

“The idea is that the more pregnancies you have the more protected you are. But this study put that on its head, because if men and women are showing increased [dementia] risk in the number of children they have, it suggests there must be something about having the children – not necessarily the circulating hormones – that might be having an impact,” Dr. Buckley said.

“I had never thought to compare the number of children in men. I do find that very interesting,” she said.

As for the lack of a link between HT and dementia risk, in this study she said, she wouldn’t shut the door on that discussion just yet.

She noted the long history of controversy in the field about whether there is a protective factor against dementia for estrogen or whether exposure to estrogen leads to increased risk.

Before the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in the 1990s, she pointed out, there was evidence in many observational studies that women who had longer exposure to estrogen – whether that was earlier age at first period and later age at menopause combined or women had taken hormone therapy at some point, had less risk for dementia.

Dr. Buckley said that in a secondary outcome of WHI, however, “there was increased risk for progression to dementia in women who were taking hormone therapy which essentially flipped the field on its ahead because until that point everybody thought that estrogen was a protective factor.”

She said although this study found no association with dementia, she still thinks HT has a role to play and that it may just need to be better tailored to individuals.

“If you think about it, we have our tailored cocktail of hormones in our body and who’s to say that my hormones are going to be the same as yours? Why should you and I be put on the same hormone therapy and assume that will give us the same outcome? I think we could do a lot better with customization and calibration of hormones to aid in women’s health.”
 

Lifetime approach to dementia

Ms. Gong says future dementia risk-reduction strategies should consider sex-specific risk, and consider the reproductive events that took place in women’s lifespans as well as their entire hormone history when assessing dementia risk, to ensure that the strategies are sex sensitive.

Dr. Buckley agrees: “I don’t think we should ever think about dementia in terms of 65 onwards. We know this disease is insidious and it starts very, very early.”

Regarding limitations, the authors noted that it was a retrospective study that included self-reported measures of reproductive factors, which may be inherently subject to recall bias.

A coauthor does consultant work for Amgen, Freeline, and Kirin outside the submitted work. There were no other relevant financial disclosures.

Certain reproductive factors are associated with greater or lower risk of dementia, according to researchers who conducted a large population-based study with UK Biobank data.

Jessica Gong, a PhD candidate at the George Institute for Global Health at University of New South Wales in Australia, and coauthors found a greater dementia risk in women with early and late menarche, women who were younger when they first gave birth, and those who had had a hysterectomy, especially those who had a hysterectomy without concomitant oophorectomy or with a previous oophorectomy.

After controlling for key confounders, the researchers found lower risk of all-cause dementia if women had ever been pregnant, ever had an abortion, had a longer reproductive span, or had later menopause.

Use of oral contraceptive pills was associated with a lower dementia risk, they found.

In this study, there was no evidence that hormone therapy (HT) was associated with dementia risk (hazard ratio, 0.99, 95% confidence interval [0.90-1.09], P =.0828).

The analysis, published online April 5 in PLOS Medicine, comprised 273,240 women and 228,957 men without prevalent dementia.

The authors noted that dementia rates are increasing. Globally, 50 million people live with dementia, and the number is expected to triple by 2050, according to Alzheimer’s Disease International.

“Our study identified certain reproductive factors related to shorter exposure to endogenous estrogen were associated with increased risk of dementia, highlighting the susceptibility in dementia risk pertaining to women,” Ms. Gong told this publication.
 

Risk comparison of men and women

Men were included in this study to compare the association between number of children fathered and the risk of all-cause dementia, with the association in their female counterparts.

The U-shaped associations between the number of children and dementia risk were similar for both sexes, suggesting that the risk difference in women may not be associated with factors associated with childbearing

“It may be more related to social and behavioral factors in parenthood, rather than biological factors involved in childbearing,” Ms. Gong said.

Compared with those with two children, for those without children, the multiple adjusted HR (95% CI) was 1.18 (1.04, 1.33) (P = .027) for women and 1.10 (0.98-1.23) P = .164) for men.

For those with four or more children, the HR was 1.14 (0.98, 1.33) (P = .132) for women and 1.26 (1.10-1.45) (P = .003) for men.

Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant professor of neurology with a dual appointment at Brigham and Women’s and Massachusetts General hospitals in Boston, told this publication she found the comparison of dementia risk with number of children in men and women “fascinating.”

She said the argument usually is that if women have had more births, then they have had more estrogen through their body because women get a huge injection of hormones in pregnancy.

“The idea is that the more pregnancies you have the more protected you are. But this study put that on its head, because if men and women are showing increased [dementia] risk in the number of children they have, it suggests there must be something about having the children – not necessarily the circulating hormones – that might be having an impact,” Dr. Buckley said.

“I had never thought to compare the number of children in men. I do find that very interesting,” she said.

As for the lack of a link between HT and dementia risk, in this study she said, she wouldn’t shut the door on that discussion just yet.

She noted the long history of controversy in the field about whether there is a protective factor against dementia for estrogen or whether exposure to estrogen leads to increased risk.

Before the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study in the 1990s, she pointed out, there was evidence in many observational studies that women who had longer exposure to estrogen – whether that was earlier age at first period and later age at menopause combined or women had taken hormone therapy at some point, had less risk for dementia.

Dr. Buckley said that in a secondary outcome of WHI, however, “there was increased risk for progression to dementia in women who were taking hormone therapy which essentially flipped the field on its ahead because until that point everybody thought that estrogen was a protective factor.”

She said although this study found no association with dementia, she still thinks HT has a role to play and that it may just need to be better tailored to individuals.

“If you think about it, we have our tailored cocktail of hormones in our body and who’s to say that my hormones are going to be the same as yours? Why should you and I be put on the same hormone therapy and assume that will give us the same outcome? I think we could do a lot better with customization and calibration of hormones to aid in women’s health.”
 

Lifetime approach to dementia

Ms. Gong says future dementia risk-reduction strategies should consider sex-specific risk, and consider the reproductive events that took place in women’s lifespans as well as their entire hormone history when assessing dementia risk, to ensure that the strategies are sex sensitive.

Dr. Buckley agrees: “I don’t think we should ever think about dementia in terms of 65 onwards. We know this disease is insidious and it starts very, very early.”

Regarding limitations, the authors noted that it was a retrospective study that included self-reported measures of reproductive factors, which may be inherently subject to recall bias.

A coauthor does consultant work for Amgen, Freeline, and Kirin outside the submitted work. There were no other relevant financial disclosures.

An investigational drug that blocks the dopamine-1 (D1) receptor reduces tics and is safe and well tolerated in children with Tourette syndrome, a new study shows.

Importantly, unlike current medications for the disorder, ecocipam does not lead to weight gain, anxiety, depression, or tardive dyskinesia, compared with placebo – a factor that may lead to better adherence.

For clinicians treating children with Tourette syndrome, the results suggest “help is on the way,” said study investigator Donald Gilbert, MD, professor of pediatrics and neurology, University of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“There may be a drug available with a new mechanism of action that is effective to suppress tics without causing weight gain or unwanted neuropsychiatric side effects,” Dr. Gilbert said.

The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

First-in-class agent

Tourette syndrome is a neurologic condition that causes sudden repetitive involuntary muscle movements and sounds known as tics. These movements typically develop in childhood and worsen during adolescence.

“There’s a risk of injury, such as to the neck, with tics in childhood, so it’s good to have something that makes tics less severe and less socially impairing in junior high,” said Dr. Gilbert.

While tics generally diminish by adulthood, “about 10% of the patients we see as kids persist into adulthood enough to need medical interventions,” said Dr. Gilbert.

Ecopipam is a first-in-class selective D1 receptor antagonist in clinical development for pediatric patients with Tourette syndrome. The compound was previously tested without success in schizophrenia and in obesity, the idea being that because dopamine is linked to pleasure or reward, blocking it might result in weight loss, said Dr. Gilbert.

However, earlier studies in Tourette syndrome suggested that ecopipam reduces tics in children and adults and had low metabolic and movement-related adverse effects.

Drugs currently used to treat tics include haloperidol, pimocide, and aripiprazole. All of these agents block the dopamine-2 (D2) receptor and can cause weight gain and tardive dyskinesia, said Dr. Gilbert.
 

Placebo-controlled trial

The new study included 149 patients with Tourette syndrome who had a score of at least 20 on the Yale Global Tic Severity Total Tic Score (YGTSS-TTS). The scale measures five aspects of motor and vocal tics: the number, frequency, intensity, complexity, and interference.

With that scale, intensity assesses whether tics cause injury, complexity evaluates the number of muscle group, and interference assesses whether tics interrupt functions, such as speaking or walking.

For each of the five areas, scores range from 0-5, with higher scores indicating greater severity. The motor and vocal parts have a maximum of 25 points each, for a maximum total of 50.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive once-daily oral ecopipam or placebo. A 4-week titration period was followed by an 8-week maintenance period and then a 1-week tapering period.

The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 12 in scores on the YGTSS-TTS.

Results on the YGTSS-TTS showed a significant improvement in the ecopipam group, compared with placebo groups (least square [LS] mean difference: -3.44; 95% confidence interval: -6.09 to -0.79; P = .011).

The analysis indicated a 30% reduction, with an effect size of 0.48, which is “pretty good,” said Dr. Gilbert. “The amount of change is comparable to other drugs that are marketed” to treat tics.

The drug was effective for younger as well as older children. Among those aged 6-11 years, the LS mean difference was -4.95 (95% CI: -9.99 to 0.10; P = .054), and for those aged 12 to 17 years, the LS mean difference was -3.37 (95% CI: -6.51 to -0.24; P = .035).

A key secondary endpoint was the score on the Clinical Global Impression of Tourette Syndrome Severity, which Dr. Gilbert said is a more subjective measure of whether a patient’s life has improved. Here, the mean change at week 12 was significant (P = .001) for the treated group (improvement of 0.91 points), compared with the placebo group (improvement of 0.5 points).

Researchers also assessed safety and tolerability. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 34% of patients taking ecopipam and in 21% of those taking placebo. The most common AEs were headache (9.2%), fatigue (6.6%), somnolence (6.6%), and restlessness (5.3%).

There were no metabolic or movement-related AEs or treatment-related serious AEs.

“This drug doesn’t cause weight gain at all,” said Dr. Gilbert. He noted that there was also no difference in the groups in terms of rates of depression, anxiety, or tardive dyskinesia.
 

Significant tic reduction

Commenting on the findings, Jessica Frey, MD, a movement disorders fellow at the University of Florida, said the new double-blind, placebo-controlled study “is promising” in that it demonstrates significant tic reduction, compared with placebo without significant side effects.

“Ecopipam could potentially expand pharmacologic treatment options for children and adolescents with Tourette syndrome in the near future,” she said.

Dr. Frey will also be presenting results at the meeting of a study showing a significant correlation between tic severity and social media use among adolescents with Tourette syndrome during the COVID pandemic.

She noted that dopamine is an important neurotransmitter in the underlying pathophysiology of Tourette syndrome. In addition, although D2 receptor blockade can provide significant tic reduction, the “intolerable” side effects often linked to medications with this mechanism “can lead to discontinuation,” said Dr. Frey.

She also noted that ecopipam has previously been evaluated in an open-label study and a follow-up placebo-controlled study that demonstrated safety as well as significant tic reduction.

The study was supported by Emalex Biosciences. Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Frey report no relevant financial relationships.

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

An investigational drug that blocks the dopamine-1 (D1) receptor reduces tics and is safe and well tolerated in children with Tourette syndrome, a new study shows.

Importantly, unlike current medications for the disorder, ecocipam does not lead to weight gain, anxiety, depression, or tardive dyskinesia, compared with placebo – a factor that may lead to better adherence.

For clinicians treating children with Tourette syndrome, the results suggest “help is on the way,” said study investigator Donald Gilbert, MD, professor of pediatrics and neurology, University of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“There may be a drug available with a new mechanism of action that is effective to suppress tics without causing weight gain or unwanted neuropsychiatric side effects,” Dr. Gilbert said.

The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

First-in-class agent

Tourette syndrome is a neurologic condition that causes sudden repetitive involuntary muscle movements and sounds known as tics. These movements typically develop in childhood and worsen during adolescence.

“There’s a risk of injury, such as to the neck, with tics in childhood, so it’s good to have something that makes tics less severe and less socially impairing in junior high,” said Dr. Gilbert.

While tics generally diminish by adulthood, “about 10% of the patients we see as kids persist into adulthood enough to need medical interventions,” said Dr. Gilbert.

Ecopipam is a first-in-class selective D1 receptor antagonist in clinical development for pediatric patients with Tourette syndrome. The compound was previously tested without success in schizophrenia and in obesity, the idea being that because dopamine is linked to pleasure or reward, blocking it might result in weight loss, said Dr. Gilbert.

However, earlier studies in Tourette syndrome suggested that ecopipam reduces tics in children and adults and had low metabolic and movement-related adverse effects.

Drugs currently used to treat tics include haloperidol, pimocide, and aripiprazole. All of these agents block the dopamine-2 (D2) receptor and can cause weight gain and tardive dyskinesia, said Dr. Gilbert.
 

Placebo-controlled trial

The new study included 149 patients with Tourette syndrome who had a score of at least 20 on the Yale Global Tic Severity Total Tic Score (YGTSS-TTS). The scale measures five aspects of motor and vocal tics: the number, frequency, intensity, complexity, and interference.

With that scale, intensity assesses whether tics cause injury, complexity evaluates the number of muscle group, and interference assesses whether tics interrupt functions, such as speaking or walking.

For each of the five areas, scores range from 0-5, with higher scores indicating greater severity. The motor and vocal parts have a maximum of 25 points each, for a maximum total of 50.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive once-daily oral ecopipam or placebo. A 4-week titration period was followed by an 8-week maintenance period and then a 1-week tapering period.

The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 12 in scores on the YGTSS-TTS.

Results on the YGTSS-TTS showed a significant improvement in the ecopipam group, compared with placebo groups (least square [LS] mean difference: -3.44; 95% confidence interval: -6.09 to -0.79; P = .011).

The analysis indicated a 30% reduction, with an effect size of 0.48, which is “pretty good,” said Dr. Gilbert. “The amount of change is comparable to other drugs that are marketed” to treat tics.

The drug was effective for younger as well as older children. Among those aged 6-11 years, the LS mean difference was -4.95 (95% CI: -9.99 to 0.10; P = .054), and for those aged 12 to 17 years, the LS mean difference was -3.37 (95% CI: -6.51 to -0.24; P = .035).

A key secondary endpoint was the score on the Clinical Global Impression of Tourette Syndrome Severity, which Dr. Gilbert said is a more subjective measure of whether a patient’s life has improved. Here, the mean change at week 12 was significant (P = .001) for the treated group (improvement of 0.91 points), compared with the placebo group (improvement of 0.5 points).

Researchers also assessed safety and tolerability. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 34% of patients taking ecopipam and in 21% of those taking placebo. The most common AEs were headache (9.2%), fatigue (6.6%), somnolence (6.6%), and restlessness (5.3%).

There were no metabolic or movement-related AEs or treatment-related serious AEs.

“This drug doesn’t cause weight gain at all,” said Dr. Gilbert. He noted that there was also no difference in the groups in terms of rates of depression, anxiety, or tardive dyskinesia.
 

Significant tic reduction

Commenting on the findings, Jessica Frey, MD, a movement disorders fellow at the University of Florida, said the new double-blind, placebo-controlled study “is promising” in that it demonstrates significant tic reduction, compared with placebo without significant side effects.

“Ecopipam could potentially expand pharmacologic treatment options for children and adolescents with Tourette syndrome in the near future,” she said.

Dr. Frey will also be presenting results at the meeting of a study showing a significant correlation between tic severity and social media use among adolescents with Tourette syndrome during the COVID pandemic.

She noted that dopamine is an important neurotransmitter in the underlying pathophysiology of Tourette syndrome. In addition, although D2 receptor blockade can provide significant tic reduction, the “intolerable” side effects often linked to medications with this mechanism “can lead to discontinuation,” said Dr. Frey.

She also noted that ecopipam has previously been evaluated in an open-label study and a follow-up placebo-controlled study that demonstrated safety as well as significant tic reduction.

The study was supported by Emalex Biosciences. Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Frey report no relevant financial relationships.

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

An investigational drug that blocks the dopamine-1 (D1) receptor reduces tics and is safe and well tolerated in children with Tourette syndrome, a new study shows.

Importantly, unlike current medications for the disorder, ecocipam does not lead to weight gain, anxiety, depression, or tardive dyskinesia, compared with placebo – a factor that may lead to better adherence.

For clinicians treating children with Tourette syndrome, the results suggest “help is on the way,” said study investigator Donald Gilbert, MD, professor of pediatrics and neurology, University of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“There may be a drug available with a new mechanism of action that is effective to suppress tics without causing weight gain or unwanted neuropsychiatric side effects,” Dr. Gilbert said.

The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

First-in-class agent

Tourette syndrome is a neurologic condition that causes sudden repetitive involuntary muscle movements and sounds known as tics. These movements typically develop in childhood and worsen during adolescence.

“There’s a risk of injury, such as to the neck, with tics in childhood, so it’s good to have something that makes tics less severe and less socially impairing in junior high,” said Dr. Gilbert.

While tics generally diminish by adulthood, “about 10% of the patients we see as kids persist into adulthood enough to need medical interventions,” said Dr. Gilbert.

Ecopipam is a first-in-class selective D1 receptor antagonist in clinical development for pediatric patients with Tourette syndrome. The compound was previously tested without success in schizophrenia and in obesity, the idea being that because dopamine is linked to pleasure or reward, blocking it might result in weight loss, said Dr. Gilbert.

However, earlier studies in Tourette syndrome suggested that ecopipam reduces tics in children and adults and had low metabolic and movement-related adverse effects.

Drugs currently used to treat tics include haloperidol, pimocide, and aripiprazole. All of these agents block the dopamine-2 (D2) receptor and can cause weight gain and tardive dyskinesia, said Dr. Gilbert.
 

Placebo-controlled trial

The new study included 149 patients with Tourette syndrome who had a score of at least 20 on the Yale Global Tic Severity Total Tic Score (YGTSS-TTS). The scale measures five aspects of motor and vocal tics: the number, frequency, intensity, complexity, and interference.

With that scale, intensity assesses whether tics cause injury, complexity evaluates the number of muscle group, and interference assesses whether tics interrupt functions, such as speaking or walking.

For each of the five areas, scores range from 0-5, with higher scores indicating greater severity. The motor and vocal parts have a maximum of 25 points each, for a maximum total of 50.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive once-daily oral ecopipam or placebo. A 4-week titration period was followed by an 8-week maintenance period and then a 1-week tapering period.

The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 12 in scores on the YGTSS-TTS.

Results on the YGTSS-TTS showed a significant improvement in the ecopipam group, compared with placebo groups (least square [LS] mean difference: -3.44; 95% confidence interval: -6.09 to -0.79; P = .011).

The analysis indicated a 30% reduction, with an effect size of 0.48, which is “pretty good,” said Dr. Gilbert. “The amount of change is comparable to other drugs that are marketed” to treat tics.

The drug was effective for younger as well as older children. Among those aged 6-11 years, the LS mean difference was -4.95 (95% CI: -9.99 to 0.10; P = .054), and for those aged 12 to 17 years, the LS mean difference was -3.37 (95% CI: -6.51 to -0.24; P = .035).

A key secondary endpoint was the score on the Clinical Global Impression of Tourette Syndrome Severity, which Dr. Gilbert said is a more subjective measure of whether a patient’s life has improved. Here, the mean change at week 12 was significant (P = .001) for the treated group (improvement of 0.91 points), compared with the placebo group (improvement of 0.5 points).

Researchers also assessed safety and tolerability. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 34% of patients taking ecopipam and in 21% of those taking placebo. The most common AEs were headache (9.2%), fatigue (6.6%), somnolence (6.6%), and restlessness (5.3%).

There were no metabolic or movement-related AEs or treatment-related serious AEs.

“This drug doesn’t cause weight gain at all,” said Dr. Gilbert. He noted that there was also no difference in the groups in terms of rates of depression, anxiety, or tardive dyskinesia.
 

Significant tic reduction

Commenting on the findings, Jessica Frey, MD, a movement disorders fellow at the University of Florida, said the new double-blind, placebo-controlled study “is promising” in that it demonstrates significant tic reduction, compared with placebo without significant side effects.

“Ecopipam could potentially expand pharmacologic treatment options for children and adolescents with Tourette syndrome in the near future,” she said.

Dr. Frey will also be presenting results at the meeting of a study showing a significant correlation between tic severity and social media use among adolescents with Tourette syndrome during the COVID pandemic.

She noted that dopamine is an important neurotransmitter in the underlying pathophysiology of Tourette syndrome. In addition, although D2 receptor blockade can provide significant tic reduction, the “intolerable” side effects often linked to medications with this mechanism “can lead to discontinuation,” said Dr. Frey.

She also noted that ecopipam has previously been evaluated in an open-label study and a follow-up placebo-controlled study that demonstrated safety as well as significant tic reduction.

The study was supported by Emalex Biosciences. Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Frey report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with persistent cognitive impairment months after illness with mild COVID-19 have higher levels of inflammatory markers in their cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Researchers found elevated levels of CSF immune activation and immunovascular markers in individuals with cognitive postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Patients whose cognitive symptoms developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had the highest levels of brain inflammation.

The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests the condition often referred to as “brain fog” has a neurologic basis, said lead author Joanna Hellmuth, MD, MHS, assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute of Neurosciences and the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.

The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Inflammatory response

There are no effective diagnostic tests or treatments for cognitive PASC, which prompted the investigators to study inflammation in patients with the condition. Initial findings were reported earlier in 2022, which showed abnormalities in the CSF in 77% of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients without cognitive impairments had normal CSF.

Extending that work in this new study, researchers studied patients from the Long-term Impact of Infection With Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not hospitalized. They conducted 2-hour neurocognitive interviews and identified 23 people with new, persistent cognitive symptoms (cognitive PASC) and 10 with no cognitive symptoms who served as controls.

All participants underwent additional neurologic examination and neuropsychological testing, and half agreed to a lumbar puncture to allow researchers to collect CSF samples. The CSF was collected a median of 10.2 months after initial COVID symptoms began.

Participants with cognitive PASC had higher median levels of CSF acute phase reactants C-reactive protein (0.007 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P =.004) and serum amyloid A (0.001 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P = .001), compared with COVID controls.

The PASC group also had elevated levels of CSF immune activation markers interferon gamma–inducible protein (IP-10), interleukin-8, and immunovascular markers vascular endothelial growth factor-C and VEGFR-1, although the differences with the control group were not statistically significant.

The timing of the onset of cognitive problems was also associated with higher levels of immune activation and immunovascular markers. Patients with brain fog that developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had higher levels of CSF VEGF-C, compared with patients whose cognitive symptoms developed more than a month after initial COVID symptoms (173 pg/mL vs. 99 pg/mL; P = .048) and COVID controls (79 pg/mL; P = .048).

Acute onset cognitive PASC participants had higher CSF levels of IP-10 (P = .030), IL-8 (P = .048), placental growth factor (P = .030) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (P = .045), compared with COVID controls.

Researchers believe these new findings could mean that intrathecal immune activation and endothelial activation/dysfunction may contribute to cognitive PASC and that the mechanisms involved may be different in patients with acute cognitive PASC versus those with delayed onset.

“Our data suggests that perhaps in these people with more acute cognitive changes they don’t have the return to homeostasis,” Dr. Hellmuth said, while patients with delayed onset cognitive PASC had levels more in line with COVID patients who had no cognitive issues.
 

Moving the needle forward

Commenting on the findings, William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said that, while the study doesn’t rule out a possible psychological basis for cognitive PASC, it adds more weight to the biological argument.

“When you have nonspecific symptoms for which specific tests are unavailable,” Dr. Schaffner explained, “there is a natural question that always comes up: Is this principally a biologically induced phenomenon or psychological? This moves the needle substantially in the direction of a biological phenomenon.”

Another important element to the study, Dr. Schaffner said, is that the patients involved had mild COVID.

“Not every patient with long COVID symptoms had been hospitalized with severe disease,” he said. “There are inflammatory phenomenon in various organ systems such that even if the inflammatory response in the lung was not severe enough to get you into the hospital, there were inflammatory responses in other organ systems that could persist once the acute infection resolved.”

Although the small size of the study is a limitation, Dr. Schaffner said that shouldn’t minimize the importance of these findings.

“That it’s small doesn’t diminish its value,” he said. “The next step forward might be to try to associate the markers more specifically with COVID. The more precise we can be, the more convincing the story will become.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with persistent cognitive impairment months after illness with mild COVID-19 have higher levels of inflammatory markers in their cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Researchers found elevated levels of CSF immune activation and immunovascular markers in individuals with cognitive postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Patients whose cognitive symptoms developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had the highest levels of brain inflammation.

The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests the condition often referred to as “brain fog” has a neurologic basis, said lead author Joanna Hellmuth, MD, MHS, assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute of Neurosciences and the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.

The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Inflammatory response

There are no effective diagnostic tests or treatments for cognitive PASC, which prompted the investigators to study inflammation in patients with the condition. Initial findings were reported earlier in 2022, which showed abnormalities in the CSF in 77% of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients without cognitive impairments had normal CSF.

Extending that work in this new study, researchers studied patients from the Long-term Impact of Infection With Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not hospitalized. They conducted 2-hour neurocognitive interviews and identified 23 people with new, persistent cognitive symptoms (cognitive PASC) and 10 with no cognitive symptoms who served as controls.

All participants underwent additional neurologic examination and neuropsychological testing, and half agreed to a lumbar puncture to allow researchers to collect CSF samples. The CSF was collected a median of 10.2 months after initial COVID symptoms began.

Participants with cognitive PASC had higher median levels of CSF acute phase reactants C-reactive protein (0.007 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P =.004) and serum amyloid A (0.001 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P = .001), compared with COVID controls.

The PASC group also had elevated levels of CSF immune activation markers interferon gamma–inducible protein (IP-10), interleukin-8, and immunovascular markers vascular endothelial growth factor-C and VEGFR-1, although the differences with the control group were not statistically significant.

The timing of the onset of cognitive problems was also associated with higher levels of immune activation and immunovascular markers. Patients with brain fog that developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had higher levels of CSF VEGF-C, compared with patients whose cognitive symptoms developed more than a month after initial COVID symptoms (173 pg/mL vs. 99 pg/mL; P = .048) and COVID controls (79 pg/mL; P = .048).

Acute onset cognitive PASC participants had higher CSF levels of IP-10 (P = .030), IL-8 (P = .048), placental growth factor (P = .030) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (P = .045), compared with COVID controls.

Researchers believe these new findings could mean that intrathecal immune activation and endothelial activation/dysfunction may contribute to cognitive PASC and that the mechanisms involved may be different in patients with acute cognitive PASC versus those with delayed onset.

“Our data suggests that perhaps in these people with more acute cognitive changes they don’t have the return to homeostasis,” Dr. Hellmuth said, while patients with delayed onset cognitive PASC had levels more in line with COVID patients who had no cognitive issues.
 

Moving the needle forward

Commenting on the findings, William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said that, while the study doesn’t rule out a possible psychological basis for cognitive PASC, it adds more weight to the biological argument.

“When you have nonspecific symptoms for which specific tests are unavailable,” Dr. Schaffner explained, “there is a natural question that always comes up: Is this principally a biologically induced phenomenon or psychological? This moves the needle substantially in the direction of a biological phenomenon.”

Another important element to the study, Dr. Schaffner said, is that the patients involved had mild COVID.

“Not every patient with long COVID symptoms had been hospitalized with severe disease,” he said. “There are inflammatory phenomenon in various organ systems such that even if the inflammatory response in the lung was not severe enough to get you into the hospital, there were inflammatory responses in other organ systems that could persist once the acute infection resolved.”

Although the small size of the study is a limitation, Dr. Schaffner said that shouldn’t minimize the importance of these findings.

“That it’s small doesn’t diminish its value,” he said. “The next step forward might be to try to associate the markers more specifically with COVID. The more precise we can be, the more convincing the story will become.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with persistent cognitive impairment months after illness with mild COVID-19 have higher levels of inflammatory markers in their cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Researchers found elevated levels of CSF immune activation and immunovascular markers in individuals with cognitive postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Patients whose cognitive symptoms developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had the highest levels of brain inflammation.

The findings add to a growing body of evidence that suggests the condition often referred to as “brain fog” has a neurologic basis, said lead author Joanna Hellmuth, MD, MHS, assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute of Neurosciences and the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.

The findings will be presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Inflammatory response

There are no effective diagnostic tests or treatments for cognitive PASC, which prompted the investigators to study inflammation in patients with the condition. Initial findings were reported earlier in 2022, which showed abnormalities in the CSF in 77% of patients with cognitive impairment. Patients without cognitive impairments had normal CSF.

Extending that work in this new study, researchers studied patients from the Long-term Impact of Infection With Novel Coronavirus (LIINC) study with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were not hospitalized. They conducted 2-hour neurocognitive interviews and identified 23 people with new, persistent cognitive symptoms (cognitive PASC) and 10 with no cognitive symptoms who served as controls.

All participants underwent additional neurologic examination and neuropsychological testing, and half agreed to a lumbar puncture to allow researchers to collect CSF samples. The CSF was collected a median of 10.2 months after initial COVID symptoms began.

Participants with cognitive PASC had higher median levels of CSF acute phase reactants C-reactive protein (0.007 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P =.004) and serum amyloid A (0.001 mg/L vs. 0.000 mg/L; P = .001), compared with COVID controls.

The PASC group also had elevated levels of CSF immune activation markers interferon gamma–inducible protein (IP-10), interleukin-8, and immunovascular markers vascular endothelial growth factor-C and VEGFR-1, although the differences with the control group were not statistically significant.

The timing of the onset of cognitive problems was also associated with higher levels of immune activation and immunovascular markers. Patients with brain fog that developed during the acute phase of COVID-19 had higher levels of CSF VEGF-C, compared with patients whose cognitive symptoms developed more than a month after initial COVID symptoms (173 pg/mL vs. 99 pg/mL; P = .048) and COVID controls (79 pg/mL; P = .048).

Acute onset cognitive PASC participants had higher CSF levels of IP-10 (P = .030), IL-8 (P = .048), placental growth factor (P = .030) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (P = .045), compared with COVID controls.

Researchers believe these new findings could mean that intrathecal immune activation and endothelial activation/dysfunction may contribute to cognitive PASC and that the mechanisms involved may be different in patients with acute cognitive PASC versus those with delayed onset.

“Our data suggests that perhaps in these people with more acute cognitive changes they don’t have the return to homeostasis,” Dr. Hellmuth said, while patients with delayed onset cognitive PASC had levels more in line with COVID patients who had no cognitive issues.
 

Moving the needle forward

Commenting on the findings, William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said that, while the study doesn’t rule out a possible psychological basis for cognitive PASC, it adds more weight to the biological argument.

“When you have nonspecific symptoms for which specific tests are unavailable,” Dr. Schaffner explained, “there is a natural question that always comes up: Is this principally a biologically induced phenomenon or psychological? This moves the needle substantially in the direction of a biological phenomenon.”

Another important element to the study, Dr. Schaffner said, is that the patients involved had mild COVID.

“Not every patient with long COVID symptoms had been hospitalized with severe disease,” he said. “There are inflammatory phenomenon in various organ systems such that even if the inflammatory response in the lung was not severe enough to get you into the hospital, there were inflammatory responses in other organ systems that could persist once the acute infection resolved.”

Although the small size of the study is a limitation, Dr. Schaffner said that shouldn’t minimize the importance of these findings.

“That it’s small doesn’t diminish its value,” he said. “The next step forward might be to try to associate the markers more specifically with COVID. The more precise we can be, the more convincing the story will become.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hellmuth received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health supporting this work and personal fees for medical-legal consultation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Atypical anxiety in adults with Parkinson’s disease ranged from 15% to 51% in a systematic review of 60 studies.

Anxiety is common in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and has been shown to increase functional disability and decrease quality of life, but atypical presentations of anxiety are underrecognized and often undertreated in PD patients, wrote Nadeeka N. Dissanayaka, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues.

Courtesy University of Queensland

In a study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , the researchers conducted a systematic review of 60 studies to better characterize atypical PD-related anxiety. Fourteen studies involved Anxiety Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), 31 included fluctuating anxiety symptoms, and 22 included Fear of Falling (FOF).

Overall, the average prevalence rate for anxiety disorders in the PD population was 31%.

Anxiety NOS, fluctuating anxiety, and FOF accounted for a weighted mean prevalence of 14.9%, 34.19%, and 51.5%, respectively.

The symptomatology of anxiety NOS included psychological distress about the PD diagnosis, insecurity about the future, fear of losing control of motor and bodily functions, and social embarrassment. Clinically, anxiety NOS was associated with a range of factors including minor depression, on-off motor symptoms, muscle cramps, poor quality of life, and gait impairment.

The symptomatology of fluctuating anxiety was assessed in 9 studies of the “on” motor state and 16 studies of both “on” and “off.” Symptoms associated with the off state included panic attacks, feeling anxious or sad, and avoiding situations, as well as palpitations, dizziness, chills, and hot flashes.

Clinically, studies showed that anxiety was more severe in the off-medication state, and symptoms were reduced in the on state. Data from some studies showed that fluctuating anxiety was more common in PD patients who were female, and who had a younger age of PD onset and longer disease duration.

The symptomatology of FOF included associations between FOF and difficulty with walking and gait: Using a walker or other device, more frequent freezing in place, hesitation when turning, and slower speed while walking. Clinically, characteristics associated with FOF included older age, needing assistance for activities of daily living, a history of falls, and reduced quality of life.

The results of the review were limited by several factors including the varying assessment techniques, and the lack of data on treatment for atypical anxiety in PD, the researchers noted. “To our knowledge there are no treatment trials focused on Anxiety NOS,” and studies on the treatment of fluctuating anxiety and FOF are preliminary, they said.

However, the results support the need for early identification and classification of PD-related anxiety to improve treatment strategies and long-term outcomes, the researchers concluded. In the absence of evidence-based treatment strategies, “Given the heterogeneity of anxiety presentations in PD, the importance of tailoring interventions to meet the specific needs and unique symptom profiles of each individual cannot be overstated,” and routine screening of PD patients for anxiety every 6-12 months is recommended, they emphasized.

Dr. Dissanayaka disclosed support from the National Health and Medical Research Boosting Dementia Research Leadership Fellowship.

Atypical anxiety in adults with Parkinson’s disease ranged from 15% to 51% in a systematic review of 60 studies.

Anxiety is common in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and has been shown to increase functional disability and decrease quality of life, but atypical presentations of anxiety are underrecognized and often undertreated in PD patients, wrote Nadeeka N. Dissanayaka, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues.

Courtesy University of Queensland

In a study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , the researchers conducted a systematic review of 60 studies to better characterize atypical PD-related anxiety. Fourteen studies involved Anxiety Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), 31 included fluctuating anxiety symptoms, and 22 included Fear of Falling (FOF).

Overall, the average prevalence rate for anxiety disorders in the PD population was 31%.

Anxiety NOS, fluctuating anxiety, and FOF accounted for a weighted mean prevalence of 14.9%, 34.19%, and 51.5%, respectively.

The symptomatology of anxiety NOS included psychological distress about the PD diagnosis, insecurity about the future, fear of losing control of motor and bodily functions, and social embarrassment. Clinically, anxiety NOS was associated with a range of factors including minor depression, on-off motor symptoms, muscle cramps, poor quality of life, and gait impairment.

The symptomatology of fluctuating anxiety was assessed in 9 studies of the “on” motor state and 16 studies of both “on” and “off.” Symptoms associated with the off state included panic attacks, feeling anxious or sad, and avoiding situations, as well as palpitations, dizziness, chills, and hot flashes.

Clinically, studies showed that anxiety was more severe in the off-medication state, and symptoms were reduced in the on state. Data from some studies showed that fluctuating anxiety was more common in PD patients who were female, and who had a younger age of PD onset and longer disease duration.

The symptomatology of FOF included associations between FOF and difficulty with walking and gait: Using a walker or other device, more frequent freezing in place, hesitation when turning, and slower speed while walking. Clinically, characteristics associated with FOF included older age, needing assistance for activities of daily living, a history of falls, and reduced quality of life.

The results of the review were limited by several factors including the varying assessment techniques, and the lack of data on treatment for atypical anxiety in PD, the researchers noted. “To our knowledge there are no treatment trials focused on Anxiety NOS,” and studies on the treatment of fluctuating anxiety and FOF are preliminary, they said.

However, the results support the need for early identification and classification of PD-related anxiety to improve treatment strategies and long-term outcomes, the researchers concluded. In the absence of evidence-based treatment strategies, “Given the heterogeneity of anxiety presentations in PD, the importance of tailoring interventions to meet the specific needs and unique symptom profiles of each individual cannot be overstated,” and routine screening of PD patients for anxiety every 6-12 months is recommended, they emphasized.

Dr. Dissanayaka disclosed support from the National Health and Medical Research Boosting Dementia Research Leadership Fellowship.

Atypical anxiety in adults with Parkinson’s disease ranged from 15% to 51% in a systematic review of 60 studies.

Anxiety is common in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and has been shown to increase functional disability and decrease quality of life, but atypical presentations of anxiety are underrecognized and often undertreated in PD patients, wrote Nadeeka N. Dissanayaka, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues.

Courtesy University of Queensland

In a study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , the researchers conducted a systematic review of 60 studies to better characterize atypical PD-related anxiety. Fourteen studies involved Anxiety Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), 31 included fluctuating anxiety symptoms, and 22 included Fear of Falling (FOF).

Overall, the average prevalence rate for anxiety disorders in the PD population was 31%.

Anxiety NOS, fluctuating anxiety, and FOF accounted for a weighted mean prevalence of 14.9%, 34.19%, and 51.5%, respectively.

The symptomatology of anxiety NOS included psychological distress about the PD diagnosis, insecurity about the future, fear of losing control of motor and bodily functions, and social embarrassment. Clinically, anxiety NOS was associated with a range of factors including minor depression, on-off motor symptoms, muscle cramps, poor quality of life, and gait impairment.

The symptomatology of fluctuating anxiety was assessed in 9 studies of the “on” motor state and 16 studies of both “on” and “off.” Symptoms associated with the off state included panic attacks, feeling anxious or sad, and avoiding situations, as well as palpitations, dizziness, chills, and hot flashes.

Clinically, studies showed that anxiety was more severe in the off-medication state, and symptoms were reduced in the on state. Data from some studies showed that fluctuating anxiety was more common in PD patients who were female, and who had a younger age of PD onset and longer disease duration.

The symptomatology of FOF included associations between FOF and difficulty with walking and gait: Using a walker or other device, more frequent freezing in place, hesitation when turning, and slower speed while walking. Clinically, characteristics associated with FOF included older age, needing assistance for activities of daily living, a history of falls, and reduced quality of life.

The results of the review were limited by several factors including the varying assessment techniques, and the lack of data on treatment for atypical anxiety in PD, the researchers noted. “To our knowledge there are no treatment trials focused on Anxiety NOS,” and studies on the treatment of fluctuating anxiety and FOF are preliminary, they said.

However, the results support the need for early identification and classification of PD-related anxiety to improve treatment strategies and long-term outcomes, the researchers concluded. In the absence of evidence-based treatment strategies, “Given the heterogeneity of anxiety presentations in PD, the importance of tailoring interventions to meet the specific needs and unique symptom profiles of each individual cannot be overstated,” and routine screening of PD patients for anxiety every 6-12 months is recommended, they emphasized.

Dr. Dissanayaka disclosed support from the National Health and Medical Research Boosting Dementia Research Leadership Fellowship.

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia who were screened and treated if needed showed no difference in educational achievement from controls at age 9-10 years, based on data from 480 children.

Previous studies have shown an increased risk of poor executive and visual-motor function in children with neonatal hypoglycemia, but the effect on later childhood academic performance remains unclear, wrote Rajesh Shah, PhD, of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA, the researchers enrolled moderate to late preterm and term infants born at increased risk for hypoglycemia; those with episodes of hypoglycemia were treated to maintain a blood glucose concentration of at least 47 mg/dL.

The study population was enrolled between 2006 and 2010 at a regional perinatal center in New Zealand, and their educational achievement was assessed 9-10 years later. The primary outcome of low educational achievement was defined as performing below the normal curriculum level in standardized tests of reading comprehension or math. The researchers also identified 47 secondary outcomes related to executive function, visual-motor function, psychosocial adaptation, and general health.

Rates of low educational achievement were not significantly different for children with and without neonatal hypoglycemia (47% vs. 48%, adjusted risk ratio 0.95).

No significant differences appeared between the two groups for any secondary outcomes, including reading comprehension, math, behavior manifestations of executive function, fine motor function, autism traits, and overall well-being, the researchers noted.

However, children with neonatal hypoglycemia were significantly less likely to be rated as below or well below reading curriculum level by teachers compared to those without neonatal hypoglycemia (24% vs. 31%).

The researchers cited a previous study of the same patient cohort at age 4.5 years, which suggested an association between adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes and infant hypoglycemia. However, the reason this association did not persist at age 9-10 years remains unclear, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Early disturbances in brain development may have diminishing effects over time due to neuroplasticity, that is, reorganization of neural networks, or delayed maturation with mid-childhood catch-up in neurocognitive function,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on several measures of cognition, notably processing speed, and a lack of adjustment for intelligence quotient at age 4.5 years, the lack of data on any treatment for developmental impairment, and the inclusion of a population with well-managed hypoglycemia, the researchers said.

However, the results were strengthened by having a sample size large enough to detect associations, the prospective design, and the accurate measure of neonatal glycemic exposure, they said. Although the results suggest that at-risk children reach similar endpoints by the end of primary school, “efforts to prevent and optimize adverse pregnancy conditions remain important, and developmental surveillance after birth should be considered for at-risk infants,” they concluded.

In a related study published in JAMA, Taygen Edwards and colleagues found that prophylactic oral dextrose gel had no significant effect on neurosensory function.

The study, a prospective follow-up of a multicenter randomized trial, included 1,197 later preterm or term infants deemed at risk for neonatal hypoglycemia. The infants (49% of whom were female) were randomized to prophylactic 40% dextrose gel or a placebo, massaged into the buccal mucosa at 1 hour after birth.

The primary outcome was neurosensory impairment at 2 years of age, which was assessed by neurologic examination, parent-reported medical questionnaires, Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III), performance-based executive function, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Preschool Version, motion coherence thresholds, growth, and body composition.

At 2 years of age, the prevalence of neurosensory impairment was 21% and 19%, respectively, in infants randomized to prophylactic oral dextrose gel and placebo, a nonsignificant difference. No differences between the two groups were noted for cognitive and language delays, or low performance-based overall executive function. However, infants randomized to dextrose gel had significantly higher risk of motor delay compared to placebo (2.5% vs. 0.7%) and significantly lower Bayley-III composite scores for cognitive, language, and motor performance.

No significant differences were noted between the groups in the areas of moderate or severe neurosensory impairment, hearing impairment, cerebral palsy, developmental delay, above-average development, socioemotional and adaptive behavior, questionnaire-based executive function, low visual processing, history of seizures, allergic and infectious diseases, growth, and body composition.

The results are consistent with previous studies on the safety of dextrose gel, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the absolute difference of 7% in the primary outcome may be clinically important, they noted. “Caution is warranted before using prophylactic dextrose gel,” they said.

The researchers noted the results of a dose-finding trial that suggested improved scores on language, executive function, and motor skills in unadjusted analysis with higher doses of dextrose gel, but the reason for these findings remains unknown, they said.

The study findings were limited by the potential underpowering to detect small, but significant differences, and possible lack of generalizability because the majority of the participants were children of mothers with diabetes.

The results were strengthened by the high follow-up rate and comprehensive assessments, and highlight the need for additional research with longer follow-up, the researchers said.
 

Findings fuel further exploration

Although hypoglycemia is common in newborns, its management and potential outcomes remain subjects for debate, Paul J. Rozance, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, wrote in an editorial accompanying both studies.

“Often, the same features that increase the risk of hypoglycemia in newborns also increase the risk for poor outcomes independent of hypoglycemia,” he said.

The study by Shah and colleagues was not a randomized trial of a specific management strategy, Dr. Rozance noted. However, the high rate of low educational attainment in children not exposed to dextrose gel emphasizes the need for more effective management of infant hypoglycemia, he said. “The findings also suggest that antenatal conditions that are associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia among newborns are associated with increased risk for impaired neurodevelopment and educational achievement, independent of neonatal hypoglycemia,” he said. The study findings contrast with those of an earlier study showing low academic achievement association with early transient hypoglycemia, which could argue for earlier intervention, he noted.

The study by Edwards and colleagues addressed the potential value of dextrose gel as an early intervention to prevent neonatal hypoglycemia, said Dr. Rozance.

“The 95% CI for the primary outcome of neurosensory impairment included up to a 7% increased risk for neurosensory impairment in the prophylactic dextrose gel group. The 7% increased risk was defined by the investigators as potentially clinically important, and the study may have been underpowered to detect small differences in the primary outcome,” he wrote.

Although the reasons for adverse outcomes in children given prophylactic dextrose gel remain unclear, “incorporation of prophylactic dextrose gel into clinical practice should await further research,” he said.

Regarding such research, Dr. Rozance proposed an “ideal study,” that would “randomize newborns with hypoglycemia to treatment or no treatment, although equipoise and ethical support for such a study are lacking. Another strategy would be to randomize newborns with hypoglycemia to receive low- or high-treatment glucose concentration goals,” he noted.

The relationship between hypoglycemia and impaired neurodevelopment is yet to be determined, but the two studies provide new evidence for the clinical importance and need for management of neonatal hypoglycemia and subsequent neurodevelopmental outcomes, he concluded.

The study by Shah and colleagues was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Dr. Shah disclosed a doctoral fellowship from the University of Auckland. The study by Edwards and colleagues was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Edwards had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rozance disclosed receiving a StatStrip from Nova Biomedical for use in his laboratory.

Children at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia who were screened and treated if needed showed no difference in educational achievement from controls at age 9-10 years, based on data from 480 children.

Previous studies have shown an increased risk of poor executive and visual-motor function in children with neonatal hypoglycemia, but the effect on later childhood academic performance remains unclear, wrote Rajesh Shah, PhD, of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA, the researchers enrolled moderate to late preterm and term infants born at increased risk for hypoglycemia; those with episodes of hypoglycemia were treated to maintain a blood glucose concentration of at least 47 mg/dL.

The study population was enrolled between 2006 and 2010 at a regional perinatal center in New Zealand, and their educational achievement was assessed 9-10 years later. The primary outcome of low educational achievement was defined as performing below the normal curriculum level in standardized tests of reading comprehension or math. The researchers also identified 47 secondary outcomes related to executive function, visual-motor function, psychosocial adaptation, and general health.

Rates of low educational achievement were not significantly different for children with and without neonatal hypoglycemia (47% vs. 48%, adjusted risk ratio 0.95).

No significant differences appeared between the two groups for any secondary outcomes, including reading comprehension, math, behavior manifestations of executive function, fine motor function, autism traits, and overall well-being, the researchers noted.

However, children with neonatal hypoglycemia were significantly less likely to be rated as below or well below reading curriculum level by teachers compared to those without neonatal hypoglycemia (24% vs. 31%).

The researchers cited a previous study of the same patient cohort at age 4.5 years, which suggested an association between adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes and infant hypoglycemia. However, the reason this association did not persist at age 9-10 years remains unclear, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Early disturbances in brain development may have diminishing effects over time due to neuroplasticity, that is, reorganization of neural networks, or delayed maturation with mid-childhood catch-up in neurocognitive function,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on several measures of cognition, notably processing speed, and a lack of adjustment for intelligence quotient at age 4.5 years, the lack of data on any treatment for developmental impairment, and the inclusion of a population with well-managed hypoglycemia, the researchers said.

However, the results were strengthened by having a sample size large enough to detect associations, the prospective design, and the accurate measure of neonatal glycemic exposure, they said. Although the results suggest that at-risk children reach similar endpoints by the end of primary school, “efforts to prevent and optimize adverse pregnancy conditions remain important, and developmental surveillance after birth should be considered for at-risk infants,” they concluded.

In a related study published in JAMA, Taygen Edwards and colleagues found that prophylactic oral dextrose gel had no significant effect on neurosensory function.

The study, a prospective follow-up of a multicenter randomized trial, included 1,197 later preterm or term infants deemed at risk for neonatal hypoglycemia. The infants (49% of whom were female) were randomized to prophylactic 40% dextrose gel or a placebo, massaged into the buccal mucosa at 1 hour after birth.

The primary outcome was neurosensory impairment at 2 years of age, which was assessed by neurologic examination, parent-reported medical questionnaires, Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III), performance-based executive function, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Preschool Version, motion coherence thresholds, growth, and body composition.

At 2 years of age, the prevalence of neurosensory impairment was 21% and 19%, respectively, in infants randomized to prophylactic oral dextrose gel and placebo, a nonsignificant difference. No differences between the two groups were noted for cognitive and language delays, or low performance-based overall executive function. However, infants randomized to dextrose gel had significantly higher risk of motor delay compared to placebo (2.5% vs. 0.7%) and significantly lower Bayley-III composite scores for cognitive, language, and motor performance.

No significant differences were noted between the groups in the areas of moderate or severe neurosensory impairment, hearing impairment, cerebral palsy, developmental delay, above-average development, socioemotional and adaptive behavior, questionnaire-based executive function, low visual processing, history of seizures, allergic and infectious diseases, growth, and body composition.

The results are consistent with previous studies on the safety of dextrose gel, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the absolute difference of 7% in the primary outcome may be clinically important, they noted. “Caution is warranted before using prophylactic dextrose gel,” they said.

The researchers noted the results of a dose-finding trial that suggested improved scores on language, executive function, and motor skills in unadjusted analysis with higher doses of dextrose gel, but the reason for these findings remains unknown, they said.

The study findings were limited by the potential underpowering to detect small, but significant differences, and possible lack of generalizability because the majority of the participants were children of mothers with diabetes.

The results were strengthened by the high follow-up rate and comprehensive assessments, and highlight the need for additional research with longer follow-up, the researchers said.
 

Findings fuel further exploration

Although hypoglycemia is common in newborns, its management and potential outcomes remain subjects for debate, Paul J. Rozance, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, wrote in an editorial accompanying both studies.

“Often, the same features that increase the risk of hypoglycemia in newborns also increase the risk for poor outcomes independent of hypoglycemia,” he said.

The study by Shah and colleagues was not a randomized trial of a specific management strategy, Dr. Rozance noted. However, the high rate of low educational attainment in children not exposed to dextrose gel emphasizes the need for more effective management of infant hypoglycemia, he said. “The findings also suggest that antenatal conditions that are associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia among newborns are associated with increased risk for impaired neurodevelopment and educational achievement, independent of neonatal hypoglycemia,” he said. The study findings contrast with those of an earlier study showing low academic achievement association with early transient hypoglycemia, which could argue for earlier intervention, he noted.

The study by Edwards and colleagues addressed the potential value of dextrose gel as an early intervention to prevent neonatal hypoglycemia, said Dr. Rozance.

“The 95% CI for the primary outcome of neurosensory impairment included up to a 7% increased risk for neurosensory impairment in the prophylactic dextrose gel group. The 7% increased risk was defined by the investigators as potentially clinically important, and the study may have been underpowered to detect small differences in the primary outcome,” he wrote.

Although the reasons for adverse outcomes in children given prophylactic dextrose gel remain unclear, “incorporation of prophylactic dextrose gel into clinical practice should await further research,” he said.

Regarding such research, Dr. Rozance proposed an “ideal study,” that would “randomize newborns with hypoglycemia to treatment or no treatment, although equipoise and ethical support for such a study are lacking. Another strategy would be to randomize newborns with hypoglycemia to receive low- or high-treatment glucose concentration goals,” he noted.

The relationship between hypoglycemia and impaired neurodevelopment is yet to be determined, but the two studies provide new evidence for the clinical importance and need for management of neonatal hypoglycemia and subsequent neurodevelopmental outcomes, he concluded.

The study by Shah and colleagues was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Dr. Shah disclosed a doctoral fellowship from the University of Auckland. The study by Edwards and colleagues was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Edwards had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rozance disclosed receiving a StatStrip from Nova Biomedical for use in his laboratory.

Children at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia who were screened and treated if needed showed no difference in educational achievement from controls at age 9-10 years, based on data from 480 children.

Previous studies have shown an increased risk of poor executive and visual-motor function in children with neonatal hypoglycemia, but the effect on later childhood academic performance remains unclear, wrote Rajesh Shah, PhD, of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA, the researchers enrolled moderate to late preterm and term infants born at increased risk for hypoglycemia; those with episodes of hypoglycemia were treated to maintain a blood glucose concentration of at least 47 mg/dL.

The study population was enrolled between 2006 and 2010 at a regional perinatal center in New Zealand, and their educational achievement was assessed 9-10 years later. The primary outcome of low educational achievement was defined as performing below the normal curriculum level in standardized tests of reading comprehension or math. The researchers also identified 47 secondary outcomes related to executive function, visual-motor function, psychosocial adaptation, and general health.

Rates of low educational achievement were not significantly different for children with and without neonatal hypoglycemia (47% vs. 48%, adjusted risk ratio 0.95).

No significant differences appeared between the two groups for any secondary outcomes, including reading comprehension, math, behavior manifestations of executive function, fine motor function, autism traits, and overall well-being, the researchers noted.

However, children with neonatal hypoglycemia were significantly less likely to be rated as below or well below reading curriculum level by teachers compared to those without neonatal hypoglycemia (24% vs. 31%).

The researchers cited a previous study of the same patient cohort at age 4.5 years, which suggested an association between adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes and infant hypoglycemia. However, the reason this association did not persist at age 9-10 years remains unclear, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Early disturbances in brain development may have diminishing effects over time due to neuroplasticity, that is, reorganization of neural networks, or delayed maturation with mid-childhood catch-up in neurocognitive function,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on several measures of cognition, notably processing speed, and a lack of adjustment for intelligence quotient at age 4.5 years, the lack of data on any treatment for developmental impairment, and the inclusion of a population with well-managed hypoglycemia, the researchers said.

However, the results were strengthened by having a sample size large enough to detect associations, the prospective design, and the accurate measure of neonatal glycemic exposure, they said. Although the results suggest that at-risk children reach similar endpoints by the end of primary school, “efforts to prevent and optimize adverse pregnancy conditions remain important, and developmental surveillance after birth should be considered for at-risk infants,” they concluded.

In a related study published in JAMA, Taygen Edwards and colleagues found that prophylactic oral dextrose gel had no significant effect on neurosensory function.

The study, a prospective follow-up of a multicenter randomized trial, included 1,197 later preterm or term infants deemed at risk for neonatal hypoglycemia. The infants (49% of whom were female) were randomized to prophylactic 40% dextrose gel or a placebo, massaged into the buccal mucosa at 1 hour after birth.

The primary outcome was neurosensory impairment at 2 years of age, which was assessed by neurologic examination, parent-reported medical questionnaires, Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III), performance-based executive function, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Preschool Version, motion coherence thresholds, growth, and body composition.

At 2 years of age, the prevalence of neurosensory impairment was 21% and 19%, respectively, in infants randomized to prophylactic oral dextrose gel and placebo, a nonsignificant difference. No differences between the two groups were noted for cognitive and language delays, or low performance-based overall executive function. However, infants randomized to dextrose gel had significantly higher risk of motor delay compared to placebo (2.5% vs. 0.7%) and significantly lower Bayley-III composite scores for cognitive, language, and motor performance.

No significant differences were noted between the groups in the areas of moderate or severe neurosensory impairment, hearing impairment, cerebral palsy, developmental delay, above-average development, socioemotional and adaptive behavior, questionnaire-based executive function, low visual processing, history of seizures, allergic and infectious diseases, growth, and body composition.

The results are consistent with previous studies on the safety of dextrose gel, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the absolute difference of 7% in the primary outcome may be clinically important, they noted. “Caution is warranted before using prophylactic dextrose gel,” they said.

The researchers noted the results of a dose-finding trial that suggested improved scores on language, executive function, and motor skills in unadjusted analysis with higher doses of dextrose gel, but the reason for these findings remains unknown, they said.

The study findings were limited by the potential underpowering to detect small, but significant differences, and possible lack of generalizability because the majority of the participants were children of mothers with diabetes.

The results were strengthened by the high follow-up rate and comprehensive assessments, and highlight the need for additional research with longer follow-up, the researchers said.
 

Findings fuel further exploration

Although hypoglycemia is common in newborns, its management and potential outcomes remain subjects for debate, Paul J. Rozance, MD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, wrote in an editorial accompanying both studies.

“Often, the same features that increase the risk of hypoglycemia in newborns also increase the risk for poor outcomes independent of hypoglycemia,” he said.

The study by Shah and colleagues was not a randomized trial of a specific management strategy, Dr. Rozance noted. However, the high rate of low educational attainment in children not exposed to dextrose gel emphasizes the need for more effective management of infant hypoglycemia, he said. “The findings also suggest that antenatal conditions that are associated with increased risk of hypoglycemia among newborns are associated with increased risk for impaired neurodevelopment and educational achievement, independent of neonatal hypoglycemia,” he said. The study findings contrast with those of an earlier study showing low academic achievement association with early transient hypoglycemia, which could argue for earlier intervention, he noted.

The study by Edwards and colleagues addressed the potential value of dextrose gel as an early intervention to prevent neonatal hypoglycemia, said Dr. Rozance.

“The 95% CI for the primary outcome of neurosensory impairment included up to a 7% increased risk for neurosensory impairment in the prophylactic dextrose gel group. The 7% increased risk was defined by the investigators as potentially clinically important, and the study may have been underpowered to detect small differences in the primary outcome,” he wrote.

Although the reasons for adverse outcomes in children given prophylactic dextrose gel remain unclear, “incorporation of prophylactic dextrose gel into clinical practice should await further research,” he said.

Regarding such research, Dr. Rozance proposed an “ideal study,” that would “randomize newborns with hypoglycemia to treatment or no treatment, although equipoise and ethical support for such a study are lacking. Another strategy would be to randomize newborns with hypoglycemia to receive low- or high-treatment glucose concentration goals,” he noted.

The relationship between hypoglycemia and impaired neurodevelopment is yet to be determined, but the two studies provide new evidence for the clinical importance and need for management of neonatal hypoglycemia and subsequent neurodevelopmental outcomes, he concluded.

The study by Shah and colleagues was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Dr. Shah disclosed a doctoral fellowship from the University of Auckland. The study by Edwards and colleagues was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Edwards had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rozance disclosed receiving a StatStrip from Nova Biomedical for use in his laboratory.

Hospitalized COVID-19 survivors showed greater cognitive impairment 6 months later, compared with patients hospitalized for other causes, but the overall disease burden was similar, based on data from 85 adults with COVID-19.

Previous studies have shown that cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur from 2-6 months after COVID-19 recovery, and such symptoms are known to be associated with hospitalization for other severe medical conditions, Vardan Nersesjan, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues wrote.

However, it remains unknown if COVID-19 is associated with a unique pattern of cognitive and mental impairment compared with other similarly severe medical conditions, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry (2022 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0284), the researchers identified 85 adult COVID-19 survivors and 61 controls with non-COVID medical conditions who were treated and released between July 2020 and July 2021. The COVID-19 patients and controls were matched for age, sex, and ICU status. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurologic examination, and a semistructured interview to determine subjective symptoms.

The primary outcomes were the total scores on the MoCA and any new-onset psychiatric diagnoses. Secondary outcomes included specific psychiatric diagnoses such as depression, neurologic examination findings, and self-reported neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms. The mean age of the COVID-19 patients was 56.8 years, and 42% were women.

At 6 months’ follow-up, cognitive status was significantly lower in COVID-19 survivors, compared with controls, based on total geometric mean MoCA scores (26.7 vs. 27.5, P = .01). However, cognitive status improved significantly from 19.2 at hospital discharge to 26.1 at 6 months in 15 of the COVID-19 patients (P = .004), the researchers noted.

New-onset psychiatric diagnoses occurred in 16 COVID-19 patients and 12 of the controls (19% vs. 20%); this difference was not significant.

Secondary outcomes were not significantly different at 6 months between the groups, with the exception of anosmia, which was significantly more common in the COVID-19 patients; however, the significance disappeared in adjusted analysis, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causality because of the case-control feature and by the inability to detect small differences in neuropsychiatric outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a prospectively matched control group with similar disease severity admitted to the same hospital in the same time frame. Although the overall burden of neuropsychiatric and neurologic symptoms and diagnoses appeared similar in COVID-19 patients and those with other medical conditions, more research in larger populations is needed to determine smaller differences in neuropsychiatric profiles, the researchers noted.

Study fills research gap

The study is important at this time because, although prolonged neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms have been reported after COVID-19, the field lacked prospective case-control studies with well-matched controls to investigate whether these outcomes differed from those seen in other critical illnesses that had also required hospitalization, corresponding author Michael E. Benros, MD, of the Mental Health Center, Copenhagen, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was a significant worse cognitive functioning among COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset also when compared to this well-matched control group that had been hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although the absolute difference between the groups in cognition score were small,” said Dr. Benros. “Another notable finding is the large improvement in cognitive functioning from discharge to follow-up,” he added on behalf of himself and fellow corresponding author Daniel Kondziella, MD.

The study results show that cognitive function affected by COVID-19 and critical illness as observed at discharge showed a substantial improvement at 6 months after symptom onset, said Dr. Benros. “However, the cognitive function was significantly worse among severely ill COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset when compared to a matched control group of individuals hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although this difference in cognitive function was rather small in absolute numbers, and smaller than what had been suggested by other studies that lacked control groups. Strikingly, neuropsychiatric disorders were similar across the two groups, which was also the case when looking at neuropsychiatric symptoms.

“Larger prospective case-control studies of neuropsychiatric and cognitive functioning after COVID-19, compared with matched controls are still needed to detect smaller differences, and more detailed cognitive domains, and with longer follow-up time, which we are currently conducting,” Dr. Benros said.  
 

Controlled studies will help planning

“Lingering neuropsychiatric complications are common after COVID-19, but only controlled studies can tell us whether these complications are specific to COVID-19, rather than a general effect of having been medically ill,” Alasdair G. Rooney, MRCPsych MD PhD, of the University of Edinburgh, said in an interview. “The answer matters ultimately because COVID-19 is a new disease; societies and health care services need to be able to plan for its specific consequences.”

The health status of the control group is important as well. “Most previous studies had compared COVID-19 survivors against healthy controls or patients from a historical database. This new study compared COVID-19 survivors against those hospitalized for other medical causes over the same period,” Dr. Rooney said. “This is a more stringent test of whether COVID-19 has specific neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences.

“The study found that new-onset neuropsychiatric diagnoses and symptoms were no more likely to occur after COVID-19 than after similarly severe medical illnesses,” Dr. Rooney said. “This negative finding runs counter to some earlier studies and may surprise some.” The findings need to be replicated in larger samples, but the current study shows the importance of prospectively recruiting active controls.

“In a subgroup analysis, some patients showed good improvement in cognitive scores between discharge and follow-up. While unsurprising, this is encouraging and suggests that the early postdischarge months are an important time for neurocognitive recovery,” Dr. Rooney noted.

“The findings suggest that COVID-19 may impair attention more selectively than other medical causes of hospitalization. COVID-19 survivors may also be at higher risk of significant overall cognitive impairment than survivors of similarly severe medical illnesses, after a similar duration,” said Dr. Rooney. “If the results are replicated by other prospective studies, they would suggest that there is something about COVID-19 that causes clinically significant neurocognitive difficulties in a minority of survivors.

“Larger well-controlled studies are required, with longer follow-up and more detailed neurocognitive testing,” as the duration of impairment and scope for further recovery are not known, Dr. Rooney added. Also unknown is whether COVID-19 affects attention permanently, or whether recovery is simply slower after COVID-19 compared to other medical illnesses.

“Knowing who is at the greatest risk of severe cognitive impairment after COVID-19 is important and likely to allow tailoring of more effective shielding strategies,” said Dr. Rooney. “This study was conducted before the widespread availability of vaccines for COVID-19. Long-term neuropsychiatric outcomes in vaccinated patients remain largely unknown. Arguably, these are now more important to understand, as future COVID-19 waves will occur mainly among vaccinated individuals.”

The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nersesjan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Rooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

Hospitalized COVID-19 survivors showed greater cognitive impairment 6 months later, compared with patients hospitalized for other causes, but the overall disease burden was similar, based on data from 85 adults with COVID-19.

Previous studies have shown that cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur from 2-6 months after COVID-19 recovery, and such symptoms are known to be associated with hospitalization for other severe medical conditions, Vardan Nersesjan, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues wrote.

However, it remains unknown if COVID-19 is associated with a unique pattern of cognitive and mental impairment compared with other similarly severe medical conditions, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry (2022 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0284), the researchers identified 85 adult COVID-19 survivors and 61 controls with non-COVID medical conditions who were treated and released between July 2020 and July 2021. The COVID-19 patients and controls were matched for age, sex, and ICU status. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurologic examination, and a semistructured interview to determine subjective symptoms.

The primary outcomes were the total scores on the MoCA and any new-onset psychiatric diagnoses. Secondary outcomes included specific psychiatric diagnoses such as depression, neurologic examination findings, and self-reported neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms. The mean age of the COVID-19 patients was 56.8 years, and 42% were women.

At 6 months’ follow-up, cognitive status was significantly lower in COVID-19 survivors, compared with controls, based on total geometric mean MoCA scores (26.7 vs. 27.5, P = .01). However, cognitive status improved significantly from 19.2 at hospital discharge to 26.1 at 6 months in 15 of the COVID-19 patients (P = .004), the researchers noted.

New-onset psychiatric diagnoses occurred in 16 COVID-19 patients and 12 of the controls (19% vs. 20%); this difference was not significant.

Secondary outcomes were not significantly different at 6 months between the groups, with the exception of anosmia, which was significantly more common in the COVID-19 patients; however, the significance disappeared in adjusted analysis, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causality because of the case-control feature and by the inability to detect small differences in neuropsychiatric outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a prospectively matched control group with similar disease severity admitted to the same hospital in the same time frame. Although the overall burden of neuropsychiatric and neurologic symptoms and diagnoses appeared similar in COVID-19 patients and those with other medical conditions, more research in larger populations is needed to determine smaller differences in neuropsychiatric profiles, the researchers noted.

Study fills research gap

The study is important at this time because, although prolonged neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms have been reported after COVID-19, the field lacked prospective case-control studies with well-matched controls to investigate whether these outcomes differed from those seen in other critical illnesses that had also required hospitalization, corresponding author Michael E. Benros, MD, of the Mental Health Center, Copenhagen, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was a significant worse cognitive functioning among COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset also when compared to this well-matched control group that had been hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although the absolute difference between the groups in cognition score were small,” said Dr. Benros. “Another notable finding is the large improvement in cognitive functioning from discharge to follow-up,” he added on behalf of himself and fellow corresponding author Daniel Kondziella, MD.

The study results show that cognitive function affected by COVID-19 and critical illness as observed at discharge showed a substantial improvement at 6 months after symptom onset, said Dr. Benros. “However, the cognitive function was significantly worse among severely ill COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset when compared to a matched control group of individuals hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although this difference in cognitive function was rather small in absolute numbers, and smaller than what had been suggested by other studies that lacked control groups. Strikingly, neuropsychiatric disorders were similar across the two groups, which was also the case when looking at neuropsychiatric symptoms.

“Larger prospective case-control studies of neuropsychiatric and cognitive functioning after COVID-19, compared with matched controls are still needed to detect smaller differences, and more detailed cognitive domains, and with longer follow-up time, which we are currently conducting,” Dr. Benros said.  
 

Controlled studies will help planning

“Lingering neuropsychiatric complications are common after COVID-19, but only controlled studies can tell us whether these complications are specific to COVID-19, rather than a general effect of having been medically ill,” Alasdair G. Rooney, MRCPsych MD PhD, of the University of Edinburgh, said in an interview. “The answer matters ultimately because COVID-19 is a new disease; societies and health care services need to be able to plan for its specific consequences.”

The health status of the control group is important as well. “Most previous studies had compared COVID-19 survivors against healthy controls or patients from a historical database. This new study compared COVID-19 survivors against those hospitalized for other medical causes over the same period,” Dr. Rooney said. “This is a more stringent test of whether COVID-19 has specific neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences.

“The study found that new-onset neuropsychiatric diagnoses and symptoms were no more likely to occur after COVID-19 than after similarly severe medical illnesses,” Dr. Rooney said. “This negative finding runs counter to some earlier studies and may surprise some.” The findings need to be replicated in larger samples, but the current study shows the importance of prospectively recruiting active controls.

“In a subgroup analysis, some patients showed good improvement in cognitive scores between discharge and follow-up. While unsurprising, this is encouraging and suggests that the early postdischarge months are an important time for neurocognitive recovery,” Dr. Rooney noted.

“The findings suggest that COVID-19 may impair attention more selectively than other medical causes of hospitalization. COVID-19 survivors may also be at higher risk of significant overall cognitive impairment than survivors of similarly severe medical illnesses, after a similar duration,” said Dr. Rooney. “If the results are replicated by other prospective studies, they would suggest that there is something about COVID-19 that causes clinically significant neurocognitive difficulties in a minority of survivors.

“Larger well-controlled studies are required, with longer follow-up and more detailed neurocognitive testing,” as the duration of impairment and scope for further recovery are not known, Dr. Rooney added. Also unknown is whether COVID-19 affects attention permanently, or whether recovery is simply slower after COVID-19 compared to other medical illnesses.

“Knowing who is at the greatest risk of severe cognitive impairment after COVID-19 is important and likely to allow tailoring of more effective shielding strategies,” said Dr. Rooney. “This study was conducted before the widespread availability of vaccines for COVID-19. Long-term neuropsychiatric outcomes in vaccinated patients remain largely unknown. Arguably, these are now more important to understand, as future COVID-19 waves will occur mainly among vaccinated individuals.”

The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nersesjan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Rooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

Hospitalized COVID-19 survivors showed greater cognitive impairment 6 months later, compared with patients hospitalized for other causes, but the overall disease burden was similar, based on data from 85 adults with COVID-19.

Previous studies have shown that cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur from 2-6 months after COVID-19 recovery, and such symptoms are known to be associated with hospitalization for other severe medical conditions, Vardan Nersesjan, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues wrote.

However, it remains unknown if COVID-19 is associated with a unique pattern of cognitive and mental impairment compared with other similarly severe medical conditions, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry (2022 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0284), the researchers identified 85 adult COVID-19 survivors and 61 controls with non-COVID medical conditions who were treated and released between July 2020 and July 2021. The COVID-19 patients and controls were matched for age, sex, and ICU status. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurologic examination, and a semistructured interview to determine subjective symptoms.

The primary outcomes were the total scores on the MoCA and any new-onset psychiatric diagnoses. Secondary outcomes included specific psychiatric diagnoses such as depression, neurologic examination findings, and self-reported neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms. The mean age of the COVID-19 patients was 56.8 years, and 42% were women.

At 6 months’ follow-up, cognitive status was significantly lower in COVID-19 survivors, compared with controls, based on total geometric mean MoCA scores (26.7 vs. 27.5, P = .01). However, cognitive status improved significantly from 19.2 at hospital discharge to 26.1 at 6 months in 15 of the COVID-19 patients (P = .004), the researchers noted.

New-onset psychiatric diagnoses occurred in 16 COVID-19 patients and 12 of the controls (19% vs. 20%); this difference was not significant.

Secondary outcomes were not significantly different at 6 months between the groups, with the exception of anosmia, which was significantly more common in the COVID-19 patients; however, the significance disappeared in adjusted analysis, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causality because of the case-control feature and by the inability to detect small differences in neuropsychiatric outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a prospectively matched control group with similar disease severity admitted to the same hospital in the same time frame. Although the overall burden of neuropsychiatric and neurologic symptoms and diagnoses appeared similar in COVID-19 patients and those with other medical conditions, more research in larger populations is needed to determine smaller differences in neuropsychiatric profiles, the researchers noted.

Study fills research gap

The study is important at this time because, although prolonged neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms have been reported after COVID-19, the field lacked prospective case-control studies with well-matched controls to investigate whether these outcomes differed from those seen in other critical illnesses that had also required hospitalization, corresponding author Michael E. Benros, MD, of the Mental Health Center, Copenhagen, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was a significant worse cognitive functioning among COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset also when compared to this well-matched control group that had been hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although the absolute difference between the groups in cognition score were small,” said Dr. Benros. “Another notable finding is the large improvement in cognitive functioning from discharge to follow-up,” he added on behalf of himself and fellow corresponding author Daniel Kondziella, MD.

The study results show that cognitive function affected by COVID-19 and critical illness as observed at discharge showed a substantial improvement at 6 months after symptom onset, said Dr. Benros. “However, the cognitive function was significantly worse among severely ill COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset when compared to a matched control group of individuals hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although this difference in cognitive function was rather small in absolute numbers, and smaller than what had been suggested by other studies that lacked control groups. Strikingly, neuropsychiatric disorders were similar across the two groups, which was also the case when looking at neuropsychiatric symptoms.

“Larger prospective case-control studies of neuropsychiatric and cognitive functioning after COVID-19, compared with matched controls are still needed to detect smaller differences, and more detailed cognitive domains, and with longer follow-up time, which we are currently conducting,” Dr. Benros said.  
 

Controlled studies will help planning

“Lingering neuropsychiatric complications are common after COVID-19, but only controlled studies can tell us whether these complications are specific to COVID-19, rather than a general effect of having been medically ill,” Alasdair G. Rooney, MRCPsych MD PhD, of the University of Edinburgh, said in an interview. “The answer matters ultimately because COVID-19 is a new disease; societies and health care services need to be able to plan for its specific consequences.”

The health status of the control group is important as well. “Most previous studies had compared COVID-19 survivors against healthy controls or patients from a historical database. This new study compared COVID-19 survivors against those hospitalized for other medical causes over the same period,” Dr. Rooney said. “This is a more stringent test of whether COVID-19 has specific neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences.

“The study found that new-onset neuropsychiatric diagnoses and symptoms were no more likely to occur after COVID-19 than after similarly severe medical illnesses,” Dr. Rooney said. “This negative finding runs counter to some earlier studies and may surprise some.” The findings need to be replicated in larger samples, but the current study shows the importance of prospectively recruiting active controls.

“In a subgroup analysis, some patients showed good improvement in cognitive scores between discharge and follow-up. While unsurprising, this is encouraging and suggests that the early postdischarge months are an important time for neurocognitive recovery,” Dr. Rooney noted.

“The findings suggest that COVID-19 may impair attention more selectively than other medical causes of hospitalization. COVID-19 survivors may also be at higher risk of significant overall cognitive impairment than survivors of similarly severe medical illnesses, after a similar duration,” said Dr. Rooney. “If the results are replicated by other prospective studies, they would suggest that there is something about COVID-19 that causes clinically significant neurocognitive difficulties in a minority of survivors.

“Larger well-controlled studies are required, with longer follow-up and more detailed neurocognitive testing,” as the duration of impairment and scope for further recovery are not known, Dr. Rooney added. Also unknown is whether COVID-19 affects attention permanently, or whether recovery is simply slower after COVID-19 compared to other medical illnesses.

“Knowing who is at the greatest risk of severe cognitive impairment after COVID-19 is important and likely to allow tailoring of more effective shielding strategies,” said Dr. Rooney. “This study was conducted before the widespread availability of vaccines for COVID-19. Long-term neuropsychiatric outcomes in vaccinated patients remain largely unknown. Arguably, these are now more important to understand, as future COVID-19 waves will occur mainly among vaccinated individuals.”

The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nersesjan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Rooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

As the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) begins its integration into clinical practice, some physicians are concerned the drug’s prescribing label does not include adequate brain imaging recommendations to detect amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA).

Specifically, the drug’s label calls for three MRI brain scans before, and during, the titration period. The problem is the trial data used for the drug’s approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration included five MRIs to screen for ARIA.

“We recommend proceeding as per the clinical trials,” said Meghan Riddle, MD, associate director, Memory and Aging program, Butler Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Riddle shared her team’s clinical experience with aducanumab, as well as information on four ARIA cases from their clinic, during a presentation at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) 2022 Annual Meeting.
 

Significant safety risk?

As previously reported by this news organization, the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab for AD last year.

ARIA is the most common risk associated with aducanumab and has two types: ARIA-E (with edema) and ARIA-H (with hemosiderin). These can co-occur, particularly in areas of high amyloid burden, Dr. Riddle noted during her presentation.

ARIA is often detected incidentally via MRI. Patients are usually asymptomatic, but when they do have symptoms, headache, dizziness, and vision changes are the most common complaints. However, these are generally mild, said Dr. Riddle.

Nevertheless, in some cases, there can be severe sequelae, including severe edema or bleeding and seizures, she added.

A major risk factor for ARIA is apolipoprotein 4 (APOE ε4) status. Carriers are twice as likely to develop ARIA as non-carriers.

“If you’re heterozygote for APOE ε4, you have about a 40% chance of developing ARIA, and if you’re homozygote, you have about a 66% chance of developing ARIA,” Dr. Riddle said.

Given the high rate of ARIA in APOE ε4 carriers, the team from Butler Hospital recommends APOE testing prior to treatment with aducanumab.

The risk for developing ARIA is highest within the year of dose titration, Dr. Riddle noted. The current FDA label recommends obtaining a recent brain MRI, within 1 year, and then scans before the 7th and 12th infusions. However, the protocol during the clinical trials of aducanumab included MRI at baseline and prior to the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 12th infusions.

Dr. Riddle’s group has opted to continue the research protocol with new patients. “There’s concern that the decreased MRI monitoring based on the current FDA label may pose a significant safety risk, particularly among those who we know are already at a higher risk of developing ARIA,” she said.

Dr. Riddle also shared how her team selects aducanumab candidates. They need to have mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 24 to 30, and a recent MRI to review for eligibility and APOE testing.

The most common reason for treatment exclusion is advanced disease and comorbidity, such as stroke.

Once approved for treatment, patients receive monthly infusions titrated over 6 months – 1 mg/kg for 2 months, 3 mg/kg for 2 months, 6 mg/kg for 2 months, then 10 mg/kg.

Patients are monitored to ensure safety and tolerability and regular review of MRI findings. In addition, patients and their families receive ongoing education about the drug.

Dr. Riddle and her team permanently discontinue the aducanumab if patients develop microhemorrhage, more than one area of superficial siderosis, more than 10 microhemorrhages, more than two episodes of ARIA, or severe symptoms of ARIA.
 

Four cases

Of the 11 patients who were candidates for aducanumab treatment, four developed ARIA. All are APOE ε4 carriers, with two homozygotes and two heterozygotes. All had severe radiographic ARIA-E, with one developing ARIA-H.

“Importantly, they were all initially asymptomatic and the ARIA was just picked up on their regular surveillance MRI,” said Dr. Riddle. She added that the drug was discontinued in all four cases.

Three of the ARIA cases were detected prior to the 5th scan, which is “concerning,” said Dr. Riddle. “Based on the current FDA label of safety monitoring, they don’t recommend doing that MRI. So [clinicians] would have dosed through that ARIA, which could put someone at much greater risk of developing severe symptoms.”

In addition, 14 patients at the center are receiving treatment with aducanumab. However, at this point they have not yet received their first MRI screen.

Dr. Riddle noted that when patients are told they are not candidates for treatment, or when treatment is discontinued, they are upset. However, she added, there is also a substantial level of understanding.

“We have a very layered discussion that includes the simple fact that we still aren’t sure if this is going to provide any clinical benefit, that this decision [to approve the drug] was accelerated, and that data are still being gathered,” Dr. Riddle added.

Dr. Riddle noted that the risk of ARIA is highest during the dose titration period: “There’s a signal that once you get to the 10 mg/kg dose, that plateaus.”

None of the patients at her center have reached that 12-month treatment mark. “The current plan is to do the MRI at 12 months then to give serial MRIs but less frequently, and whether that’s at 6 months or annually is yet to be determined.”

“We’re kind of writing these protocols as information evolves,” Dr. Riddle said.

The Memory and Aging Program receives grants from NIH-ADNI, Alzheimer’s Association, Fain Family Foundation, Joukowsky Family Foundation, Winter Family, Rhode Island Foundation, Goodman Family Foundation, and Global Alzheimer Platform Foundation; and clinical trials include: Lilly, Biogen, Genentech, Avid, Roche, Eisai, and Novartis. Dr. Riddle has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) begins its integration into clinical practice, some physicians are concerned the drug’s prescribing label does not include adequate brain imaging recommendations to detect amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA).

Specifically, the drug’s label calls for three MRI brain scans before, and during, the titration period. The problem is the trial data used for the drug’s approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration included five MRIs to screen for ARIA.

“We recommend proceeding as per the clinical trials,” said Meghan Riddle, MD, associate director, Memory and Aging program, Butler Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Riddle shared her team’s clinical experience with aducanumab, as well as information on four ARIA cases from their clinic, during a presentation at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) 2022 Annual Meeting.
 

Significant safety risk?

As previously reported by this news organization, the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab for AD last year.

ARIA is the most common risk associated with aducanumab and has two types: ARIA-E (with edema) and ARIA-H (with hemosiderin). These can co-occur, particularly in areas of high amyloid burden, Dr. Riddle noted during her presentation.

ARIA is often detected incidentally via MRI. Patients are usually asymptomatic, but when they do have symptoms, headache, dizziness, and vision changes are the most common complaints. However, these are generally mild, said Dr. Riddle.

Nevertheless, in some cases, there can be severe sequelae, including severe edema or bleeding and seizures, she added.

A major risk factor for ARIA is apolipoprotein 4 (APOE ε4) status. Carriers are twice as likely to develop ARIA as non-carriers.

“If you’re heterozygote for APOE ε4, you have about a 40% chance of developing ARIA, and if you’re homozygote, you have about a 66% chance of developing ARIA,” Dr. Riddle said.

Given the high rate of ARIA in APOE ε4 carriers, the team from Butler Hospital recommends APOE testing prior to treatment with aducanumab.

The risk for developing ARIA is highest within the year of dose titration, Dr. Riddle noted. The current FDA label recommends obtaining a recent brain MRI, within 1 year, and then scans before the 7th and 12th infusions. However, the protocol during the clinical trials of aducanumab included MRI at baseline and prior to the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 12th infusions.

Dr. Riddle’s group has opted to continue the research protocol with new patients. “There’s concern that the decreased MRI monitoring based on the current FDA label may pose a significant safety risk, particularly among those who we know are already at a higher risk of developing ARIA,” she said.

Dr. Riddle also shared how her team selects aducanumab candidates. They need to have mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 24 to 30, and a recent MRI to review for eligibility and APOE testing.

The most common reason for treatment exclusion is advanced disease and comorbidity, such as stroke.

Once approved for treatment, patients receive monthly infusions titrated over 6 months – 1 mg/kg for 2 months, 3 mg/kg for 2 months, 6 mg/kg for 2 months, then 10 mg/kg.

Patients are monitored to ensure safety and tolerability and regular review of MRI findings. In addition, patients and their families receive ongoing education about the drug.

Dr. Riddle and her team permanently discontinue the aducanumab if patients develop microhemorrhage, more than one area of superficial siderosis, more than 10 microhemorrhages, more than two episodes of ARIA, or severe symptoms of ARIA.
 

Four cases

Of the 11 patients who were candidates for aducanumab treatment, four developed ARIA. All are APOE ε4 carriers, with two homozygotes and two heterozygotes. All had severe radiographic ARIA-E, with one developing ARIA-H.

“Importantly, they were all initially asymptomatic and the ARIA was just picked up on their regular surveillance MRI,” said Dr. Riddle. She added that the drug was discontinued in all four cases.

Three of the ARIA cases were detected prior to the 5th scan, which is “concerning,” said Dr. Riddle. “Based on the current FDA label of safety monitoring, they don’t recommend doing that MRI. So [clinicians] would have dosed through that ARIA, which could put someone at much greater risk of developing severe symptoms.”

In addition, 14 patients at the center are receiving treatment with aducanumab. However, at this point they have not yet received their first MRI screen.

Dr. Riddle noted that when patients are told they are not candidates for treatment, or when treatment is discontinued, they are upset. However, she added, there is also a substantial level of understanding.

“We have a very layered discussion that includes the simple fact that we still aren’t sure if this is going to provide any clinical benefit, that this decision [to approve the drug] was accelerated, and that data are still being gathered,” Dr. Riddle added.

Dr. Riddle noted that the risk of ARIA is highest during the dose titration period: “There’s a signal that once you get to the 10 mg/kg dose, that plateaus.”

None of the patients at her center have reached that 12-month treatment mark. “The current plan is to do the MRI at 12 months then to give serial MRIs but less frequently, and whether that’s at 6 months or annually is yet to be determined.”

“We’re kind of writing these protocols as information evolves,” Dr. Riddle said.

The Memory and Aging Program receives grants from NIH-ADNI, Alzheimer’s Association, Fain Family Foundation, Joukowsky Family Foundation, Winter Family, Rhode Island Foundation, Goodman Family Foundation, and Global Alzheimer Platform Foundation; and clinical trials include: Lilly, Biogen, Genentech, Avid, Roche, Eisai, and Novartis. Dr. Riddle has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) begins its integration into clinical practice, some physicians are concerned the drug’s prescribing label does not include adequate brain imaging recommendations to detect amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA).

Specifically, the drug’s label calls for three MRI brain scans before, and during, the titration period. The problem is the trial data used for the drug’s approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration included five MRIs to screen for ARIA.

“We recommend proceeding as per the clinical trials,” said Meghan Riddle, MD, associate director, Memory and Aging program, Butler Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Riddle shared her team’s clinical experience with aducanumab, as well as information on four ARIA cases from their clinic, during a presentation at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) 2022 Annual Meeting.
 

Significant safety risk?

As previously reported by this news organization, the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab for AD last year.

ARIA is the most common risk associated with aducanumab and has two types: ARIA-E (with edema) and ARIA-H (with hemosiderin). These can co-occur, particularly in areas of high amyloid burden, Dr. Riddle noted during her presentation.

ARIA is often detected incidentally via MRI. Patients are usually asymptomatic, but when they do have symptoms, headache, dizziness, and vision changes are the most common complaints. However, these are generally mild, said Dr. Riddle.

Nevertheless, in some cases, there can be severe sequelae, including severe edema or bleeding and seizures, she added.

A major risk factor for ARIA is apolipoprotein 4 (APOE ε4) status. Carriers are twice as likely to develop ARIA as non-carriers.

“If you’re heterozygote for APOE ε4, you have about a 40% chance of developing ARIA, and if you’re homozygote, you have about a 66% chance of developing ARIA,” Dr. Riddle said.

Given the high rate of ARIA in APOE ε4 carriers, the team from Butler Hospital recommends APOE testing prior to treatment with aducanumab.

The risk for developing ARIA is highest within the year of dose titration, Dr. Riddle noted. The current FDA label recommends obtaining a recent brain MRI, within 1 year, and then scans before the 7th and 12th infusions. However, the protocol during the clinical trials of aducanumab included MRI at baseline and prior to the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 12th infusions.

Dr. Riddle’s group has opted to continue the research protocol with new patients. “There’s concern that the decreased MRI monitoring based on the current FDA label may pose a significant safety risk, particularly among those who we know are already at a higher risk of developing ARIA,” she said.

Dr. Riddle also shared how her team selects aducanumab candidates. They need to have mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 24 to 30, and a recent MRI to review for eligibility and APOE testing.

The most common reason for treatment exclusion is advanced disease and comorbidity, such as stroke.

Once approved for treatment, patients receive monthly infusions titrated over 6 months – 1 mg/kg for 2 months, 3 mg/kg for 2 months, 6 mg/kg for 2 months, then 10 mg/kg.

Patients are monitored to ensure safety and tolerability and regular review of MRI findings. In addition, patients and their families receive ongoing education about the drug.

Dr. Riddle and her team permanently discontinue the aducanumab if patients develop microhemorrhage, more than one area of superficial siderosis, more than 10 microhemorrhages, more than two episodes of ARIA, or severe symptoms of ARIA.
 

Four cases

Of the 11 patients who were candidates for aducanumab treatment, four developed ARIA. All are APOE ε4 carriers, with two homozygotes and two heterozygotes. All had severe radiographic ARIA-E, with one developing ARIA-H.

“Importantly, they were all initially asymptomatic and the ARIA was just picked up on their regular surveillance MRI,” said Dr. Riddle. She added that the drug was discontinued in all four cases.

Three of the ARIA cases were detected prior to the 5th scan, which is “concerning,” said Dr. Riddle. “Based on the current FDA label of safety monitoring, they don’t recommend doing that MRI. So [clinicians] would have dosed through that ARIA, which could put someone at much greater risk of developing severe symptoms.”

In addition, 14 patients at the center are receiving treatment with aducanumab. However, at this point they have not yet received their first MRI screen.

Dr. Riddle noted that when patients are told they are not candidates for treatment, or when treatment is discontinued, they are upset. However, she added, there is also a substantial level of understanding.

“We have a very layered discussion that includes the simple fact that we still aren’t sure if this is going to provide any clinical benefit, that this decision [to approve the drug] was accelerated, and that data are still being gathered,” Dr. Riddle added.

Dr. Riddle noted that the risk of ARIA is highest during the dose titration period: “There’s a signal that once you get to the 10 mg/kg dose, that plateaus.”

None of the patients at her center have reached that 12-month treatment mark. “The current plan is to do the MRI at 12 months then to give serial MRIs but less frequently, and whether that’s at 6 months or annually is yet to be determined.”

“We’re kind of writing these protocols as information evolves,” Dr. Riddle said.

The Memory and Aging Program receives grants from NIH-ADNI, Alzheimer’s Association, Fain Family Foundation, Joukowsky Family Foundation, Winter Family, Rhode Island Foundation, Goodman Family Foundation, and Global Alzheimer Platform Foundation; and clinical trials include: Lilly, Biogen, Genentech, Avid, Roche, Eisai, and Novartis. Dr. Riddle has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large registry-based cohort study in Sweden has revealed that 75% of children born before 24 weeks of gestation had neurodevelopmental disorders, including intellectual disabilities and autism, and required habilitative services.

In addition, somatic disorders such as asthma and failure to thrive/short stature were diagnosed in 88% of the cohort. The findings, published in Acta Paediatrica, emphasize the need for further study of this population, especially as survival rates continue to increase.

“The primary aim of this large, retrospective, national study was to report clinical diagnoses registered after children born before 24 weeks were discharged from neonatal care,” explained lead author Eva Morsing, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, and colleagues.

Data on diagnoses of neurodevelopmental disorders and selected somatic diagnoses were obtained from national Swedish registries. Study participants’ individual medical files were also examined by the researchers.
 

Results

The study cohort comprised 383 infants born at a median of 23.3 weeks of gestation (range, 21.9-23.9 weeks). The median birthweight of participants was 565 grams (range, 340-874 grams), with a median birthweight standard deviation (SD) of −0.40 (range, −3.63–3.17).

The majority (75%) of infants had a neurodevelopmental disorder, including speech disorders (52%), intellectual disabilities (40%), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (30%), autism spectrum disorder (24%), visual impairment (22%), cerebral palsy (17%), epilepsy (10%), and hearing impairment (5%).

With respect to gender, a greater number of boys than girls born at 23 weeks had intellectual disabilities (45% vs. 27%; P < .01) and visual impairment (25% vs. 14%; P < .01). Moreover, 55% of the participants were referred for habilitative services.

With respect to somatic diagnoses, failure to thrive/short stature was diagnosed in 39% of the cohort, and it occurred more often in those born at 21 and 22 weeks than in those born at 23 weeks (49% vs. 36%; P < .05).

In addition, asthma and childhood bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary hypertension, and vocal cord paresis were diagnosed in 63%, 12%, and 13% of participants, respectively.

“Several studies have reported higher rates of preterm morbidities, and poor neurodevelopmental outcomes after extremely preterm birth in boys rather than girls,” study author Ann Hellström, MD, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, said in an interview.

“While the reasons for this were not studied in the present paper, reports in the literature suggest that boys have a higher average growth rate than girls and appear to be more sensitive to suboptimal neonatal nutrition than girls,” Dr. Hellström explained.

“We also know that sex steroids differ in relation to intrauterine life depending on the sex after preterm birth,” Dr. Hellström added.

In an accompanying editorial, Neil Marlow, MD, of University College London, wrote, “One headline from this study [that is interesting] is the high prevalence of autistic spectrum disorders recorded.

“This is a particular finding in extremely preterm cohorts from Sweden, who record more diagnoses than in other longitudinal studies,” Dr. Marlow added. “It certainly warrants further investigation and understanding.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the broad age range at the most recent follow-up visit, which ranged from 2 to 13 years, explaining that some diagnoses may occur later in childhood.

“Neonatal clinical practice needs to adopt a long-term perspective and clinicians treating children and adults should be aware of the complicated health problems of children born before 24 weeks,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Gothenburg Medical Society, and by grant funding from the Swedish government. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

A large registry-based cohort study in Sweden has revealed that 75% of children born before 24 weeks of gestation had neurodevelopmental disorders, including intellectual disabilities and autism, and required habilitative services.

In addition, somatic disorders such as asthma and failure to thrive/short stature were diagnosed in 88% of the cohort. The findings, published in Acta Paediatrica, emphasize the need for further study of this population, especially as survival rates continue to increase.

“The primary aim of this large, retrospective, national study was to report clinical diagnoses registered after children born before 24 weeks were discharged from neonatal care,” explained lead author Eva Morsing, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, and colleagues.

Data on diagnoses of neurodevelopmental disorders and selected somatic diagnoses were obtained from national Swedish registries. Study participants’ individual medical files were also examined by the researchers.
 

Results

The study cohort comprised 383 infants born at a median of 23.3 weeks of gestation (range, 21.9-23.9 weeks). The median birthweight of participants was 565 grams (range, 340-874 grams), with a median birthweight standard deviation (SD) of −0.40 (range, −3.63–3.17).

The majority (75%) of infants had a neurodevelopmental disorder, including speech disorders (52%), intellectual disabilities (40%), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (30%), autism spectrum disorder (24%), visual impairment (22%), cerebral palsy (17%), epilepsy (10%), and hearing impairment (5%).

With respect to gender, a greater number of boys than girls born at 23 weeks had intellectual disabilities (45% vs. 27%; P < .01) and visual impairment (25% vs. 14%; P < .01). Moreover, 55% of the participants were referred for habilitative services.

With respect to somatic diagnoses, failure to thrive/short stature was diagnosed in 39% of the cohort, and it occurred more often in those born at 21 and 22 weeks than in those born at 23 weeks (49% vs. 36%; P < .05).

In addition, asthma and childhood bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary hypertension, and vocal cord paresis were diagnosed in 63%, 12%, and 13% of participants, respectively.

“Several studies have reported higher rates of preterm morbidities, and poor neurodevelopmental outcomes after extremely preterm birth in boys rather than girls,” study author Ann Hellström, MD, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, said in an interview.

“While the reasons for this were not studied in the present paper, reports in the literature suggest that boys have a higher average growth rate than girls and appear to be more sensitive to suboptimal neonatal nutrition than girls,” Dr. Hellström explained.

“We also know that sex steroids differ in relation to intrauterine life depending on the sex after preterm birth,” Dr. Hellström added.

In an accompanying editorial, Neil Marlow, MD, of University College London, wrote, “One headline from this study [that is interesting] is the high prevalence of autistic spectrum disorders recorded.

“This is a particular finding in extremely preterm cohorts from Sweden, who record more diagnoses than in other longitudinal studies,” Dr. Marlow added. “It certainly warrants further investigation and understanding.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the broad age range at the most recent follow-up visit, which ranged from 2 to 13 years, explaining that some diagnoses may occur later in childhood.

“Neonatal clinical practice needs to adopt a long-term perspective and clinicians treating children and adults should be aware of the complicated health problems of children born before 24 weeks,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Gothenburg Medical Society, and by grant funding from the Swedish government. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

A large registry-based cohort study in Sweden has revealed that 75% of children born before 24 weeks of gestation had neurodevelopmental disorders, including intellectual disabilities and autism, and required habilitative services.

In addition, somatic disorders such as asthma and failure to thrive/short stature were diagnosed in 88% of the cohort. The findings, published in Acta Paediatrica, emphasize the need for further study of this population, especially as survival rates continue to increase.

“The primary aim of this large, retrospective, national study was to report clinical diagnoses registered after children born before 24 weeks were discharged from neonatal care,” explained lead author Eva Morsing, MD, PhD, of Lund (Sweden) University, and colleagues.

Data on diagnoses of neurodevelopmental disorders and selected somatic diagnoses were obtained from national Swedish registries. Study participants’ individual medical files were also examined by the researchers.
 

Results

The study cohort comprised 383 infants born at a median of 23.3 weeks of gestation (range, 21.9-23.9 weeks). The median birthweight of participants was 565 grams (range, 340-874 grams), with a median birthweight standard deviation (SD) of −0.40 (range, −3.63–3.17).

The majority (75%) of infants had a neurodevelopmental disorder, including speech disorders (52%), intellectual disabilities (40%), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (30%), autism spectrum disorder (24%), visual impairment (22%), cerebral palsy (17%), epilepsy (10%), and hearing impairment (5%).

With respect to gender, a greater number of boys than girls born at 23 weeks had intellectual disabilities (45% vs. 27%; P < .01) and visual impairment (25% vs. 14%; P < .01). Moreover, 55% of the participants were referred for habilitative services.

With respect to somatic diagnoses, failure to thrive/short stature was diagnosed in 39% of the cohort, and it occurred more often in those born at 21 and 22 weeks than in those born at 23 weeks (49% vs. 36%; P < .05).

In addition, asthma and childhood bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary hypertension, and vocal cord paresis were diagnosed in 63%, 12%, and 13% of participants, respectively.

“Several studies have reported higher rates of preterm morbidities, and poor neurodevelopmental outcomes after extremely preterm birth in boys rather than girls,” study author Ann Hellström, MD, PhD, of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, said in an interview.

“While the reasons for this were not studied in the present paper, reports in the literature suggest that boys have a higher average growth rate than girls and appear to be more sensitive to suboptimal neonatal nutrition than girls,” Dr. Hellström explained.

“We also know that sex steroids differ in relation to intrauterine life depending on the sex after preterm birth,” Dr. Hellström added.

In an accompanying editorial, Neil Marlow, MD, of University College London, wrote, “One headline from this study [that is interesting] is the high prevalence of autistic spectrum disorders recorded.

“This is a particular finding in extremely preterm cohorts from Sweden, who record more diagnoses than in other longitudinal studies,” Dr. Marlow added. “It certainly warrants further investigation and understanding.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the broad age range at the most recent follow-up visit, which ranged from 2 to 13 years, explaining that some diagnoses may occur later in childhood.

“Neonatal clinical practice needs to adopt a long-term perspective and clinicians treating children and adults should be aware of the complicated health problems of children born before 24 weeks,” they concluded.

This study was supported by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Gothenburg Medical Society, and by grant funding from the Swedish government. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

The stress of living through a pandemic may cause brain inflammation even in those uninfected with SARS-CoV-2, a study suggests.

Healthy individuals who tested negative for the virus that causes COVID-19 had elevated levels of inflammatory markers known to be involved in depression, stress, and mental fatigue. The study indicates a possible link between pandemic-associated stressors and neuroimmune responses.

“The most important finding is the evidence of neuroinflammation in noninfected, otherwise healthy participants, which may explain the variety of sickness-behavior-like symptoms experienced by many during the pandemic,” lead author Ludovica Brusaferri, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online Feb. 16 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

Impact of pandemic stress?

Reports of psychological distress have increased considerably in the United States during the pandemic, including among those not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

To better understand the effects of the pandemic on brain and mental health, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data collected from 57 people who were enrolled as control subjects for unrelated studies before the pandemic began.

They also enrolled 15 people living in Massachusetts during that state’s 2-month lockdown/stay-at-home order from March to May 2020, all of whom had tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.

The investigators used PET and MRI imaging and blood sample analyses to investigate whether there were any differences in the brains of healthy people before and during the pandemic following the lockdown.

Compared with the control group, the pandemic cohort had elevated levels of 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) and myoinositol, inflammatory markers in the brain. Increased TSPO has been associated with depression and suicidal thoughts and elevated myoinositol has been linked to schizophrenia.

Blood levels of two inflammatory markers, interleukin-16 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, were also elevated in the pandemic cohort, although to a lesser extent.

TSPO levels were especially high in participants in the pandemic cohort who reported moodiness and mental and physical fatigue, compared with those reporting few or no symptoms.

“These findings provide support to a role for neuroinflammation in stress, an observation that, if replicated, might help guide the development of novel treatments focused on the reduction of brain inflammation,” study author Marco Loggia, PhD, codirector of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at Mass General and Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

Although the data showing increased neuroinflammation were collected when participants were under a stay-at-home order, the researchers said it’s not clear that this was the cause.

“We’re not saying it is the lockdown that was causing it,” Dr. Loggia said. “It could have been social isolation, changes in diet, or changes in exercise patterns. We don’t know exactly what the cause was so, maybe.”
 

A significant contribution

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ning Quan, PhD, professor of biomedical science at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, said although questions remain, the findings offer valuable information.

“This study contributes significantly to our understanding of how pandemic stress might impact our brain and behavior,” Dr. Quan said. “The main advance that this paper provides is that fatigue or brain fog could be induced in individuals with COVID infection during the pandemic.”

However, Dr. Quan added, the study has a number of limitations, including a small sample size, which makes it difficult to generalize the results.

“Another issue is the subjects of the study all lived in Massachusetts,” Dr. Quan added. “Subjects from different states or different countries could yield different results.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and by the Landreth Family Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Quan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The stress of living through a pandemic may cause brain inflammation even in those uninfected with SARS-CoV-2, a study suggests.

Healthy individuals who tested negative for the virus that causes COVID-19 had elevated levels of inflammatory markers known to be involved in depression, stress, and mental fatigue. The study indicates a possible link between pandemic-associated stressors and neuroimmune responses.

“The most important finding is the evidence of neuroinflammation in noninfected, otherwise healthy participants, which may explain the variety of sickness-behavior-like symptoms experienced by many during the pandemic,” lead author Ludovica Brusaferri, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online Feb. 16 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

Impact of pandemic stress?

Reports of psychological distress have increased considerably in the United States during the pandemic, including among those not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

To better understand the effects of the pandemic on brain and mental health, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data collected from 57 people who were enrolled as control subjects for unrelated studies before the pandemic began.

They also enrolled 15 people living in Massachusetts during that state’s 2-month lockdown/stay-at-home order from March to May 2020, all of whom had tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.

The investigators used PET and MRI imaging and blood sample analyses to investigate whether there were any differences in the brains of healthy people before and during the pandemic following the lockdown.

Compared with the control group, the pandemic cohort had elevated levels of 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) and myoinositol, inflammatory markers in the brain. Increased TSPO has been associated with depression and suicidal thoughts and elevated myoinositol has been linked to schizophrenia.

Blood levels of two inflammatory markers, interleukin-16 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, were also elevated in the pandemic cohort, although to a lesser extent.

TSPO levels were especially high in participants in the pandemic cohort who reported moodiness and mental and physical fatigue, compared with those reporting few or no symptoms.

“These findings provide support to a role for neuroinflammation in stress, an observation that, if replicated, might help guide the development of novel treatments focused on the reduction of brain inflammation,” study author Marco Loggia, PhD, codirector of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at Mass General and Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

Although the data showing increased neuroinflammation were collected when participants were under a stay-at-home order, the researchers said it’s not clear that this was the cause.

“We’re not saying it is the lockdown that was causing it,” Dr. Loggia said. “It could have been social isolation, changes in diet, or changes in exercise patterns. We don’t know exactly what the cause was so, maybe.”
 

A significant contribution

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ning Quan, PhD, professor of biomedical science at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, said although questions remain, the findings offer valuable information.

“This study contributes significantly to our understanding of how pandemic stress might impact our brain and behavior,” Dr. Quan said. “The main advance that this paper provides is that fatigue or brain fog could be induced in individuals with COVID infection during the pandemic.”

However, Dr. Quan added, the study has a number of limitations, including a small sample size, which makes it difficult to generalize the results.

“Another issue is the subjects of the study all lived in Massachusetts,” Dr. Quan added. “Subjects from different states or different countries could yield different results.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and by the Landreth Family Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Quan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The stress of living through a pandemic may cause brain inflammation even in those uninfected with SARS-CoV-2, a study suggests.

Healthy individuals who tested negative for the virus that causes COVID-19 had elevated levels of inflammatory markers known to be involved in depression, stress, and mental fatigue. The study indicates a possible link between pandemic-associated stressors and neuroimmune responses.

“The most important finding is the evidence of neuroinflammation in noninfected, otherwise healthy participants, which may explain the variety of sickness-behavior-like symptoms experienced by many during the pandemic,” lead author Ludovica Brusaferri, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online Feb. 16 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

Impact of pandemic stress?

Reports of psychological distress have increased considerably in the United States during the pandemic, including among those not infected with SARS-CoV-2.

To better understand the effects of the pandemic on brain and mental health, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data collected from 57 people who were enrolled as control subjects for unrelated studies before the pandemic began.

They also enrolled 15 people living in Massachusetts during that state’s 2-month lockdown/stay-at-home order from March to May 2020, all of whom had tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.

The investigators used PET and MRI imaging and blood sample analyses to investigate whether there were any differences in the brains of healthy people before and during the pandemic following the lockdown.

Compared with the control group, the pandemic cohort had elevated levels of 18 kDa translocator protein (TSPO) and myoinositol, inflammatory markers in the brain. Increased TSPO has been associated with depression and suicidal thoughts and elevated myoinositol has been linked to schizophrenia.

Blood levels of two inflammatory markers, interleukin-16 and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, were also elevated in the pandemic cohort, although to a lesser extent.

TSPO levels were especially high in participants in the pandemic cohort who reported moodiness and mental and physical fatigue, compared with those reporting few or no symptoms.

“These findings provide support to a role for neuroinflammation in stress, an observation that, if replicated, might help guide the development of novel treatments focused on the reduction of brain inflammation,” study author Marco Loggia, PhD, codirector of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at Mass General and Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

Although the data showing increased neuroinflammation were collected when participants were under a stay-at-home order, the researchers said it’s not clear that this was the cause.

“We’re not saying it is the lockdown that was causing it,” Dr. Loggia said. “It could have been social isolation, changes in diet, or changes in exercise patterns. We don’t know exactly what the cause was so, maybe.”
 

A significant contribution

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ning Quan, PhD, professor of biomedical science at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, said although questions remain, the findings offer valuable information.

“This study contributes significantly to our understanding of how pandemic stress might impact our brain and behavior,” Dr. Quan said. “The main advance that this paper provides is that fatigue or brain fog could be induced in individuals with COVID infection during the pandemic.”

However, Dr. Quan added, the study has a number of limitations, including a small sample size, which makes it difficult to generalize the results.

“Another issue is the subjects of the study all lived in Massachusetts,” Dr. Quan added. “Subjects from different states or different countries could yield different results.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and by the Landreth Family Foundation. The study authors and Dr. Quan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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