Neurology Reviews

The benefits of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11 outweigh its risks, according to an independent panel of vaccine experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
 

Seventeen of the 18 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Oct. 26 voted to recommend the 10-microgram shot for kids, which is one-third the dose given to adults.

One member, Michael Kurilla, MD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., abstained from voting.

If the FDA follows the recommendation, as it typically does, and issues an Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccine, the shots could be available within days.

After the FDA’s final decision, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make specific recommendations for its use. The CDC committee must stick closely to the conditions for use spelled out in the EUA, so their recommendations are likely to be similar to those made by the FDA. Their next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 2 and 3.

In the end, some on the panel felt uneasy with their decision.

“I voted yes primarily because I wanted to make sure that children who really need this vaccine, the Black and brown children of our country, get the vaccine,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

“But to be honest, the best way to protect the health of some children will be to do nothing because they will be just fine,” he said.

Others said they were surprised by how difficult the decision had been.

“This is a much tougher one than we had expected going into it,” said committee member Eric Rubin, MD, editor and chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, during the FDA advisory committee’s meeting.

Ahead of the vote, the committee heard presentations outlining the expected benefits of vaccinating children along with potential risks.

“Children have been greatly impacted by the pandemic,” said Fiona Havers, MD, a medical officer with the CDC in Atlanta who reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19 in kids.

In the second year of the pandemic, as more seniors have been vaccinated against the virus, COVID cases have largely shifted from older to younger age groups.

So far, there have been more than 1.9 million COVID-19 cases in children ages 5 through 11 in the United States.. Cases in kids saw a big jump in July and August with summer travel, schools reopening, and the dominance of the Delta variant.

And those are just the cases reported to the CDC. Regular testing of anonymous blood samples collected at sites across the United States indicates that 6 times as many kids have had COVID than what is reflected in official counts.

Last winter, blood sample testing showed about 13% of children had antibodies against the virus, suggesting they’d been infected. By this summer, that number had risen to 42%.

That figure clearly made an impression on many members of the committee who asked the FDA’s vaccine reviewers if they had tried to account for immunity from past infections in their modeling. They had not.

Some felt that even with a highly effective vaccine — new data presented by Pfizer showed the children’s dose was 90% effective at preventing symptomatic infections in kids — caution was warranted as much is still unknown about myocarditis, a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccines.

Myocarditis has been more common in younger age groups. It usually goes away over time but requires hospital care. It’s not known if myocarditis could have lingering effects for those who experience it.

There were no cases of myocarditis seen in Pfizer’s studies of the vaccine in children, and no other serious events were seen. Vaccine side effects reported in the Pfizer studies were mostly mild and included fatigue, headache, and pain at the injection site.

“We think we have optimized the immune response and minimized our reactions,” said William Gruber, MD, senior vice president vaccine research and clinical development at Pfizer.

But the studies didn’t include enough participants to pick up rare, but serious adverse events like myocarditis.

“We’re worried about a side effect that we can’t measure yet, but it’s probably real, and we see a benefit that isn’t the same as it is in older age groups,” said Dr. Rubin.

Benefits vs. risks

FDA modeled the benefits and risks for children under a variety of scenarios. The benefits of the vaccines to children very much depend on the amount of transmission in the community.

When transmission is high, the benefits to children — in terms of infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions — clearly outweigh its risks.

But when COVID-19 rates are low in the community, as they were in June, FDA analysts predicted the vaccines might send more children to the hospital for myocarditis than the virus would.

The FDA noted that kids who are hospitalized for myocarditis tend not to be as ill as children with COVID-19, however.

“If the trends continue the way they are going, the emergency for children is not what we might think it would be. That was my concern,” Dr. Hildreth said.

But others warned against complacency.

“Thinking that this is going to be the end of the wave permanently may be a little overly optimistic,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, a professor of public health and epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The majority of COVID-19 cases in children are mild. Only about 1% of kids are hospitalized for their infections, according to CDC data. But the rates of hospitalizations in kids are about 3 times higher for people of color — including Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, as compared to Whites and Asian Americans.

Since the start of the pandemic, 94 children ages 5 to 11 have died, making it the eighth leading cause of death for kids this age last year.

More than 5,200 children have developed a delayed complication from their infections called Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C).

MIS-C can be severe and require hospital care and can lead to myocarditis. Children ages 5 to 11 are the age group at greatest risk for this complication.

Kids can also get long COVID. There’s not a lot of data on how often this happens, though it appears to be less frequent in children than in adults.

But a survey in the United Kingdom found that 7%-8% of kids have symptoms from their infections that last longer than 12 weeks, Dr. Havers said. Symptoms that can linger for kids include fatigue, cough, muscle and joint pain, headaches, and insomnia.

More than 1 million children have been impacted by school closures so far this year, and quarantines have had lasting impacts on learning, social development, and mental health.

Even though kids aren’t usually COVID superspreaders, they can still pass the infection on to others.

“What is clear is that secondary transmission from children, both to other children and to adults, does occur,” Dr. Havers said.

For that reason, they can continue the spread of the virus and give it opportunities to mutate and become more dangerous.

Safety monitoring to continue

Some committee members referenced thousands of letters they had received within the past few days urging them to vote against the vaccine.

Jay Portnoy, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., said he had personally received about 4,000 emails.

“But I feel like I need to also represent the consumers, the parents that I see every day in the clinic who are terrified of sending their children to school because they’re not protected against COVID,” he said, explaining his vote to recommend authorization.

“Our kids are going to be dealing with this virus for many years to come. It’s going to come repeatedly. Getting this vaccine is just the first step that they can take to protect themselves from having bad outcomes,” Dr. Portnoy said.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, reminded members of the committee that there were several government surveillance systems in place to catch any potential safety issues in near real time.

“I really appreciate very much the concern here. The safety monitoring of this vaccine will continue,” Dr. Marks said. “I do view this as one of our greatest responsibilities.”

“I really am so grateful that we had this discussion and voted to approve,” said Capt. Amanda Cohn, MD, chief medical officer at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

“I think the benefits in this age group really are super important even if they are lower than for other age groups.”

This article was updated 10/27/21.

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

The benefits of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11 outweigh its risks, according to an independent panel of vaccine experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
 

Seventeen of the 18 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Oct. 26 voted to recommend the 10-microgram shot for kids, which is one-third the dose given to adults.

One member, Michael Kurilla, MD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., abstained from voting.

If the FDA follows the recommendation, as it typically does, and issues an Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccine, the shots could be available within days.

After the FDA’s final decision, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make specific recommendations for its use. The CDC committee must stick closely to the conditions for use spelled out in the EUA, so their recommendations are likely to be similar to those made by the FDA. Their next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 2 and 3.

In the end, some on the panel felt uneasy with their decision.

“I voted yes primarily because I wanted to make sure that children who really need this vaccine, the Black and brown children of our country, get the vaccine,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

“But to be honest, the best way to protect the health of some children will be to do nothing because they will be just fine,” he said.

Others said they were surprised by how difficult the decision had been.

“This is a much tougher one than we had expected going into it,” said committee member Eric Rubin, MD, editor and chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, during the FDA advisory committee’s meeting.

Ahead of the vote, the committee heard presentations outlining the expected benefits of vaccinating children along with potential risks.

“Children have been greatly impacted by the pandemic,” said Fiona Havers, MD, a medical officer with the CDC in Atlanta who reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19 in kids.

In the second year of the pandemic, as more seniors have been vaccinated against the virus, COVID cases have largely shifted from older to younger age groups.

So far, there have been more than 1.9 million COVID-19 cases in children ages 5 through 11 in the United States.. Cases in kids saw a big jump in July and August with summer travel, schools reopening, and the dominance of the Delta variant.

And those are just the cases reported to the CDC. Regular testing of anonymous blood samples collected at sites across the United States indicates that 6 times as many kids have had COVID than what is reflected in official counts.

Last winter, blood sample testing showed about 13% of children had antibodies against the virus, suggesting they’d been infected. By this summer, that number had risen to 42%.

That figure clearly made an impression on many members of the committee who asked the FDA’s vaccine reviewers if they had tried to account for immunity from past infections in their modeling. They had not.

Some felt that even with a highly effective vaccine — new data presented by Pfizer showed the children’s dose was 90% effective at preventing symptomatic infections in kids — caution was warranted as much is still unknown about myocarditis, a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccines.

Myocarditis has been more common in younger age groups. It usually goes away over time but requires hospital care. It’s not known if myocarditis could have lingering effects for those who experience it.

There were no cases of myocarditis seen in Pfizer’s studies of the vaccine in children, and no other serious events were seen. Vaccine side effects reported in the Pfizer studies were mostly mild and included fatigue, headache, and pain at the injection site.

“We think we have optimized the immune response and minimized our reactions,” said William Gruber, MD, senior vice president vaccine research and clinical development at Pfizer.

But the studies didn’t include enough participants to pick up rare, but serious adverse events like myocarditis.

“We’re worried about a side effect that we can’t measure yet, but it’s probably real, and we see a benefit that isn’t the same as it is in older age groups,” said Dr. Rubin.

Benefits vs. risks

FDA modeled the benefits and risks for children under a variety of scenarios. The benefits of the vaccines to children very much depend on the amount of transmission in the community.

When transmission is high, the benefits to children — in terms of infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions — clearly outweigh its risks.

But when COVID-19 rates are low in the community, as they were in June, FDA analysts predicted the vaccines might send more children to the hospital for myocarditis than the virus would.

The FDA noted that kids who are hospitalized for myocarditis tend not to be as ill as children with COVID-19, however.

“If the trends continue the way they are going, the emergency for children is not what we might think it would be. That was my concern,” Dr. Hildreth said.

But others warned against complacency.

“Thinking that this is going to be the end of the wave permanently may be a little overly optimistic,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, a professor of public health and epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The majority of COVID-19 cases in children are mild. Only about 1% of kids are hospitalized for their infections, according to CDC data. But the rates of hospitalizations in kids are about 3 times higher for people of color — including Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, as compared to Whites and Asian Americans.

Since the start of the pandemic, 94 children ages 5 to 11 have died, making it the eighth leading cause of death for kids this age last year.

More than 5,200 children have developed a delayed complication from their infections called Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C).

MIS-C can be severe and require hospital care and can lead to myocarditis. Children ages 5 to 11 are the age group at greatest risk for this complication.

Kids can also get long COVID. There’s not a lot of data on how often this happens, though it appears to be less frequent in children than in adults.

But a survey in the United Kingdom found that 7%-8% of kids have symptoms from their infections that last longer than 12 weeks, Dr. Havers said. Symptoms that can linger for kids include fatigue, cough, muscle and joint pain, headaches, and insomnia.

More than 1 million children have been impacted by school closures so far this year, and quarantines have had lasting impacts on learning, social development, and mental health.

Even though kids aren’t usually COVID superspreaders, they can still pass the infection on to others.

“What is clear is that secondary transmission from children, both to other children and to adults, does occur,” Dr. Havers said.

For that reason, they can continue the spread of the virus and give it opportunities to mutate and become more dangerous.

Safety monitoring to continue

Some committee members referenced thousands of letters they had received within the past few days urging them to vote against the vaccine.

Jay Portnoy, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., said he had personally received about 4,000 emails.

“But I feel like I need to also represent the consumers, the parents that I see every day in the clinic who are terrified of sending their children to school because they’re not protected against COVID,” he said, explaining his vote to recommend authorization.

“Our kids are going to be dealing with this virus for many years to come. It’s going to come repeatedly. Getting this vaccine is just the first step that they can take to protect themselves from having bad outcomes,” Dr. Portnoy said.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, reminded members of the committee that there were several government surveillance systems in place to catch any potential safety issues in near real time.

“I really appreciate very much the concern here. The safety monitoring of this vaccine will continue,” Dr. Marks said. “I do view this as one of our greatest responsibilities.”

“I really am so grateful that we had this discussion and voted to approve,” said Capt. Amanda Cohn, MD, chief medical officer at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

“I think the benefits in this age group really are super important even if they are lower than for other age groups.”

This article was updated 10/27/21.

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

The benefits of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11 outweigh its risks, according to an independent panel of vaccine experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
 

Seventeen of the 18 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Oct. 26 voted to recommend the 10-microgram shot for kids, which is one-third the dose given to adults.

One member, Michael Kurilla, MD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., abstained from voting.

If the FDA follows the recommendation, as it typically does, and issues an Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccine, the shots could be available within days.

After the FDA’s final decision, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make specific recommendations for its use. The CDC committee must stick closely to the conditions for use spelled out in the EUA, so their recommendations are likely to be similar to those made by the FDA. Their next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 2 and 3.

In the end, some on the panel felt uneasy with their decision.

“I voted yes primarily because I wanted to make sure that children who really need this vaccine, the Black and brown children of our country, get the vaccine,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.

“But to be honest, the best way to protect the health of some children will be to do nothing because they will be just fine,” he said.

Others said they were surprised by how difficult the decision had been.

“This is a much tougher one than we had expected going into it,” said committee member Eric Rubin, MD, editor and chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, during the FDA advisory committee’s meeting.

Ahead of the vote, the committee heard presentations outlining the expected benefits of vaccinating children along with potential risks.

“Children have been greatly impacted by the pandemic,” said Fiona Havers, MD, a medical officer with the CDC in Atlanta who reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19 in kids.

In the second year of the pandemic, as more seniors have been vaccinated against the virus, COVID cases have largely shifted from older to younger age groups.

So far, there have been more than 1.9 million COVID-19 cases in children ages 5 through 11 in the United States.. Cases in kids saw a big jump in July and August with summer travel, schools reopening, and the dominance of the Delta variant.

And those are just the cases reported to the CDC. Regular testing of anonymous blood samples collected at sites across the United States indicates that 6 times as many kids have had COVID than what is reflected in official counts.

Last winter, blood sample testing showed about 13% of children had antibodies against the virus, suggesting they’d been infected. By this summer, that number had risen to 42%.

That figure clearly made an impression on many members of the committee who asked the FDA’s vaccine reviewers if they had tried to account for immunity from past infections in their modeling. They had not.

Some felt that even with a highly effective vaccine — new data presented by Pfizer showed the children’s dose was 90% effective at preventing symptomatic infections in kids — caution was warranted as much is still unknown about myocarditis, a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccines.

Myocarditis has been more common in younger age groups. It usually goes away over time but requires hospital care. It’s not known if myocarditis could have lingering effects for those who experience it.

There were no cases of myocarditis seen in Pfizer’s studies of the vaccine in children, and no other serious events were seen. Vaccine side effects reported in the Pfizer studies were mostly mild and included fatigue, headache, and pain at the injection site.

“We think we have optimized the immune response and minimized our reactions,” said William Gruber, MD, senior vice president vaccine research and clinical development at Pfizer.

But the studies didn’t include enough participants to pick up rare, but serious adverse events like myocarditis.

“We’re worried about a side effect that we can’t measure yet, but it’s probably real, and we see a benefit that isn’t the same as it is in older age groups,” said Dr. Rubin.

Benefits vs. risks

FDA modeled the benefits and risks for children under a variety of scenarios. The benefits of the vaccines to children very much depend on the amount of transmission in the community.

When transmission is high, the benefits to children — in terms of infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions — clearly outweigh its risks.

But when COVID-19 rates are low in the community, as they were in June, FDA analysts predicted the vaccines might send more children to the hospital for myocarditis than the virus would.

The FDA noted that kids who are hospitalized for myocarditis tend not to be as ill as children with COVID-19, however.

“If the trends continue the way they are going, the emergency for children is not what we might think it would be. That was my concern,” Dr. Hildreth said.

But others warned against complacency.

“Thinking that this is going to be the end of the wave permanently may be a little overly optimistic,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, a professor of public health and epidemiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The majority of COVID-19 cases in children are mild. Only about 1% of kids are hospitalized for their infections, according to CDC data. But the rates of hospitalizations in kids are about 3 times higher for people of color — including Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, as compared to Whites and Asian Americans.

Since the start of the pandemic, 94 children ages 5 to 11 have died, making it the eighth leading cause of death for kids this age last year.

More than 5,200 children have developed a delayed complication from their infections called Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C).

MIS-C can be severe and require hospital care and can lead to myocarditis. Children ages 5 to 11 are the age group at greatest risk for this complication.

Kids can also get long COVID. There’s not a lot of data on how often this happens, though it appears to be less frequent in children than in adults.

But a survey in the United Kingdom found that 7%-8% of kids have symptoms from their infections that last longer than 12 weeks, Dr. Havers said. Symptoms that can linger for kids include fatigue, cough, muscle and joint pain, headaches, and insomnia.

More than 1 million children have been impacted by school closures so far this year, and quarantines have had lasting impacts on learning, social development, and mental health.

Even though kids aren’t usually COVID superspreaders, they can still pass the infection on to others.

“What is clear is that secondary transmission from children, both to other children and to adults, does occur,” Dr. Havers said.

For that reason, they can continue the spread of the virus and give it opportunities to mutate and become more dangerous.

Safety monitoring to continue

Some committee members referenced thousands of letters they had received within the past few days urging them to vote against the vaccine.

Jay Portnoy, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., said he had personally received about 4,000 emails.

“But I feel like I need to also represent the consumers, the parents that I see every day in the clinic who are terrified of sending their children to school because they’re not protected against COVID,” he said, explaining his vote to recommend authorization.

“Our kids are going to be dealing with this virus for many years to come. It’s going to come repeatedly. Getting this vaccine is just the first step that they can take to protect themselves from having bad outcomes,” Dr. Portnoy said.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, reminded members of the committee that there were several government surveillance systems in place to catch any potential safety issues in near real time.

“I really appreciate very much the concern here. The safety monitoring of this vaccine will continue,” Dr. Marks said. “I do view this as one of our greatest responsibilities.”

“I really am so grateful that we had this discussion and voted to approve,” said Capt. Amanda Cohn, MD, chief medical officer at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

“I think the benefits in this age group really are super important even if they are lower than for other age groups.”

This article was updated 10/27/21.

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

Mrs. Stevens died last week. She was 87.

That’s nothing new. The nature of medicine is such that you’ll see patients pass on.

But Mrs. Stevens bothers me, because even to the end I’m not sure I ever had an answer.

Her case began with somewhat nebulous, but clearly neurological, symptoms. An initial workup was normal, as was the secondary one.

The third stage of increasingly esoteric tests turned up some clues as to what was going wrong, even as she continued to dwindle. I could at least start working on a differential, even if none of it was good.

I met with her and her husband, and they wanted an answer, good or bad.

I pulled some strings at a local tertiary subspecialty center and got her in. They agreed with my suspicions, though also couldn’t find something definitive. They even repeated the tests, and came to the same conclusions – narrowed down to a few things, but no smoking gun.

Throughout all of this Mrs. Stevens kept spiraling down. After a few hospital admissions and even a biopsy of an abdominal mass we thought would give us the answer, we still didn’t solve the puzzle.

At some point she and her husband grew tired of looking and accepted that it wouldn’t change anything. Her internist called hospice in. They kept her comfortable for her last few weeks.

They didn’t want an autopsy, so the secret stayed with her.

Looking back, I agree with their decision to stop the workup. When looking further won’t change anything, why bother?

But, as a doctor, it’s frustrating. There’s a degree of intellectual curiosity that drives us. We want answers. We want to solve puzzles.

And sometimes we never get that final piece. Even if it’s the right decision for the patient, at the end of the day it’s still an unsolved crime to us. A reminder that, in this day of genetic analysis and high-resolution scanning, we still don’t know it all, or have all the answers.

We probably never will.

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

Mrs. Stevens died last week. She was 87.

That’s nothing new. The nature of medicine is such that you’ll see patients pass on.

But Mrs. Stevens bothers me, because even to the end I’m not sure I ever had an answer.

Her case began with somewhat nebulous, but clearly neurological, symptoms. An initial workup was normal, as was the secondary one.

The third stage of increasingly esoteric tests turned up some clues as to what was going wrong, even as she continued to dwindle. I could at least start working on a differential, even if none of it was good.

I met with her and her husband, and they wanted an answer, good or bad.

I pulled some strings at a local tertiary subspecialty center and got her in. They agreed with my suspicions, though also couldn’t find something definitive. They even repeated the tests, and came to the same conclusions – narrowed down to a few things, but no smoking gun.

Throughout all of this Mrs. Stevens kept spiraling down. After a few hospital admissions and even a biopsy of an abdominal mass we thought would give us the answer, we still didn’t solve the puzzle.

At some point she and her husband grew tired of looking and accepted that it wouldn’t change anything. Her internist called hospice in. They kept her comfortable for her last few weeks.

They didn’t want an autopsy, so the secret stayed with her.

Looking back, I agree with their decision to stop the workup. When looking further won’t change anything, why bother?

But, as a doctor, it’s frustrating. There’s a degree of intellectual curiosity that drives us. We want answers. We want to solve puzzles.

And sometimes we never get that final piece. Even if it’s the right decision for the patient, at the end of the day it’s still an unsolved crime to us. A reminder that, in this day of genetic analysis and high-resolution scanning, we still don’t know it all, or have all the answers.

We probably never will.

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

Mrs. Stevens died last week. She was 87.

That’s nothing new. The nature of medicine is such that you’ll see patients pass on.

But Mrs. Stevens bothers me, because even to the end I’m not sure I ever had an answer.

Her case began with somewhat nebulous, but clearly neurological, symptoms. An initial workup was normal, as was the secondary one.

The third stage of increasingly esoteric tests turned up some clues as to what was going wrong, even as she continued to dwindle. I could at least start working on a differential, even if none of it was good.

I met with her and her husband, and they wanted an answer, good or bad.

I pulled some strings at a local tertiary subspecialty center and got her in. They agreed with my suspicions, though also couldn’t find something definitive. They even repeated the tests, and came to the same conclusions – narrowed down to a few things, but no smoking gun.

Throughout all of this Mrs. Stevens kept spiraling down. After a few hospital admissions and even a biopsy of an abdominal mass we thought would give us the answer, we still didn’t solve the puzzle.

At some point she and her husband grew tired of looking and accepted that it wouldn’t change anything. Her internist called hospice in. They kept her comfortable for her last few weeks.

They didn’t want an autopsy, so the secret stayed with her.

Looking back, I agree with their decision to stop the workup. When looking further won’t change anything, why bother?

But, as a doctor, it’s frustrating. There’s a degree of intellectual curiosity that drives us. We want answers. We want to solve puzzles.

And sometimes we never get that final piece. Even if it’s the right decision for the patient, at the end of the day it’s still an unsolved crime to us. A reminder that, in this day of genetic analysis and high-resolution scanning, we still don’t know it all, or have all the answers.

We probably never will.

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

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” said lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis.

The study, published online Oct. 20 in Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, Alzheimer’s disease, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of Alzheimer’s disease, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid beta, a hallmark sign of Alzheimer’s disease.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University. Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR >0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both). The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta-42 ratio, APOE ε4 allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of Alzheimer’s disease could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

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

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” said lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis.

The study, published online Oct. 20 in Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, Alzheimer’s disease, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of Alzheimer’s disease, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid beta, a hallmark sign of Alzheimer’s disease.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University. Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR >0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both). The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta-42 ratio, APOE ε4 allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of Alzheimer’s disease could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

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

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” said lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis.

The study, published online Oct. 20 in Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, Alzheimer’s disease, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of Alzheimer’s disease, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid beta, a hallmark sign of Alzheimer’s disease.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University. Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR >0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both). The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta-42 ratio, APOE ε4 allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of Alzheimer’s disease could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

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

Years ago, when rheumatologist Leonard Sigal, MD, was undertaking research on Lyme disease and treating patients with the condition at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., a regular stream of abuse and threats became the usual background noise of his work. He didn’t get used to it, but it never stopped.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“I was accused of incredibly heinous crimes,” Dr. Sigal said in an interview. “I was accused of lying, cheating, of doing things to make money that were against the public interest and against the interest of patients in general.”

It’s an experience many doctors who treat Lyme disease have endured, so much so that some infectious disease doctors aren’t comfortable treating patients with Lyme disease, according to Timothy Flanigan, MD, a professor of infectious disease at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

But it wasn’t until Dr. Sigal left academia in 2003 that he realized the toll all that background abuse had been taking on him.

“It was a breath of fresh air,” he said. “I didn’t have to go into clinic and argue with people. I didn’t have to read articles in the newspaper that made no sense whatsoever. I didn’t have to hear through second and third parties how such and such was saying horrible things about me. I didn’t have to fight anymore. When I was in industry and working on stuff that had nothing to do with Lyme disease, I realized what a relief it was not to have that burden.”

So the last thing Dr. Sigal expected after all these years was to find himself named in a lawsuit alleging that he was part of a conspiracy to deny patients of what they claimed was appropriate treatment for Lyme disease. Yet, that’s exactly what happened in November 2017, when a group of 24 patients with Lyme disease, led by Texas resident Lisa Torrey, filed a lawsuit against the Infectious Diseases Society of America, eight insurance companies, and 7 of the doctors involved in producing the IDSA guidelines on Lyme disease diagnosis and management. Dr. Sigal himself had not even participated in writing the guidelines. He simply reviewed them, made a few grammatical suggestions, and said they looked good. Over the next 4 years, however, he and his fellow defendants rode an emotional roller coaster of seemingly endless motions, amendments, and other legal developments, waiting to find out whether they would owe millions of dollars for simply summarizing – or just reviewing – the available medical literature on Lyme disease.

“There were times I was on the verge of real anger. I was frustrated. There were times I was frightened, and, occasionally, I would just think of it as being silly. But when I thought of it as being silly, I had to remember I was being sued in Texas, because who knows what’s going to happen,” Dr. Sigal said. “It’s not as though I was being sued in a jurisdiction where anybody knew about Lyme disease. There are examples of physicians who are convicted of doing things they didn’t do because they were sued in the wrong jurisdiction.”

Several individuals who spoke with this news organization on condition of anonymity said that the district court where the suit was filed is notorious for being especially friendly to plaintiffs. But in legal rulings issued on Sept. 1 and Sept. 20, 2021, a federal judge in Texas dismissed all the patient group’s claims. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on Oct. 19. It’s unclear whether that has any reasonable chance of success.

“One of the things this court case does is validate the fact that our [guidelines] process is a legitimate process and there isn’t outside influence from insurance companies or pharma firms,” Daniel McQuillen, MD, president of IDSA, said in an interview. “We don’t really want anything other than to be vindicated, which we were, 100%.”

But that vindication came with a cost, both emotional and financial. Although IDSA’s insurance covered many of its legal costs, “it’s not a trivial expense,” Dr. McQuillen said. “We’re left with a baseless lawsuit with no facts that went on for 4 years, and our [medical] society basically bore all that expense, which isn’t really particularly fair.”
 

‘Preposterous’ accusations

The lawsuit alleged that the IDSA, the seven named physicians, and the insurance companies had “engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to deny the existence and prevent treatment of chronic Lyme disease.” The patient group claimed that the doctors knew that many patients with Lyme disease do not respond to short-term antibiotic treatment and instead need “long-term antibiotic treatment until the symptoms are resolved,” an assertion not supported by the scientific evidence.

What many patients call “chronic Lyme disease” is termed posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTDLS), a constellation of symptoms that include pain, fatigue, and cognitive difficulties that some people experience after a 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics for Lyme disease. It took years of patient advocacy before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized PTLDS as a condition, but awareness of it has been increasing, said Dr. Flanigan, who was not involved in the lawsuit but treats patients with Lyme disease and PTLDS.

“Long haulers and sequelae of COVID have really opened the eyes of many practitioners that these long-term inflammatory conditions are real and very challenging to treat, and we need to work with patients to help them improve their health,” Dr. Flanigan said. “It’s a sad commentary on our society that the difficulty in treating patients with posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or what is commonly referred to by patients as chronic Lyme, ends up in a lawsuit in court.” He said he’s glad the lawsuit was dismissed but added that “there’s a crying need for additional high-quality, evidence-based research to help patients who are suffering from posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome.”

Patients fought for broader recognition of their condition, and some of them organized. They came up with their own ideas of what was causing their symptoms to persist. One that especially took hold was that infection from Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, persists after initial antibiotic treatment, causing so-called chronic Lyme disease. The cause of PTLDS is still under investigation, and the evidence does not support the idea of a persistent bacterial infection. Multiple studies from the National Institutes of Health have shown that long-term use of antibiotics does not benefit patients who continue to experience symptoms after initial treatment. Several studies have shown that severe adverse effects can result from extended intravenous antibiotic treatment, including death.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the insurance companies “enlisted the help of doctors who were researching Lyme disease – the IDSA panelists – and paid them large fees to develop arbitrary guidelines for testing Lyme disease,” thereby enabling the insurance companies to deny coverage for long-term antibiotic treatment to patients.

“The assertions were just preposterous,” Dr. McQuillen said.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, the plaintiffs brought additional accusations to the lawsuit over the years, including racketeering and claims that the guidelines contain false representations regarding Lyme disease testing and treatment. The plaintiffs claimed that the guidelines didn’t acknowledge that treatment can fail and included false information about how to test for Lyme disease. In reality, however, the guidelines do acknowledge that not all patients respond to the recommended 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics and that some diagnoses should be made clinically rather than on the basis of testing.

Regardless, guidelines are not stipulations. They’re a summation of the medical and scientific findings on Lyme disease based on careful review of hundreds of studies.

“They make really clear that adherence to the guidelines [is] voluntary. They aren’t a standard of care from which deviation of care is a problem,” Dr. McQuillen said. “You take those guidelines and apply it to the patient in front of you, and you see what fits best for that patient, because not every patient is going to fit into guidelines.”

Further, the authors said that IDSA vets their recommendations for any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with the organization’s guidelines practices.

“The point of the guidelines is to have people on the committee who don’t care what the guidelines are as long as we have good patient care,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Choosing to fight

Malpractice insurance does not cover this kind of lawsuit, because the doctors named in it did not personally treat any of the patients who filed it. Thus, the doctors were at risk of losing thousands, or millions, of dollars in legal fees, even if they ultimately prevail. Several of the physicians’ academic and health care institutions stepped in to cover some fees, and IDSA covered the rest in a joint defense.

“The IDSA provided me a lawyer at no cost to me, and I felt protected by them,” Dr. Sigal said. “They took care of me and made sure I was safe, and I am grateful to them for that.”

Dr. McQuillen said the expenses exceeded what the organization’s umbrella insurance covered. The physicians had invested their time and effort into the guidelines without any financial compensation.

“They’ve basically put a lot of sweat equity into producing guidelines” that follow the organization’s practices and ethics, Dr. McQuillen said. “To leave them out on an island by themselves is just not the right thing to do. We wouldn’t do that for any of our members who did something on behalf of our society.”

IDSA could have chosen to settle the lawsuit, as the insurance companies did.

“None of us on the board felt that was the right thing to do, because we believe in the process, and the science is right, and you shouldn’t be able to try to change that by having a lawsuit that’s baseless,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Several of the doctors named in the suit spoke with this news organization off the record about the exhaustion, frustration, and general suffering the suit has caused them over the past several years, including ongoing harassment that targeted their families and often became quite personal. But none expressed any wish that IDSA had chosen the faster, cheaper, easier route of settling.

“I love the organization for having done this rather than caving and paying,” Dr. Sigal said. “They showed real moral character, real integrity in fighting this suit, because they had done nothing wrong.”

Fighting the suit was about more than standing by the science, though. It’s essential to ensure physicians continue to conduct research and write clinical guidelines, even about ambiguous or controversial topics, said Raymond J. Dattwyler, MD, a professor of microbiology, immunology, and medicine at New York Medical College, Valhalla, who wrote the treatment part of the guidelines and was named in the suit.

“I was really surprised that someone would sue for scientific guidelines, because guidelines are common across medicine, and they’re just a roadmap to help practicing physicians understand how to handle evaluation or treatment of any number of particular problems,” Dr. Dattwyler said in an interview. But he wasn’t surprised that IDSA chose to fight the accusations, “because the principle involved is so compelling. It’s really standing up for all medical societies, and it’s very important to have guidelines. For the health and welfare of the American public, you need to have good information readily available to the practicing physicians.”

If the patient group had won in a settlement, it could potentially have led to less rigorous guidelines from other medical organizations, which would have had an adverse effect on public health, Dr. Dattwyler said. Such a chilling effect could reverberate far beyond the management of Lyme disease.

“One of the problems with our legal system is anybody can sue anybody, but it costs so much to defend yourself,” Dr. Dattwyler said. “This lawsuit costs millions, so that’s chilling. That’s going to inhibit guidelines, and it’s not only guidelines for infectious disease but it’s guidelines for cancer, guidelines for allergic diseases, guidelines for any number of things.”

To an extent, the threats and harassment that patient groups have directed toward different doctors have already had a chilling effect.

“For the people who gave of their time in good faith to generate these guidelines to get harassed everywhere, all the time, sometimes at home, sometimes at their place of work, it’s just unfair,” Dr. McQuillen said. “It also might discourage people from working in research to try to figure out better diagnostics or get a vaccine that actually works. Even if you really find it incredibly interesting, if laying over you is the threat that someone is going to sue you baselessly, and you’re going to have to put the time and effort into defending that, not to mention the money, I can’t see how that would be considered a positive that would encourage you to do it. In some ways, attacking people that are trying to help may drive them away from trying to help.

“At the same time, professional disagreements among practitioners – including a small minority who do treat patients with lengthy courses of antibiotics – can ultimately harm patient care, Dr. Flanigan said.

“There’s a lot of energy being expended fighting among different care providers, and often the individual needs of the patients seem to be not addressed,” Dr. Flanigan said. “The discord between different approaches often seems more important than spending time with the individual patient and trying to find a tailored approach to treatment which can benefit the patient best.”

At the same time, Dr. Sigal said he believes most of the clinicians who use non–evidence-based treatments for their patients do so because they genuinely believe it’s the right thing to do.

“I think they’re motivated by the same concerns that I have, and that is, I need to do what’s best for my patient,” Dr. Sigal said. Ultimately, the evidence should lead the way. “The only arbiter we possibly have in deciding these things is the medical scientific literature,” he added, “and if you can’t subscribe to that, then this way lies madness.”

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

Years ago, when rheumatologist Leonard Sigal, MD, was undertaking research on Lyme disease and treating patients with the condition at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., a regular stream of abuse and threats became the usual background noise of his work. He didn’t get used to it, but it never stopped.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“I was accused of incredibly heinous crimes,” Dr. Sigal said in an interview. “I was accused of lying, cheating, of doing things to make money that were against the public interest and against the interest of patients in general.”

It’s an experience many doctors who treat Lyme disease have endured, so much so that some infectious disease doctors aren’t comfortable treating patients with Lyme disease, according to Timothy Flanigan, MD, a professor of infectious disease at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

But it wasn’t until Dr. Sigal left academia in 2003 that he realized the toll all that background abuse had been taking on him.

“It was a breath of fresh air,” he said. “I didn’t have to go into clinic and argue with people. I didn’t have to read articles in the newspaper that made no sense whatsoever. I didn’t have to hear through second and third parties how such and such was saying horrible things about me. I didn’t have to fight anymore. When I was in industry and working on stuff that had nothing to do with Lyme disease, I realized what a relief it was not to have that burden.”

So the last thing Dr. Sigal expected after all these years was to find himself named in a lawsuit alleging that he was part of a conspiracy to deny patients of what they claimed was appropriate treatment for Lyme disease. Yet, that’s exactly what happened in November 2017, when a group of 24 patients with Lyme disease, led by Texas resident Lisa Torrey, filed a lawsuit against the Infectious Diseases Society of America, eight insurance companies, and 7 of the doctors involved in producing the IDSA guidelines on Lyme disease diagnosis and management. Dr. Sigal himself had not even participated in writing the guidelines. He simply reviewed them, made a few grammatical suggestions, and said they looked good. Over the next 4 years, however, he and his fellow defendants rode an emotional roller coaster of seemingly endless motions, amendments, and other legal developments, waiting to find out whether they would owe millions of dollars for simply summarizing – or just reviewing – the available medical literature on Lyme disease.

“There were times I was on the verge of real anger. I was frustrated. There were times I was frightened, and, occasionally, I would just think of it as being silly. But when I thought of it as being silly, I had to remember I was being sued in Texas, because who knows what’s going to happen,” Dr. Sigal said. “It’s not as though I was being sued in a jurisdiction where anybody knew about Lyme disease. There are examples of physicians who are convicted of doing things they didn’t do because they were sued in the wrong jurisdiction.”

Several individuals who spoke with this news organization on condition of anonymity said that the district court where the suit was filed is notorious for being especially friendly to plaintiffs. But in legal rulings issued on Sept. 1 and Sept. 20, 2021, a federal judge in Texas dismissed all the patient group’s claims. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on Oct. 19. It’s unclear whether that has any reasonable chance of success.

“One of the things this court case does is validate the fact that our [guidelines] process is a legitimate process and there isn’t outside influence from insurance companies or pharma firms,” Daniel McQuillen, MD, president of IDSA, said in an interview. “We don’t really want anything other than to be vindicated, which we were, 100%.”

But that vindication came with a cost, both emotional and financial. Although IDSA’s insurance covered many of its legal costs, “it’s not a trivial expense,” Dr. McQuillen said. “We’re left with a baseless lawsuit with no facts that went on for 4 years, and our [medical] society basically bore all that expense, which isn’t really particularly fair.”
 

‘Preposterous’ accusations

The lawsuit alleged that the IDSA, the seven named physicians, and the insurance companies had “engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to deny the existence and prevent treatment of chronic Lyme disease.” The patient group claimed that the doctors knew that many patients with Lyme disease do not respond to short-term antibiotic treatment and instead need “long-term antibiotic treatment until the symptoms are resolved,” an assertion not supported by the scientific evidence.

What many patients call “chronic Lyme disease” is termed posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTDLS), a constellation of symptoms that include pain, fatigue, and cognitive difficulties that some people experience after a 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics for Lyme disease. It took years of patient advocacy before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized PTLDS as a condition, but awareness of it has been increasing, said Dr. Flanigan, who was not involved in the lawsuit but treats patients with Lyme disease and PTLDS.

“Long haulers and sequelae of COVID have really opened the eyes of many practitioners that these long-term inflammatory conditions are real and very challenging to treat, and we need to work with patients to help them improve their health,” Dr. Flanigan said. “It’s a sad commentary on our society that the difficulty in treating patients with posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or what is commonly referred to by patients as chronic Lyme, ends up in a lawsuit in court.” He said he’s glad the lawsuit was dismissed but added that “there’s a crying need for additional high-quality, evidence-based research to help patients who are suffering from posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome.”

Patients fought for broader recognition of their condition, and some of them organized. They came up with their own ideas of what was causing their symptoms to persist. One that especially took hold was that infection from Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, persists after initial antibiotic treatment, causing so-called chronic Lyme disease. The cause of PTLDS is still under investigation, and the evidence does not support the idea of a persistent bacterial infection. Multiple studies from the National Institutes of Health have shown that long-term use of antibiotics does not benefit patients who continue to experience symptoms after initial treatment. Several studies have shown that severe adverse effects can result from extended intravenous antibiotic treatment, including death.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the insurance companies “enlisted the help of doctors who were researching Lyme disease – the IDSA panelists – and paid them large fees to develop arbitrary guidelines for testing Lyme disease,” thereby enabling the insurance companies to deny coverage for long-term antibiotic treatment to patients.

“The assertions were just preposterous,” Dr. McQuillen said.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, the plaintiffs brought additional accusations to the lawsuit over the years, including racketeering and claims that the guidelines contain false representations regarding Lyme disease testing and treatment. The plaintiffs claimed that the guidelines didn’t acknowledge that treatment can fail and included false information about how to test for Lyme disease. In reality, however, the guidelines do acknowledge that not all patients respond to the recommended 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics and that some diagnoses should be made clinically rather than on the basis of testing.

Regardless, guidelines are not stipulations. They’re a summation of the medical and scientific findings on Lyme disease based on careful review of hundreds of studies.

“They make really clear that adherence to the guidelines [is] voluntary. They aren’t a standard of care from which deviation of care is a problem,” Dr. McQuillen said. “You take those guidelines and apply it to the patient in front of you, and you see what fits best for that patient, because not every patient is going to fit into guidelines.”

Further, the authors said that IDSA vets their recommendations for any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with the organization’s guidelines practices.

“The point of the guidelines is to have people on the committee who don’t care what the guidelines are as long as we have good patient care,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Choosing to fight

Malpractice insurance does not cover this kind of lawsuit, because the doctors named in it did not personally treat any of the patients who filed it. Thus, the doctors were at risk of losing thousands, or millions, of dollars in legal fees, even if they ultimately prevail. Several of the physicians’ academic and health care institutions stepped in to cover some fees, and IDSA covered the rest in a joint defense.

“The IDSA provided me a lawyer at no cost to me, and I felt protected by them,” Dr. Sigal said. “They took care of me and made sure I was safe, and I am grateful to them for that.”

Dr. McQuillen said the expenses exceeded what the organization’s umbrella insurance covered. The physicians had invested their time and effort into the guidelines without any financial compensation.

“They’ve basically put a lot of sweat equity into producing guidelines” that follow the organization’s practices and ethics, Dr. McQuillen said. “To leave them out on an island by themselves is just not the right thing to do. We wouldn’t do that for any of our members who did something on behalf of our society.”

IDSA could have chosen to settle the lawsuit, as the insurance companies did.

“None of us on the board felt that was the right thing to do, because we believe in the process, and the science is right, and you shouldn’t be able to try to change that by having a lawsuit that’s baseless,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Several of the doctors named in the suit spoke with this news organization off the record about the exhaustion, frustration, and general suffering the suit has caused them over the past several years, including ongoing harassment that targeted their families and often became quite personal. But none expressed any wish that IDSA had chosen the faster, cheaper, easier route of settling.

“I love the organization for having done this rather than caving and paying,” Dr. Sigal said. “They showed real moral character, real integrity in fighting this suit, because they had done nothing wrong.”

Fighting the suit was about more than standing by the science, though. It’s essential to ensure physicians continue to conduct research and write clinical guidelines, even about ambiguous or controversial topics, said Raymond J. Dattwyler, MD, a professor of microbiology, immunology, and medicine at New York Medical College, Valhalla, who wrote the treatment part of the guidelines and was named in the suit.

“I was really surprised that someone would sue for scientific guidelines, because guidelines are common across medicine, and they’re just a roadmap to help practicing physicians understand how to handle evaluation or treatment of any number of particular problems,” Dr. Dattwyler said in an interview. But he wasn’t surprised that IDSA chose to fight the accusations, “because the principle involved is so compelling. It’s really standing up for all medical societies, and it’s very important to have guidelines. For the health and welfare of the American public, you need to have good information readily available to the practicing physicians.”

If the patient group had won in a settlement, it could potentially have led to less rigorous guidelines from other medical organizations, which would have had an adverse effect on public health, Dr. Dattwyler said. Such a chilling effect could reverberate far beyond the management of Lyme disease.

“One of the problems with our legal system is anybody can sue anybody, but it costs so much to defend yourself,” Dr. Dattwyler said. “This lawsuit costs millions, so that’s chilling. That’s going to inhibit guidelines, and it’s not only guidelines for infectious disease but it’s guidelines for cancer, guidelines for allergic diseases, guidelines for any number of things.”

To an extent, the threats and harassment that patient groups have directed toward different doctors have already had a chilling effect.

“For the people who gave of their time in good faith to generate these guidelines to get harassed everywhere, all the time, sometimes at home, sometimes at their place of work, it’s just unfair,” Dr. McQuillen said. “It also might discourage people from working in research to try to figure out better diagnostics or get a vaccine that actually works. Even if you really find it incredibly interesting, if laying over you is the threat that someone is going to sue you baselessly, and you’re going to have to put the time and effort into defending that, not to mention the money, I can’t see how that would be considered a positive that would encourage you to do it. In some ways, attacking people that are trying to help may drive them away from trying to help.

“At the same time, professional disagreements among practitioners – including a small minority who do treat patients with lengthy courses of antibiotics – can ultimately harm patient care, Dr. Flanigan said.

“There’s a lot of energy being expended fighting among different care providers, and often the individual needs of the patients seem to be not addressed,” Dr. Flanigan said. “The discord between different approaches often seems more important than spending time with the individual patient and trying to find a tailored approach to treatment which can benefit the patient best.”

At the same time, Dr. Sigal said he believes most of the clinicians who use non–evidence-based treatments for their patients do so because they genuinely believe it’s the right thing to do.

“I think they’re motivated by the same concerns that I have, and that is, I need to do what’s best for my patient,” Dr. Sigal said. Ultimately, the evidence should lead the way. “The only arbiter we possibly have in deciding these things is the medical scientific literature,” he added, “and if you can’t subscribe to that, then this way lies madness.”

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

Years ago, when rheumatologist Leonard Sigal, MD, was undertaking research on Lyme disease and treating patients with the condition at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., a regular stream of abuse and threats became the usual background noise of his work. He didn’t get used to it, but it never stopped.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“I was accused of incredibly heinous crimes,” Dr. Sigal said in an interview. “I was accused of lying, cheating, of doing things to make money that were against the public interest and against the interest of patients in general.”

It’s an experience many doctors who treat Lyme disease have endured, so much so that some infectious disease doctors aren’t comfortable treating patients with Lyme disease, according to Timothy Flanigan, MD, a professor of infectious disease at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

But it wasn’t until Dr. Sigal left academia in 2003 that he realized the toll all that background abuse had been taking on him.

“It was a breath of fresh air,” he said. “I didn’t have to go into clinic and argue with people. I didn’t have to read articles in the newspaper that made no sense whatsoever. I didn’t have to hear through second and third parties how such and such was saying horrible things about me. I didn’t have to fight anymore. When I was in industry and working on stuff that had nothing to do with Lyme disease, I realized what a relief it was not to have that burden.”

So the last thing Dr. Sigal expected after all these years was to find himself named in a lawsuit alleging that he was part of a conspiracy to deny patients of what they claimed was appropriate treatment for Lyme disease. Yet, that’s exactly what happened in November 2017, when a group of 24 patients with Lyme disease, led by Texas resident Lisa Torrey, filed a lawsuit against the Infectious Diseases Society of America, eight insurance companies, and 7 of the doctors involved in producing the IDSA guidelines on Lyme disease diagnosis and management. Dr. Sigal himself had not even participated in writing the guidelines. He simply reviewed them, made a few grammatical suggestions, and said they looked good. Over the next 4 years, however, he and his fellow defendants rode an emotional roller coaster of seemingly endless motions, amendments, and other legal developments, waiting to find out whether they would owe millions of dollars for simply summarizing – or just reviewing – the available medical literature on Lyme disease.

“There were times I was on the verge of real anger. I was frustrated. There were times I was frightened, and, occasionally, I would just think of it as being silly. But when I thought of it as being silly, I had to remember I was being sued in Texas, because who knows what’s going to happen,” Dr. Sigal said. “It’s not as though I was being sued in a jurisdiction where anybody knew about Lyme disease. There are examples of physicians who are convicted of doing things they didn’t do because they were sued in the wrong jurisdiction.”

Several individuals who spoke with this news organization on condition of anonymity said that the district court where the suit was filed is notorious for being especially friendly to plaintiffs. But in legal rulings issued on Sept. 1 and Sept. 20, 2021, a federal judge in Texas dismissed all the patient group’s claims. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on Oct. 19. It’s unclear whether that has any reasonable chance of success.

“One of the things this court case does is validate the fact that our [guidelines] process is a legitimate process and there isn’t outside influence from insurance companies or pharma firms,” Daniel McQuillen, MD, president of IDSA, said in an interview. “We don’t really want anything other than to be vindicated, which we were, 100%.”

But that vindication came with a cost, both emotional and financial. Although IDSA’s insurance covered many of its legal costs, “it’s not a trivial expense,” Dr. McQuillen said. “We’re left with a baseless lawsuit with no facts that went on for 4 years, and our [medical] society basically bore all that expense, which isn’t really particularly fair.”
 

‘Preposterous’ accusations

The lawsuit alleged that the IDSA, the seven named physicians, and the insurance companies had “engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to deny the existence and prevent treatment of chronic Lyme disease.” The patient group claimed that the doctors knew that many patients with Lyme disease do not respond to short-term antibiotic treatment and instead need “long-term antibiotic treatment until the symptoms are resolved,” an assertion not supported by the scientific evidence.

What many patients call “chronic Lyme disease” is termed posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTDLS), a constellation of symptoms that include pain, fatigue, and cognitive difficulties that some people experience after a 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics for Lyme disease. It took years of patient advocacy before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized PTLDS as a condition, but awareness of it has been increasing, said Dr. Flanigan, who was not involved in the lawsuit but treats patients with Lyme disease and PTLDS.

“Long haulers and sequelae of COVID have really opened the eyes of many practitioners that these long-term inflammatory conditions are real and very challenging to treat, and we need to work with patients to help them improve their health,” Dr. Flanigan said. “It’s a sad commentary on our society that the difficulty in treating patients with posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or what is commonly referred to by patients as chronic Lyme, ends up in a lawsuit in court.” He said he’s glad the lawsuit was dismissed but added that “there’s a crying need for additional high-quality, evidence-based research to help patients who are suffering from posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome.”

Patients fought for broader recognition of their condition, and some of them organized. They came up with their own ideas of what was causing their symptoms to persist. One that especially took hold was that infection from Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, persists after initial antibiotic treatment, causing so-called chronic Lyme disease. The cause of PTLDS is still under investigation, and the evidence does not support the idea of a persistent bacterial infection. Multiple studies from the National Institutes of Health have shown that long-term use of antibiotics does not benefit patients who continue to experience symptoms after initial treatment. Several studies have shown that severe adverse effects can result from extended intravenous antibiotic treatment, including death.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the insurance companies “enlisted the help of doctors who were researching Lyme disease – the IDSA panelists – and paid them large fees to develop arbitrary guidelines for testing Lyme disease,” thereby enabling the insurance companies to deny coverage for long-term antibiotic treatment to patients.

“The assertions were just preposterous,” Dr. McQuillen said.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, the plaintiffs brought additional accusations to the lawsuit over the years, including racketeering and claims that the guidelines contain false representations regarding Lyme disease testing and treatment. The plaintiffs claimed that the guidelines didn’t acknowledge that treatment can fail and included false information about how to test for Lyme disease. In reality, however, the guidelines do acknowledge that not all patients respond to the recommended 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics and that some diagnoses should be made clinically rather than on the basis of testing.

Regardless, guidelines are not stipulations. They’re a summation of the medical and scientific findings on Lyme disease based on careful review of hundreds of studies.

“They make really clear that adherence to the guidelines [is] voluntary. They aren’t a standard of care from which deviation of care is a problem,” Dr. McQuillen said. “You take those guidelines and apply it to the patient in front of you, and you see what fits best for that patient, because not every patient is going to fit into guidelines.”

Further, the authors said that IDSA vets their recommendations for any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with the organization’s guidelines practices.

“The point of the guidelines is to have people on the committee who don’t care what the guidelines are as long as we have good patient care,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Choosing to fight

Malpractice insurance does not cover this kind of lawsuit, because the doctors named in it did not personally treat any of the patients who filed it. Thus, the doctors were at risk of losing thousands, or millions, of dollars in legal fees, even if they ultimately prevail. Several of the physicians’ academic and health care institutions stepped in to cover some fees, and IDSA covered the rest in a joint defense.

“The IDSA provided me a lawyer at no cost to me, and I felt protected by them,” Dr. Sigal said. “They took care of me and made sure I was safe, and I am grateful to them for that.”

Dr. McQuillen said the expenses exceeded what the organization’s umbrella insurance covered. The physicians had invested their time and effort into the guidelines without any financial compensation.

“They’ve basically put a lot of sweat equity into producing guidelines” that follow the organization’s practices and ethics, Dr. McQuillen said. “To leave them out on an island by themselves is just not the right thing to do. We wouldn’t do that for any of our members who did something on behalf of our society.”

IDSA could have chosen to settle the lawsuit, as the insurance companies did.

“None of us on the board felt that was the right thing to do, because we believe in the process, and the science is right, and you shouldn’t be able to try to change that by having a lawsuit that’s baseless,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Several of the doctors named in the suit spoke with this news organization off the record about the exhaustion, frustration, and general suffering the suit has caused them over the past several years, including ongoing harassment that targeted their families and often became quite personal. But none expressed any wish that IDSA had chosen the faster, cheaper, easier route of settling.

“I love the organization for having done this rather than caving and paying,” Dr. Sigal said. “They showed real moral character, real integrity in fighting this suit, because they had done nothing wrong.”

Fighting the suit was about more than standing by the science, though. It’s essential to ensure physicians continue to conduct research and write clinical guidelines, even about ambiguous or controversial topics, said Raymond J. Dattwyler, MD, a professor of microbiology, immunology, and medicine at New York Medical College, Valhalla, who wrote the treatment part of the guidelines and was named in the suit.

“I was really surprised that someone would sue for scientific guidelines, because guidelines are common across medicine, and they’re just a roadmap to help practicing physicians understand how to handle evaluation or treatment of any number of particular problems,” Dr. Dattwyler said in an interview. But he wasn’t surprised that IDSA chose to fight the accusations, “because the principle involved is so compelling. It’s really standing up for all medical societies, and it’s very important to have guidelines. For the health and welfare of the American public, you need to have good information readily available to the practicing physicians.”

If the patient group had won in a settlement, it could potentially have led to less rigorous guidelines from other medical organizations, which would have had an adverse effect on public health, Dr. Dattwyler said. Such a chilling effect could reverberate far beyond the management of Lyme disease.

“One of the problems with our legal system is anybody can sue anybody, but it costs so much to defend yourself,” Dr. Dattwyler said. “This lawsuit costs millions, so that’s chilling. That’s going to inhibit guidelines, and it’s not only guidelines for infectious disease but it’s guidelines for cancer, guidelines for allergic diseases, guidelines for any number of things.”

To an extent, the threats and harassment that patient groups have directed toward different doctors have already had a chilling effect.

“For the people who gave of their time in good faith to generate these guidelines to get harassed everywhere, all the time, sometimes at home, sometimes at their place of work, it’s just unfair,” Dr. McQuillen said. “It also might discourage people from working in research to try to figure out better diagnostics or get a vaccine that actually works. Even if you really find it incredibly interesting, if laying over you is the threat that someone is going to sue you baselessly, and you’re going to have to put the time and effort into defending that, not to mention the money, I can’t see how that would be considered a positive that would encourage you to do it. In some ways, attacking people that are trying to help may drive them away from trying to help.

“At the same time, professional disagreements among practitioners – including a small minority who do treat patients with lengthy courses of antibiotics – can ultimately harm patient care, Dr. Flanigan said.

“There’s a lot of energy being expended fighting among different care providers, and often the individual needs of the patients seem to be not addressed,” Dr. Flanigan said. “The discord between different approaches often seems more important than spending time with the individual patient and trying to find a tailored approach to treatment which can benefit the patient best.”

At the same time, Dr. Sigal said he believes most of the clinicians who use non–evidence-based treatments for their patients do so because they genuinely believe it’s the right thing to do.

“I think they’re motivated by the same concerns that I have, and that is, I need to do what’s best for my patient,” Dr. Sigal said. Ultimately, the evidence should lead the way. “The only arbiter we possibly have in deciding these things is the medical scientific literature,” he added, “and if you can’t subscribe to that, then this way lies madness.”

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

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

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

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

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

People who don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19 should expect to be reinfected with the coronavirus every 16 to 17 months on average, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Microbe.

Since COVID-19 hasn’t existed for long enough to perform a long-term study, researchers at Yale University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte looked at reinfection data for six other human-infecting coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS.

“Reinfection can reasonably happen in three months or less,” Jeffrey Townsend, PhD, lead study author and a biostatistics professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

“Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated,” he said. “Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections.”

The research team looked at post-infection data for six coronaviruses between 1984-2020 and found reinfection ranged from 128 days to 28 years. They calculated that reinfection with COVID-19 would likely occur between 3 months to 5 years after peak antibody response, with an average of 16 months. This is less than half the duration seen for other coronaviruses that circulate among humans.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfection is about 5% at three months, which jumps to 50% after 17 months, the research team found. Reinfection could become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new variants develop, they said.

“We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of reinfection through time,” Alex Dornburg, PhD, senior study author and assistant professor of bioinformatics and genomics at UNC, said in the statement.

“As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus,” he said. “Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become reinfected in the near future.”

Study estimates are based on average times of declining immunity across different coronaviruses, the researchers told the Yale Daily News. At the individual level, people have different levels of immunity, which can provide shorter or longer duration of protection based on immune status, immunity within a community, age, underlying health conditions, environmental exposure, and other factors.

The research team said that preventive health measures and global distribution of vaccines will be “critical” in minimizing reinfection and COVID-19 deaths. In areas with low vaccination rates, for instance, unvaccinated people should continue safety practices such as social distancing, wearing masks, and proper indoor ventilation to avoid reinfection.

“We need to be very aware of the fact that this disease is likely to be circulating over the long term and that we don’t have this long-term immunity that many people seem to be hoping to rely on in order to protect them from disease,” Dr. Townsend told the newspaper.

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

The popular antipsychotic quetiapine (Seroquel) seems to calm patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who develop psychiatric distress after taking corticosteroids, a new case review says.

“Our case-report study observed that quetiapine was effective at decreasing irritability, reducing psychological distress, and improving sleep in patients with MS who experienced psychosis symptoms compared with patients who received no treatment. This has changed our practice as we now counsel all patients about the potential side effect of steroid-induced psychosis and discuss treatment options,” said Olinka Hrebicek, MD, medical director of Vancouver Island Multiple Sclerosis Clinic in Victoria, B.C., who was scheduled to present the study findings at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

According to Dr. Hrebicek, who spoke in an interview, nursing staff and neurologists at the Canadian clinic had typically attributed symptoms such as irritability, anger, insomnia, and psychological distress to the stress of experiencing a relapse. The treatment often was a prescription for a benzodiazepine or zopiclone.

In fact, she and colleagues wrote in their report, psychosis following treatment with high-dose corticosteroids for MS may be underreported.

“The purpose of the study was to determine whether quetiapine was effective for treating symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis in patients with MS,” study coauthor and clinic research assistant Niall Murphy said in an interview. “We also wanted to highlight the importance of looking for symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis as this is likely not the primary concern when treating patients for a relapse. In addition, nurses and neurologists may have less experience with the spectrum of clinical symptoms of psychosis than psychiatrists.”

For the case review, researchers examined 10 reports (8 female) of patients who had signs of psychiatric distress after treatment with steroids. Eight of the patients were treated with quetiapine (six female, two male).

All those who took quetiapine experienced benefits, while the two others didn’t improve.

Commenting on the study, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that psychosis may not appear as expected in patients who develop it as a result of corticosteroid use. “Typically, psychosis refers to delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized thought processes. However, with corticosteroids severe mood and cognitive changes [for example, delirium] are also often included in the definition. Mild mood and memory changes appear to be fairly common with prescription corticosteroids. More severe symptoms are less common.”

Higher doses of corticosteroids – like those used in MS – boost the risk of psychosis, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved in the study.

As for quetiapine, Dr. Brown said it could be a good treatment option. “The use of quetiapine, a drug approved for schizophrenia and mania, is consistent with the idea suggested in the literature that the symptoms with corticosteroids tend to be similar to those of bipolar disorder and that they respond to medications for bipolar disorder,” he said. “A potential concern is that both corticosteroids and quetiapine can cause weight gain. However, this may not be a major problem with a brief course of the corticosteroids. It would be great to see a randomized, controlled trial.”

In British Columbia, the Victoria clinic has changed policy as a result of the analysis, Dr. Hrebicek said. “Nurses and physicians now ask more specific questions to decide if patients are experiencing symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis and whether they should be treated with an antipsychotic medication.”

And now, report coauthor Mr. Murphy said, “our clinic proactively offers patients a prescription for quetiapine that they can fill if they are experiencing symptoms of steroid psychosis.”

Dr. Brown supported the new policy of alerting patients to the psychosis risk. “Counseling patients about common side effects is a good idea,” he said. “I have seen data suggesting that patients may be hesitant to report psychiatric symptoms with corticosteroids to their physicians. Letting them know about the potential for these kinds of side effects might make them more forthcoming in reporting this side effect.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Brown has a National Institutes of Health grant for studying the effect of corticosteroids on the brain.
 

The popular antipsychotic quetiapine (Seroquel) seems to calm patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who develop psychiatric distress after taking corticosteroids, a new case review says.

“Our case-report study observed that quetiapine was effective at decreasing irritability, reducing psychological distress, and improving sleep in patients with MS who experienced psychosis symptoms compared with patients who received no treatment. This has changed our practice as we now counsel all patients about the potential side effect of steroid-induced psychosis and discuss treatment options,” said Olinka Hrebicek, MD, medical director of Vancouver Island Multiple Sclerosis Clinic in Victoria, B.C., who was scheduled to present the study findings at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

According to Dr. Hrebicek, who spoke in an interview, nursing staff and neurologists at the Canadian clinic had typically attributed symptoms such as irritability, anger, insomnia, and psychological distress to the stress of experiencing a relapse. The treatment often was a prescription for a benzodiazepine or zopiclone.

In fact, she and colleagues wrote in their report, psychosis following treatment with high-dose corticosteroids for MS may be underreported.

“The purpose of the study was to determine whether quetiapine was effective for treating symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis in patients with MS,” study coauthor and clinic research assistant Niall Murphy said in an interview. “We also wanted to highlight the importance of looking for symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis as this is likely not the primary concern when treating patients for a relapse. In addition, nurses and neurologists may have less experience with the spectrum of clinical symptoms of psychosis than psychiatrists.”

For the case review, researchers examined 10 reports (8 female) of patients who had signs of psychiatric distress after treatment with steroids. Eight of the patients were treated with quetiapine (six female, two male).

All those who took quetiapine experienced benefits, while the two others didn’t improve.

Commenting on the study, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that psychosis may not appear as expected in patients who develop it as a result of corticosteroid use. “Typically, psychosis refers to delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized thought processes. However, with corticosteroids severe mood and cognitive changes [for example, delirium] are also often included in the definition. Mild mood and memory changes appear to be fairly common with prescription corticosteroids. More severe symptoms are less common.”

Higher doses of corticosteroids – like those used in MS – boost the risk of psychosis, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved in the study.

As for quetiapine, Dr. Brown said it could be a good treatment option. “The use of quetiapine, a drug approved for schizophrenia and mania, is consistent with the idea suggested in the literature that the symptoms with corticosteroids tend to be similar to those of bipolar disorder and that they respond to medications for bipolar disorder,” he said. “A potential concern is that both corticosteroids and quetiapine can cause weight gain. However, this may not be a major problem with a brief course of the corticosteroids. It would be great to see a randomized, controlled trial.”

In British Columbia, the Victoria clinic has changed policy as a result of the analysis, Dr. Hrebicek said. “Nurses and physicians now ask more specific questions to decide if patients are experiencing symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis and whether they should be treated with an antipsychotic medication.”

And now, report coauthor Mr. Murphy said, “our clinic proactively offers patients a prescription for quetiapine that they can fill if they are experiencing symptoms of steroid psychosis.”

Dr. Brown supported the new policy of alerting patients to the psychosis risk. “Counseling patients about common side effects is a good idea,” he said. “I have seen data suggesting that patients may be hesitant to report psychiatric symptoms with corticosteroids to their physicians. Letting them know about the potential for these kinds of side effects might make them more forthcoming in reporting this side effect.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Brown has a National Institutes of Health grant for studying the effect of corticosteroids on the brain.
 

The popular antipsychotic quetiapine (Seroquel) seems to calm patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who develop psychiatric distress after taking corticosteroids, a new case review says.

“Our case-report study observed that quetiapine was effective at decreasing irritability, reducing psychological distress, and improving sleep in patients with MS who experienced psychosis symptoms compared with patients who received no treatment. This has changed our practice as we now counsel all patients about the potential side effect of steroid-induced psychosis and discuss treatment options,” said Olinka Hrebicek, MD, medical director of Vancouver Island Multiple Sclerosis Clinic in Victoria, B.C., who was scheduled to present the study findings at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

According to Dr. Hrebicek, who spoke in an interview, nursing staff and neurologists at the Canadian clinic had typically attributed symptoms such as irritability, anger, insomnia, and psychological distress to the stress of experiencing a relapse. The treatment often was a prescription for a benzodiazepine or zopiclone.

In fact, she and colleagues wrote in their report, psychosis following treatment with high-dose corticosteroids for MS may be underreported.

“The purpose of the study was to determine whether quetiapine was effective for treating symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis in patients with MS,” study coauthor and clinic research assistant Niall Murphy said in an interview. “We also wanted to highlight the importance of looking for symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis as this is likely not the primary concern when treating patients for a relapse. In addition, nurses and neurologists may have less experience with the spectrum of clinical symptoms of psychosis than psychiatrists.”

For the case review, researchers examined 10 reports (8 female) of patients who had signs of psychiatric distress after treatment with steroids. Eight of the patients were treated with quetiapine (six female, two male).

All those who took quetiapine experienced benefits, while the two others didn’t improve.

Commenting on the study, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that psychosis may not appear as expected in patients who develop it as a result of corticosteroid use. “Typically, psychosis refers to delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized thought processes. However, with corticosteroids severe mood and cognitive changes [for example, delirium] are also often included in the definition. Mild mood and memory changes appear to be fairly common with prescription corticosteroids. More severe symptoms are less common.”

Higher doses of corticosteroids – like those used in MS – boost the risk of psychosis, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved in the study.

As for quetiapine, Dr. Brown said it could be a good treatment option. “The use of quetiapine, a drug approved for schizophrenia and mania, is consistent with the idea suggested in the literature that the symptoms with corticosteroids tend to be similar to those of bipolar disorder and that they respond to medications for bipolar disorder,” he said. “A potential concern is that both corticosteroids and quetiapine can cause weight gain. However, this may not be a major problem with a brief course of the corticosteroids. It would be great to see a randomized, controlled trial.”

In British Columbia, the Victoria clinic has changed policy as a result of the analysis, Dr. Hrebicek said. “Nurses and physicians now ask more specific questions to decide if patients are experiencing symptoms of steroid-induced psychosis and whether they should be treated with an antipsychotic medication.”

And now, report coauthor Mr. Murphy said, “our clinic proactively offers patients a prescription for quetiapine that they can fill if they are experiencing symptoms of steroid psychosis.”

Dr. Brown supported the new policy of alerting patients to the psychosis risk. “Counseling patients about common side effects is a good idea,” he said. “I have seen data suggesting that patients may be hesitant to report psychiatric symptoms with corticosteroids to their physicians. Letting them know about the potential for these kinds of side effects might make them more forthcoming in reporting this side effect.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Brown has a National Institutes of Health grant for studying the effect of corticosteroids on the brain.
 

Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are associated with an increased risk for priapism, new research suggests.

©Thinkstock

After analyzing U.S. adverse event reporting data, investigators found that among nearly 200 cases of priapism, a persistent, often painful erection unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation that lasts more than 4 hours, eight AEDs were associated with a positive “safety signal” for priapism.

These included valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine. Of these, valpromide had the largest association.

“Based on our results, we would recommend to clinicians to be cautious about the possibility of encountering priapism” in patients receiving the eight AEDs identified, lead researcher Ana Pejcic, PhD, department of pharmacology and toxicology, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, told meeting attendees.

If clinicians encounter such cases, they should be “reported to the regulatory authorities,” Dr. Pejcic added.

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Noteworthy limitations

Dr. Pejcic told this news organization that the safety signal with AEDs “does not directly mean that a medicine has caused the reported adverse event” because an illness or other drug taken by the patient could be responsible instead.

She also noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System relies on “spontaneous reports of adverse events,” which have multiple limitations.

These limitations include that the FDA “does not require that a causal relationship between a drug and event be proven, and reports do not always have enough information to properly evaluate an event.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Pejcic added that if a causal relationship was to be shown, the underlying mechanism could be linked to the pharmacological properties of the individual antiepileptic, such as altered alpha-1 adrenergic receptor expression or increased dopamine release.

Still, that would require “further evaluation in larger pharmacoepidemiological studies, with adjustment for potential confounding variables,” she said.
 

Replication needed

Priapism has recently been observed in case reports in association with the use of some AEDs. In addition, use of the drugs has been associated with hypo- and hypersexuality, as well as erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction.

Because the relationship between priapism and AED use “has not been well characterized,” the researchers mined data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System.

They examined entries from the first quarter of 2004 and the third quarter of 2020, focusing on 47 AEDs from the N03A subgroup of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System.

The researchers identified 8,122,037 cases for data analysis, of which 1,936 involved priapism as an adverse event. In total, 16 antiepileptic medications had at least one case of an adverse event involving priapism.

A positive safety signal was defined as a Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) of at least two, a chi-squared of at least four, or three or more cases. The signal was detected for valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine.

The largest association with priapism was with valpromide, at a PRR of 61.79. That was followed by PRR of 9.61 for brivaracetam, 7.28 for valproic acid, and 3.23 for topiramate.

“Considering that the proportionality analysis we applied in our study is used for hypothesis generation, our results will need to confirm in large cohorts and case-control studies,” said Dr. Pejcic.
 

New and important hypothesis?

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, instructor in the Division of Epilepsy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said priapism is not something that practicing epileptologists are instructed “to look for.”

He noted that “the idea of looking for a hidden signal in a massive database like this is very appealing” because it could reveal patterns that were previously undetected.

However, the event rate in the study suggests priapism, which “in the right context would be considered a medical emergency, [is] relatively uncommon,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that medications that could cause priapism, “such as antidepressants, blood pressure meds, and anticoagulants,” are commonly used by many people – including those with epilepsy.

It is consequently possible that “the finding from this study can be explained by comorbid medical problems,” Dr. Goldenholz said. This is particularly likely because many of the AEDs in question “have been on the market for decades,” he added.

“If a seemingly dangerous symptom would be happening as a result of one of these medications, it is quite surprising that it has not been noticed sooner,” he said.

Still, Dr. Goldenholz noted that it is “possible that these authors have a new and important hypothesis which must now be tested: Does priapism occur in patients with antiseizure medications when other causes are already ruled out?”

The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are associated with an increased risk for priapism, new research suggests.

©Thinkstock

After analyzing U.S. adverse event reporting data, investigators found that among nearly 200 cases of priapism, a persistent, often painful erection unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation that lasts more than 4 hours, eight AEDs were associated with a positive “safety signal” for priapism.

These included valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine. Of these, valpromide had the largest association.

“Based on our results, we would recommend to clinicians to be cautious about the possibility of encountering priapism” in patients receiving the eight AEDs identified, lead researcher Ana Pejcic, PhD, department of pharmacology and toxicology, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, told meeting attendees.

If clinicians encounter such cases, they should be “reported to the regulatory authorities,” Dr. Pejcic added.

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Noteworthy limitations

Dr. Pejcic told this news organization that the safety signal with AEDs “does not directly mean that a medicine has caused the reported adverse event” because an illness or other drug taken by the patient could be responsible instead.

She also noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System relies on “spontaneous reports of adverse events,” which have multiple limitations.

These limitations include that the FDA “does not require that a causal relationship between a drug and event be proven, and reports do not always have enough information to properly evaluate an event.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Pejcic added that if a causal relationship was to be shown, the underlying mechanism could be linked to the pharmacological properties of the individual antiepileptic, such as altered alpha-1 adrenergic receptor expression or increased dopamine release.

Still, that would require “further evaluation in larger pharmacoepidemiological studies, with adjustment for potential confounding variables,” she said.
 

Replication needed

Priapism has recently been observed in case reports in association with the use of some AEDs. In addition, use of the drugs has been associated with hypo- and hypersexuality, as well as erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction.

Because the relationship between priapism and AED use “has not been well characterized,” the researchers mined data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System.

They examined entries from the first quarter of 2004 and the third quarter of 2020, focusing on 47 AEDs from the N03A subgroup of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System.

The researchers identified 8,122,037 cases for data analysis, of which 1,936 involved priapism as an adverse event. In total, 16 antiepileptic medications had at least one case of an adverse event involving priapism.

A positive safety signal was defined as a Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) of at least two, a chi-squared of at least four, or three or more cases. The signal was detected for valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine.

The largest association with priapism was with valpromide, at a PRR of 61.79. That was followed by PRR of 9.61 for brivaracetam, 7.28 for valproic acid, and 3.23 for topiramate.

“Considering that the proportionality analysis we applied in our study is used for hypothesis generation, our results will need to confirm in large cohorts and case-control studies,” said Dr. Pejcic.
 

New and important hypothesis?

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, instructor in the Division of Epilepsy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said priapism is not something that practicing epileptologists are instructed “to look for.”

He noted that “the idea of looking for a hidden signal in a massive database like this is very appealing” because it could reveal patterns that were previously undetected.

However, the event rate in the study suggests priapism, which “in the right context would be considered a medical emergency, [is] relatively uncommon,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that medications that could cause priapism, “such as antidepressants, blood pressure meds, and anticoagulants,” are commonly used by many people – including those with epilepsy.

It is consequently possible that “the finding from this study can be explained by comorbid medical problems,” Dr. Goldenholz said. This is particularly likely because many of the AEDs in question “have been on the market for decades,” he added.

“If a seemingly dangerous symptom would be happening as a result of one of these medications, it is quite surprising that it has not been noticed sooner,” he said.

Still, Dr. Goldenholz noted that it is “possible that these authors have a new and important hypothesis which must now be tested: Does priapism occur in patients with antiseizure medications when other causes are already ruled out?”

The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are associated with an increased risk for priapism, new research suggests.

©Thinkstock

After analyzing U.S. adverse event reporting data, investigators found that among nearly 200 cases of priapism, a persistent, often painful erection unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation that lasts more than 4 hours, eight AEDs were associated with a positive “safety signal” for priapism.

These included valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine. Of these, valpromide had the largest association.

“Based on our results, we would recommend to clinicians to be cautious about the possibility of encountering priapism” in patients receiving the eight AEDs identified, lead researcher Ana Pejcic, PhD, department of pharmacology and toxicology, University of Kragujevac, Serbia, told meeting attendees.

If clinicians encounter such cases, they should be “reported to the regulatory authorities,” Dr. Pejcic added.

The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
 

Noteworthy limitations

Dr. Pejcic told this news organization that the safety signal with AEDs “does not directly mean that a medicine has caused the reported adverse event” because an illness or other drug taken by the patient could be responsible instead.

She also noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System relies on “spontaneous reports of adverse events,” which have multiple limitations.

These limitations include that the FDA “does not require that a causal relationship between a drug and event be proven, and reports do not always have enough information to properly evaluate an event.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Pejcic added that if a causal relationship was to be shown, the underlying mechanism could be linked to the pharmacological properties of the individual antiepileptic, such as altered alpha-1 adrenergic receptor expression or increased dopamine release.

Still, that would require “further evaluation in larger pharmacoepidemiological studies, with adjustment for potential confounding variables,” she said.
 

Replication needed

Priapism has recently been observed in case reports in association with the use of some AEDs. In addition, use of the drugs has been associated with hypo- and hypersexuality, as well as erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction.

Because the relationship between priapism and AED use “has not been well characterized,” the researchers mined data from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System.

They examined entries from the first quarter of 2004 and the third quarter of 2020, focusing on 47 AEDs from the N03A subgroup of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System.

The researchers identified 8,122,037 cases for data analysis, of which 1,936 involved priapism as an adverse event. In total, 16 antiepileptic medications had at least one case of an adverse event involving priapism.

A positive safety signal was defined as a Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) of at least two, a chi-squared of at least four, or three or more cases. The signal was detected for valpromide, brivaracetam, valproic acid, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, clonazepam, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine.

The largest association with priapism was with valpromide, at a PRR of 61.79. That was followed by PRR of 9.61 for brivaracetam, 7.28 for valproic acid, and 3.23 for topiramate.

“Considering that the proportionality analysis we applied in our study is used for hypothesis generation, our results will need to confirm in large cohorts and case-control studies,” said Dr. Pejcic.
 

New and important hypothesis?

Commenting on the study, Daniel Goldenholz, MD, PhD, instructor in the Division of Epilepsy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said priapism is not something that practicing epileptologists are instructed “to look for.”

He noted that “the idea of looking for a hidden signal in a massive database like this is very appealing” because it could reveal patterns that were previously undetected.

However, the event rate in the study suggests priapism, which “in the right context would be considered a medical emergency, [is] relatively uncommon,” said Dr. Goldenholz, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that medications that could cause priapism, “such as antidepressants, blood pressure meds, and anticoagulants,” are commonly used by many people – including those with epilepsy.

It is consequently possible that “the finding from this study can be explained by comorbid medical problems,” Dr. Goldenholz said. This is particularly likely because many of the AEDs in question “have been on the market for decades,” he added.

“If a seemingly dangerous symptom would be happening as a result of one of these medications, it is quite surprising that it has not been noticed sooner,” he said.

Still, Dr. Goldenholz noted that it is “possible that these authors have a new and important hypothesis which must now be tested: Does priapism occur in patients with antiseizure medications when other causes are already ruled out?”

The investigators and Dr. Goldenholz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies, a new Italian study suggests.

In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.

“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.

Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.

“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.

“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.  
 

Comparing treatment regimens

The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.

Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.

The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.

To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).

The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.

Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.

After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.

In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.

In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.  

The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.

Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.  

Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.

“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.   

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

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies, a new Italian study suggests.

In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.

“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.

Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.

“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.

“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.  
 

Comparing treatment regimens

The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.

Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.

The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.

To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).

The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.

Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.

After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.

In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.

In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.  

The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.

Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.  

Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.

“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.   

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

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with better disability outcomes than other immunotherapies, a new Italian study suggests.

In the study, stem cell transplant was associated with a slowing of disability progression and a higher likelihood of disability improvement in patients with secondary progressive MS compared with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study shows that, although limited, sustained disability improvement is still possible during early active secondary progressive MS and seems to be more likely with stem cell transplant than other disease-modifying treatments,” said lead author Giacomo Boffa, MD, University of Genoa, Italy.

“Brain penetrating–intent immune suppression in long-term immunological reconstitution within the central nervous system could be responsible for this clinical efficacy,” he added.

Dr. Boffa presented the research at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

He explained that compartmentalized inflation in the brain parenchyma, left meninges, and the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) is a key driver of disability worsening in secondary progressive MS.

Although initial studies did not reveal an effect of disease-modifying therapies in secondary progressive MS, recent randomized trials have established some benefit of siponimod in reducing the risk of disability worsening, and consistent with this finding, observational studies have suggested that other available immunotherapies may also be beneficial for active secondary progressive MS, Dr. Boffa noted.

“Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been widely investigated for the treatment of refractory MS, and although the ideal candidate for this procedure is a young patient with relapsing-remitting MS, there is some evidence to suggest that the procedure could also slow down neurological disability in patients with secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Boffa said.

“Indeed, all the drugs used in the transplant technology share the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exert a strong immunosuppressant effect within the brain parenchyma and CSF,” he added.  
 

Comparing treatment regimens

The aim of the current study was to compare the effect of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with other immunotherapies on disability worsening in patients with active secondary progressive MS.

Study endpoints included the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, 6-month worsening and improvement in disability, and sustained disability improvement over time.

The researchers studied patients with secondary progressive MS who had received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and were included in the Italian Bone Marrow Transplant Group. They were compared with a control group of patients in the Italian MS registry who had started a nontransplant disease-modifying therapy after the diagnosis of secondary progressive MS.

To control for many different variables, two separate analyses were preformed. One analyses was a propensity-score approach (patients were matched based on their propensity to receive bone marrow transplant or one of the other disease-modifying therapies). The other analysis used an overlap weighting approach (each patient was given a weight proportional to the probability of them belonging to the other treatment group).

The final cohort consisted of 79 bone marrow transplant recipients and 1,975 patients who had received other disease-modifying therapies.

Before matching, patients in the control group were older, had a longer disease duration, and had a lower annualized relapse rate than transplanted patients.

After propensity-score matching, there were 69 transplanted patients and 217 control patients who were well balanced in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics. After overlap weighting, the entire cohort was also well balanced for these variables.

In terms of the primary endpoint, stem cell transplant stabilized the EDSS score over time, while patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies had continuous progression of the EDSS score over time.

In the propensity-matched analysis, the EDSS score improved by 0.013 points per year in the stem cell transplant group compared with a worsening of 0.157 points per year in the control group. Similar results were seen in the overlap-weighting analysis.  

The effect of stem cell transplant on EDSS score translated into a significantly delayed time to confirmed disability progression in the stem cell transplant group compared with the control group (HR, 0.5; P = .005), Dr. Boffa reported.

Five years after the procedure, 62% of the transplant group were free of disability progression, compared with around 20% of the control group.  

Patients in the transplanted group were also more likely to show disability improvement over time. Five years after the procedure, almost 20% of the stem cell transplant group still maintained a disability improvement compared with only 4% of patients treated with other disease-modifying therapies.

“Our study population was composed of relatively young patients (average age 38 years) with clinical activity during secondary progressive MS, and the results of this study would not be applicable to patients with secondary progressive MS patients without signs of inflammatory activity,” Dr. Boffa commented.

“But on the other hand, our results reinforce the notion that ongoing inflammation during progressive MS requires adequate immunotherapy,” he added.   

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

Updated European guidelines on the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have been announced and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.

The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.

“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
 

New recommendations

New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.

“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.

Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.

The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:

• The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
• Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
• For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Progressive MS

• For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
• For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.  
• For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent. 
• Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.

Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs

• Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
• Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
• When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
• In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding

Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:

• Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
• Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
• For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits. 
• For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:

1)  treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2)  treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)

• Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.   
•  

Treatment safety/monitoring

• When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
• Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
• Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
•  

Long-lasting treatments

• When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
• Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.

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

Updated European guidelines on the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have been announced and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.

The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.

“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
 

New recommendations

New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.

“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.

Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.

The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:

• The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
• Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
• For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Progressive MS

• For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
• For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.  
• For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent. 
• Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.

Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs

• Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
• Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
• When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
• In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding

Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:

• Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
• Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
• For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits. 
• For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:

1)  treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2)  treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)

• Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.   
•  

Treatment safety/monitoring

• When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
• Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
• Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
•  

Long-lasting treatments

• When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
• Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.

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

Updated European guidelines on the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) have been announced and include a recommendation for siponimod (Mayzent) in progressive MS, as well as a general emphasis toward earlier and more aggressive treatment.

The updated guidelines were presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and are the result of a collaboration between ECTRIMS and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN).

Maria Pia Amato, MD, ECTRIMS president and co-chair of the guidelines steering committee, noted that the European MS treatment guidelines were last published in 2018. “Since then more trials have been published, and we felt this was a good time to incorporate the new evidence into updated guidelines,” she said.

“As before, the updated guidelines contain a number of core questions that address the efficacy of disease-modifying therapies, early treatment decisions, disease/treatment response monitoring and treatment modifications, treatment suspension and disease reactivation, and pregnancy and breastfeeding,” Dr. Amato said.
 

New recommendations

New features of the updated guidelines include a recommendation for siponimod for secondary progressive MS with evidence of disease inflammatory activity; in addition, there is more emphasis on starting treatment early, with greater consideration of higher efficacy drugs, depending on the characteristics of the disease and the patient, Dr. Amato commented.

“We also provided more detailed information on disease-modifying therapy use in pregnancy and breastfeeding and also for women with high disease activity who desire to become pregnant,” she added.

Other new features include the introduction of clinical questions dealing with treatment safety and monitoring (for example, for natalizumab) and also considering the current COVID-19 pandemic scenario; switching strategies with more detailed practical indications on timing; and long lasting effects of drugs such as alemtuzumab and cladribine, Dr. Amato said.

The updated guidelines include the following recommendations:

• The entire spectrum of disease-modifying drugs should be prescribed by a neurologist with expertise in MS and ready access to adequate infrastructure to provide proper monitoring of patents, comprehensive assessment, early detection of side effects, and the capacity to address those side effects promptly.
• Offer interferon or glatiramer acetate to patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) highly suggestive of MS and an abnormal MRI with lesions suggestive of MS who do not fulfill criteria for MS.
• For patients with relapsing-remitting MS, the choice between a wide range of available drugs (interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, rituximab, or ofatumumab), from modestly to highly effective, will depend on factors including: underlying disability progression, disease severity/clinical or radiological activity, patient characteristics and morbidity, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Progressive MS

• For patients with secondary progressive MS with evidence of inflammatory activity (relapses and/or MRI activity), offer treatment with siponimod. Treatment with other therapies used for relapsing remitting MS may also be considered.
• For secondary progressive MS without evidence of inflammatory activity, particularly in young patients and those in whom progression has started recently, consider treatment with siponimod or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, taking into account that there is scarce evidence to support their use in this setting.  
• For patients with active secondary progressive MS when there is no other therapy available, consider treatment with mitoxantrone, taking into account the safety concerns and tolerability issues of this agent. 
• Consider ocrelizumab for patients with primary progressive MS, particularly early and active (clinically and/or radiologically) disease.

Emphasis toward higher-efficacy drugs

• Consider choosing a higher-efficacy disease-modifying drug early on, according to disease activity (either clinically or on MRI).
• Offer a more efficacious drug to patients who show evidence of disease activity with their current treatment.
• When treatment with a high-efficacy drug is stopped, whether because of inefficacy or risk of adverse effects, consider starting another high-efficacy drug, taking into account clinical and MRI disease activity before and during treatment, pharmacokinetics and biological activity of the previous drug, and the potential for resumed disease activity or even rebound syndrome (particularly with natalizumab and S1P modulators).
• In the stable patient (clinically and on MRI) who shows no safety or tolerability issues, consider continuing treatment with disease-modifying therapy, taking into account patient characteristics and comorbidities, drug safety profile, family planning, and patient preferences.

Recommendations for pregnancy and breastfeeding

Recommendations for pregnant women and mothers who choose to breastfeed include:

• Advise women who wish to become pregnant to plan their pregnancy beforehand.
• Advise women of childbearing potential that MS disease-modifying therapies are not licensed during pregnancy, with the exception of interferons and glatiramer acetate.
• For women planning a pregnancy, offer interferons and glatiramer acetate and consider continuing these agents during pregnancy after assessment of risk and benefits. Consider using dimethyl fumarate until pregnancy is confirmed and stopping during pregnancy after assessment of the risks and benefits. 
• For women with highly active disease who wish to become pregnant, there are a number of therapeutic options:

1)  treatment with long lasting effects such as alemtuzumab or cladribine provided that at least 4 or 6 months respectively have elapsed between the last dose and conception2)  treatment with anti-CD20 drugs before pregnancy with advice to wait for 2-6 months after the last infusion before becoming pregnant and to avoid further infusions during pregnancy, or3) for patients treated with natalizumab, consider continuing treatment during pregnancy using a 6-week extended dosage regimen until the end of the second trimester or up until week 34 and resuming after delivery (in newborns exposed to natalizumab, check for hematological abnormalities and liver function)

• Only interferons and ofatumumab are currently approved during breastfeeding.   
•  

Treatment safety/monitoring

• When treating patients with natalizumab and after a period of stability, consider switching to a 6-week interval regimen in order to minimize the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
• Consider treatment with high-efficacy drugs including natalizumab in patients with high disease activity, in whom a quick therapeutic effect is required, taking into account the risk of PML in John Cunningham virus (JCV)-positive patients, as well as the therapeutic lag of the different disease-modifying drugs.
• Ideally, prioritize vaccination against COVID-19 before starting immunosuppressive disease-modifying treatments to achieve the highest protection rate possible.
•  

Long-lasting treatments

• When using long-lasting treatments (alemtuzumab or cladribine) in patients who experience disease activity before the treatment is completed (between the first and second cycles), consider waiting until completion of the therapeutic regimen before switching to other drugs.
• Consider offering additional courses of alemtuzumab after the first two cycles at least 1 year apart from each other when disease activity has not remitted completely or reappears after a period of stability, taking into account the balance between the potential benefits and side effects.

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

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.