Neurology Reviews

Plasma levels of von Willebrand factor may be a useful biomarker of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and its severity, new research suggests. “Reliable detection of this biomarker at very early time points may allow for prompt TBI detection and therefore intervention,” said study investigator Rachel Elizabeth Thomas, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, while presenting study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.

“The level reflects the degree of severity and provides some degree of prognostic information,” she added.
 

A specific marker of acute injury?

Von Willebrand factor is a glycoprotein released in the endothelium in response to local trauma. It plays a part in hemostasis and inflammation and is an indicator of traumatic microvascular injury. Research has shown that it is a biomarker of cerebrovascular pathology. In addition, increased expression of the factor is associated with vascular and neurodegenerative dementia.

The researchers examined whether von Willebrand factor is a biomarker of mild, repetitive TBI. They measured plasma levels of von Willebrand factor in 17 professional boxers before and after boxing bouts.

Eligible participants were between the ages of 18 and 35 years. They had a score of greater than or equal to 1 on the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ-3), had competed in at least three 3-minute bouts, and had withstood 25 or more blows to the head.

The investigators compared the plasma levels of von Willebrand factor of the boxers with those of 42 patients who presented to the University of Pennsylvania Trauma Center with TBI and with those of 23 uninjured control persons.

There was no significant difference in plasma levels of von Willebrand factor between boxers before the bout (13.15 µg/mL) and the control persons (6.16 µg/mL). Among the boxers, levels of von Willebrand factor increased by a factor of 1.8 within 30 minutes after bouts, compared with the levels among the control persons. The mean post-bout von Willebrand factor level was 25.09 µg/mL.

“Von Willebrand factor may be more specific for acute injuries, given that it does not seem to stay chronically elevated,” said Dr. Thomas.

In addition, the researchers found a significant positive correlation (r = 0.51; P = .03) between the fold change in plasma von Willebrand factor levels and the number of blows to the head that the athletes sustained.

They also found a significant positive correlation between fold change in von Willebrand factor and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.69; P = .002). These objective and subjective data suggest that levels of von Willebrand factor reflect injury severity, said Dr. Thomas.

Among patients hospitalized with TBI, levels of von Willebrand factor were significantly higher than among control persons (73.2 µg/mL vs. 40.8 µg/mL; P < .0009). The investigators found a linear correlation between plasma von Willebrand factor level and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.24) that was not statistically significant.

Levels of von Willebrand factor among patients hospitalized with TBI were higher on average and demonstrated a greater degree of variability than the levels among boxers immediately after a bout.

“This is not unexpected, given that this group represents a more heterogeneous population with varied forms of acute blunt injury, as compared to the boxers, who have undergone relatively repetitive, milder trauma,” Dr. Thomas said.

The traditional biomarkers of neurotrauma reflect neuronal and glial injury, whereas von Willebrand factor is an indicator of vascular trauma.

“Although on its own, von Willebrand factor is not specific to intracranial vascular injury, paired together with markers such as neurofilament light, GFAP [glial fibrillary acidic protein], and tau, it could be utilized to identify TBI-associated microvascular injury and thus delineate between specific TBI endophenotypes,” said Dr. Thomas. It could distinguish, for example, predominantly neuronal injury from predominantly vascular injury.

Because von Willebrand factor plays a role in the neurovascular unit and is a marker of microvascular injury, the investigators intend to pair measurements of plasma von Willebrand factor with advanced imaging techniques to evaluate cerebral blood flow or cerebrovascular reactivity. Such a study could help determine whether von Willebrand factor levels correlate with the degree of vascular injury and cerebrovascular dysregulation.
 

Point-of-care test?

Commenting on the findings, Kristine O’Phelan, MD, professor of clinical neurology and director of neurocritical care in the department of neurology at the University of Miami, said von Willebrand factor’s likely utility would be as a marker of injury in patients with mild TBI or sports-related concussion.

Imaging and clinical exams do not always reveal these injuries, Dr. O’Phelan added. “Having a biomarker that you can easily test in the blood would be extremely helpful,” she said.

The most exciting part of this study is that it indicates the potential to develop a point-of-care test for use on the athletic field or the battlefield for early detection of mild TBI, she added.

The fact that the test for von Willebrand factor has already been developed is an advantage, said Dr. O’Phelan. The normal and abnormal values of the test are clearly understood. “I do think that they will still need to calibrate it for head injury, because that’s not usually what the test is used for,” said Dr. O’Phelan.

One of the study’s strengths is that the investigators compared patients with TBI with control persons who had exercised, she added, because such a comparison helps clarify the biomarker’s relationship to the injury. Another strength is the application of the test to injuries of various types and of different degrees of severity.

But the biomarker will need to be tested in a larger population, said Dr. O’Phelan. In addition, there is a need to identify the right patient population for this test, as well as the best time frame for its application and potential factors that could confound the test results.

“I do worry a little bit about using early biomarkers for prognosis, particularly in severe TBI, because there’s so many variables that go into outcome,” said Dr. O’Phelan. This test likely would be administered in the first hours after injury, but many factors might affect patients’ outcomes, she added.

One influential factor is age. “If you have a von Willebrand factor of whatever number, that might have different importance in a 30-year-old than in an 80-year-old,” said Dr. O’Phelan. “We need to understand how to interpret those findings better.”

The study was supported by the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Phelan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Plasma levels of von Willebrand factor may be a useful biomarker of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and its severity, new research suggests. “Reliable detection of this biomarker at very early time points may allow for prompt TBI detection and therefore intervention,” said study investigator Rachel Elizabeth Thomas, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, while presenting study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.

“The level reflects the degree of severity and provides some degree of prognostic information,” she added.
 

A specific marker of acute injury?

Von Willebrand factor is a glycoprotein released in the endothelium in response to local trauma. It plays a part in hemostasis and inflammation and is an indicator of traumatic microvascular injury. Research has shown that it is a biomarker of cerebrovascular pathology. In addition, increased expression of the factor is associated with vascular and neurodegenerative dementia.

The researchers examined whether von Willebrand factor is a biomarker of mild, repetitive TBI. They measured plasma levels of von Willebrand factor in 17 professional boxers before and after boxing bouts.

Eligible participants were between the ages of 18 and 35 years. They had a score of greater than or equal to 1 on the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ-3), had competed in at least three 3-minute bouts, and had withstood 25 or more blows to the head.

The investigators compared the plasma levels of von Willebrand factor of the boxers with those of 42 patients who presented to the University of Pennsylvania Trauma Center with TBI and with those of 23 uninjured control persons.

There was no significant difference in plasma levels of von Willebrand factor between boxers before the bout (13.15 µg/mL) and the control persons (6.16 µg/mL). Among the boxers, levels of von Willebrand factor increased by a factor of 1.8 within 30 minutes after bouts, compared with the levels among the control persons. The mean post-bout von Willebrand factor level was 25.09 µg/mL.

“Von Willebrand factor may be more specific for acute injuries, given that it does not seem to stay chronically elevated,” said Dr. Thomas.

In addition, the researchers found a significant positive correlation (r = 0.51; P = .03) between the fold change in plasma von Willebrand factor levels and the number of blows to the head that the athletes sustained.

They also found a significant positive correlation between fold change in von Willebrand factor and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.69; P = .002). These objective and subjective data suggest that levels of von Willebrand factor reflect injury severity, said Dr. Thomas.

Among patients hospitalized with TBI, levels of von Willebrand factor were significantly higher than among control persons (73.2 µg/mL vs. 40.8 µg/mL; P < .0009). The investigators found a linear correlation between plasma von Willebrand factor level and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.24) that was not statistically significant.

Levels of von Willebrand factor among patients hospitalized with TBI were higher on average and demonstrated a greater degree of variability than the levels among boxers immediately after a bout.

“This is not unexpected, given that this group represents a more heterogeneous population with varied forms of acute blunt injury, as compared to the boxers, who have undergone relatively repetitive, milder trauma,” Dr. Thomas said.

The traditional biomarkers of neurotrauma reflect neuronal and glial injury, whereas von Willebrand factor is an indicator of vascular trauma.

“Although on its own, von Willebrand factor is not specific to intracranial vascular injury, paired together with markers such as neurofilament light, GFAP [glial fibrillary acidic protein], and tau, it could be utilized to identify TBI-associated microvascular injury and thus delineate between specific TBI endophenotypes,” said Dr. Thomas. It could distinguish, for example, predominantly neuronal injury from predominantly vascular injury.

Because von Willebrand factor plays a role in the neurovascular unit and is a marker of microvascular injury, the investigators intend to pair measurements of plasma von Willebrand factor with advanced imaging techniques to evaluate cerebral blood flow or cerebrovascular reactivity. Such a study could help determine whether von Willebrand factor levels correlate with the degree of vascular injury and cerebrovascular dysregulation.
 

Point-of-care test?

Commenting on the findings, Kristine O’Phelan, MD, professor of clinical neurology and director of neurocritical care in the department of neurology at the University of Miami, said von Willebrand factor’s likely utility would be as a marker of injury in patients with mild TBI or sports-related concussion.

Imaging and clinical exams do not always reveal these injuries, Dr. O’Phelan added. “Having a biomarker that you can easily test in the blood would be extremely helpful,” she said.

The most exciting part of this study is that it indicates the potential to develop a point-of-care test for use on the athletic field or the battlefield for early detection of mild TBI, she added.

The fact that the test for von Willebrand factor has already been developed is an advantage, said Dr. O’Phelan. The normal and abnormal values of the test are clearly understood. “I do think that they will still need to calibrate it for head injury, because that’s not usually what the test is used for,” said Dr. O’Phelan.

One of the study’s strengths is that the investigators compared patients with TBI with control persons who had exercised, she added, because such a comparison helps clarify the biomarker’s relationship to the injury. Another strength is the application of the test to injuries of various types and of different degrees of severity.

But the biomarker will need to be tested in a larger population, said Dr. O’Phelan. In addition, there is a need to identify the right patient population for this test, as well as the best time frame for its application and potential factors that could confound the test results.

“I do worry a little bit about using early biomarkers for prognosis, particularly in severe TBI, because there’s so many variables that go into outcome,” said Dr. O’Phelan. This test likely would be administered in the first hours after injury, but many factors might affect patients’ outcomes, she added.

One influential factor is age. “If you have a von Willebrand factor of whatever number, that might have different importance in a 30-year-old than in an 80-year-old,” said Dr. O’Phelan. “We need to understand how to interpret those findings better.”

The study was supported by the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Phelan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Plasma levels of von Willebrand factor may be a useful biomarker of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and its severity, new research suggests. “Reliable detection of this biomarker at very early time points may allow for prompt TBI detection and therefore intervention,” said study investigator Rachel Elizabeth Thomas, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, while presenting study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.

“The level reflects the degree of severity and provides some degree of prognostic information,” she added.
 

A specific marker of acute injury?

Von Willebrand factor is a glycoprotein released in the endothelium in response to local trauma. It plays a part in hemostasis and inflammation and is an indicator of traumatic microvascular injury. Research has shown that it is a biomarker of cerebrovascular pathology. In addition, increased expression of the factor is associated with vascular and neurodegenerative dementia.

The researchers examined whether von Willebrand factor is a biomarker of mild, repetitive TBI. They measured plasma levels of von Willebrand factor in 17 professional boxers before and after boxing bouts.

Eligible participants were between the ages of 18 and 35 years. They had a score of greater than or equal to 1 on the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ-3), had competed in at least three 3-minute bouts, and had withstood 25 or more blows to the head.

The investigators compared the plasma levels of von Willebrand factor of the boxers with those of 42 patients who presented to the University of Pennsylvania Trauma Center with TBI and with those of 23 uninjured control persons.

There was no significant difference in plasma levels of von Willebrand factor between boxers before the bout (13.15 µg/mL) and the control persons (6.16 µg/mL). Among the boxers, levels of von Willebrand factor increased by a factor of 1.8 within 30 minutes after bouts, compared with the levels among the control persons. The mean post-bout von Willebrand factor level was 25.09 µg/mL.

“Von Willebrand factor may be more specific for acute injuries, given that it does not seem to stay chronically elevated,” said Dr. Thomas.

In addition, the researchers found a significant positive correlation (r = 0.51; P = .03) between the fold change in plasma von Willebrand factor levels and the number of blows to the head that the athletes sustained.

They also found a significant positive correlation between fold change in von Willebrand factor and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.69; P = .002). These objective and subjective data suggest that levels of von Willebrand factor reflect injury severity, said Dr. Thomas.

Among patients hospitalized with TBI, levels of von Willebrand factor were significantly higher than among control persons (73.2 µg/mL vs. 40.8 µg/mL; P < .0009). The investigators found a linear correlation between plasma von Willebrand factor level and RPQ-3 score (r = 0.24) that was not statistically significant.

Levels of von Willebrand factor among patients hospitalized with TBI were higher on average and demonstrated a greater degree of variability than the levels among boxers immediately after a bout.

“This is not unexpected, given that this group represents a more heterogeneous population with varied forms of acute blunt injury, as compared to the boxers, who have undergone relatively repetitive, milder trauma,” Dr. Thomas said.

The traditional biomarkers of neurotrauma reflect neuronal and glial injury, whereas von Willebrand factor is an indicator of vascular trauma.

“Although on its own, von Willebrand factor is not specific to intracranial vascular injury, paired together with markers such as neurofilament light, GFAP [glial fibrillary acidic protein], and tau, it could be utilized to identify TBI-associated microvascular injury and thus delineate between specific TBI endophenotypes,” said Dr. Thomas. It could distinguish, for example, predominantly neuronal injury from predominantly vascular injury.

Because von Willebrand factor plays a role in the neurovascular unit and is a marker of microvascular injury, the investigators intend to pair measurements of plasma von Willebrand factor with advanced imaging techniques to evaluate cerebral blood flow or cerebrovascular reactivity. Such a study could help determine whether von Willebrand factor levels correlate with the degree of vascular injury and cerebrovascular dysregulation.
 

Point-of-care test?

Commenting on the findings, Kristine O’Phelan, MD, professor of clinical neurology and director of neurocritical care in the department of neurology at the University of Miami, said von Willebrand factor’s likely utility would be as a marker of injury in patients with mild TBI or sports-related concussion.

Imaging and clinical exams do not always reveal these injuries, Dr. O’Phelan added. “Having a biomarker that you can easily test in the blood would be extremely helpful,” she said.

The most exciting part of this study is that it indicates the potential to develop a point-of-care test for use on the athletic field or the battlefield for early detection of mild TBI, she added.

The fact that the test for von Willebrand factor has already been developed is an advantage, said Dr. O’Phelan. The normal and abnormal values of the test are clearly understood. “I do think that they will still need to calibrate it for head injury, because that’s not usually what the test is used for,” said Dr. O’Phelan.

One of the study’s strengths is that the investigators compared patients with TBI with control persons who had exercised, she added, because such a comparison helps clarify the biomarker’s relationship to the injury. Another strength is the application of the test to injuries of various types and of different degrees of severity.

But the biomarker will need to be tested in a larger population, said Dr. O’Phelan. In addition, there is a need to identify the right patient population for this test, as well as the best time frame for its application and potential factors that could confound the test results.

“I do worry a little bit about using early biomarkers for prognosis, particularly in severe TBI, because there’s so many variables that go into outcome,” said Dr. O’Phelan. This test likely would be administered in the first hours after injury, but many factors might affect patients’ outcomes, she added.

One influential factor is age. “If you have a von Willebrand factor of whatever number, that might have different importance in a 30-year-old than in an 80-year-old,” said Dr. O’Phelan. “We need to understand how to interpret those findings better.”

The study was supported by the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Phelan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher-dose naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (Kloxxado) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose, as manifested by respiratory and/or central nervous system depression.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Kloxxado delivers 8 mg of naloxone into the nasal cavity, which is twice as much as the 4 mg of naloxone contained in Narcan nasal spray.

When administered quickly, naloxone can counter opioid overdose effects, usually within minutes. A higher dose of naloxone provides an additional option for the treatment of opioid overdoses, the FDA said in a news release.

“This approval meets another critical need in combating opioid overdose,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

“Addressing the opioid crisis is a top priority for the FDA, and we will continue our efforts to increase access to naloxone and place this important medicine in the hands of those who need it most,” said Dr. Cavazzoni.

In a company news release announcing the approval, manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals noted that a recent survey of community organizations in which the 4-mg naloxone nasal spray had been distributed showed that for 34% of attempted reversals, two or more doses of naloxone were used.

A separate study found that the percentage of overdose-related emergency medical service calls in the United States that led to the administration of multiple doses of naloxone increased to 21% during the period of 2013-2016, which represents a 43% increase over 4 years.

“The approval of Kloxxado is an important step in providing patients, friends, and family members – as well as the public health community – with an important new option for treating opioid overdose,” Brian Hoffmann, president of Hikma Generics, said in the release.

The company expects Kloxxado to available in the second half of 2021.

The FDA approved Kloxxado through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which allows the agency to refer to previous findings of safety and efficacy for an already-approved product, as well as to review findings from further studies of the product.

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

Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.

LPETTET/Getty Images

At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.

Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
 

The many forms of medical cannabis

Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.

The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.

Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.

Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.

Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
 

Promising treatment for pain

Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.

“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”

In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.

The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance. Data indicate that patients with chronic pain who undergo treatment with medical cannabis can reduce their intake of opioids by more than 60%.

Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.

“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.

Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.

“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.

In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.

“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
 

A mixed bag for neurologic indications

There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”

These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.

Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.

Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”

Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).

NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.

Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
 

Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders

Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.

The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”

Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.

Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.

The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.

Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.

Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.

“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”

Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.

“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.

She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.

When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
 

The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine

That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.

“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.

Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.

Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.

Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.

“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.

In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.

Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.

“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”

Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.

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

Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.

LPETTET/Getty Images

At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.

Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
 

The many forms of medical cannabis

Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.

The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.

Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.

Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.

Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
 

Promising treatment for pain

Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.

“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”

In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.

The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance. Data indicate that patients with chronic pain who undergo treatment with medical cannabis can reduce their intake of opioids by more than 60%.

Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.

“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.

Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.

“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.

In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.

“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
 

A mixed bag for neurologic indications

There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”

These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.

Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.

Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”

Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).

NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.

Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
 

Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders

Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.

The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”

Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.

Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.

The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.

Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.

Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.

“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”

Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.

“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.

She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.

When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
 

The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine

That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.

“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.

Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.

Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.

Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.

“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.

In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.

Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.

“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”

Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.

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

Although the healing properties of cannabis have been touted for millennia, research into its potential neuropsychiatric applications truly began to take off in the 1990s following the discovery of the cannabinoid system in the brain. This led to speculation that cannabis could play a therapeutic role in regulating dopamine, serotonin, and other neurotransmitters and offer a new means of treating various ailments.

LPETTET/Getty Images

At the same time, efforts to liberalize marijuana laws have successfully played out in several nations, including the United States, where, as of April 29, 36 states provide some access to cannabis. These dual tracks – medical and political – have made cannabis an increasingly accepted part of the cultural fabric.

Yet with this development has come a new quandary for clinicians. Medical cannabis has been made widely available to patients and has largely outpaced the clinical evidence, leaving it unclear how and for which indications it should be used.
 

The many forms of medical cannabis

Cannabis is a genus of plants that includes marijuana (Cannabis sativa) and hemp. These plants contain over 100 compounds, including terpenes, flavonoids, and – most importantly for medicinal applications – cannabinoids.

The most abundant cannabinoid in marijuana is the psychotropic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which imparts the “high” sensation. The next most abundant cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is the nonpsychotropic. THC and CBD are the most extensively studied cannabinoids, together and in isolation. Evidence suggests that other cannabinoids and terpenoids may also hold medical promise and that cannabis’ various compounds can work synergistically to produce a so-called entourage effect.

Patients walking into a typical medical cannabis dispensary will be faced with several plant-derived and synthetic options, which can differ considerably in terms of the ratios and amounts of THC and CBD they contain, as well in how they are consumed (i.e., via smoke, vapor, ingestion, topical administration, or oromucosal spray), all of which can alter their effects. Further complicating matters is the varying level of oversight each state and country has in how and whether they test for and accurately label products’ potency, cannabinoid content, and possible impurities.

Medically authorized, prescription cannabis products go through an official regulatory review process, and indications/contraindications have been established for them. To date, the Food and Drug Administration has approved one cannabis-derived drug product – Epidiolex (purified CBD) – for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in patients aged 2 years and older. The FDA has also approved three synthetic cannabis-related drug products – Marinol, Syndros (or dronabinol, created from synthetic THC), and Cesamet (or nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid similar to THC) – all of which are indicated for treatment-related nausea and anorexia associated with weight loss in AIDS patients.

Surveys of medical cannabis consumers indicate that most people cannot distinguish between THC and CBD, so the first role that physicians find themselves in when recommending this treatment may be in helping patients navigate the volume of options.
 

Promising treatment for pain

Chronic pain is the leading reason patients seek out medical cannabis. It is also the indication that most researchers agree has the strongest evidence to support its use.

“In my mind, the most promising immediate use for medical cannabis is with THC for pain,” Diana M. Martinez, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, who specializes in addiction research, said in a recent MDedge podcast. “THC could be added to the armamentarium of pain medications that we use today.”

In a 2015 systematic literature review, researchers assessed 28 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of cannabinoids for chronic pain. They reported that a variety of formulations resulted in at least a 30% reduction in the odds of pain, compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of five RCTs involving patients with neuropathic pain found a 30% reduction in pain over placebo with inhaled, vaporized cannabis. Varying results have been reported in additional studies for this indication. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that there was a substantial body of evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.

The ongoing opioid epidemic has lent these results additional relevance. Data indicate that patients with chronic pain who undergo treatment with medical cannabis can reduce their intake of opioids by more than 60%.

Seeing this firsthand has caused Mark Steven Wallace, MD, a pain management specialist and chair of the division of pain medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, to reconsider offering cannabis to his patients.

“I think it’s probably more efficacious, just from my personal experience, and it’s a much lower risk of abuse and dependence than the opioids,” he said.

Dr. Wallace advised that clinicians who treat pain consider the ratios of cannabinoids.

“This is anecdotal, but we do find that with the combination of the two, CBD reduces the psychoactive effects of the THC. The ratios we use during the daytime range around 20 mg of CBD to 1 mg of THC,” he said.

In a recent secondary analysis of an RCT involving patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Dr. Wallace and colleagues showed that THC’s effects appear to reverse themselves at a certain level.

“As the THC level goes up, the pain reduces until you reach about 16 ng/mL; then it starts going in the opposite direction, and pain will start to increase,” he said. “Even recreational cannabis users have reported that they avoid high doses because it’s very aversive. Using cannabis is all about, start low and go slow.”
 

A mixed bag for neurologic indications

There are relatively limited data on the use of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, and results have varied. For uses other than pain management, the evidence that does exist is strongest regarding epilepsy, said Daniel Freedman, DO, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted “multiple high-quality RCTs showing that pharmaceutical-grade CBD can reduce seizures associated with two particular epilepsy syndromes: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox Gastaut.”

These findings led to the FDA’s 2018 approval of Epidiolex for these syndromes. In earlier years, interest in CBD for pediatric seizures was largely driven by anecdotal parental reports of its benefits. NASEM’s 2017 overview on medical cannabis found evidence from subsequent RCTs in this indication to be insufficient. Clinicians who prescribe CBD for this indication must be vigilant because it can interact with several commonly used antiepileptic drugs.

Cannabinoid treatments have also shown success in alleviating muscle spasticity resulting from multiple sclerosis, most prominently in the form of nabiximols (Sativex), a standardized oralmucosal spray containing approximately equal quantities of THC and CBD. Nabiximols is approved in Europe but not in the United States. Moderate evidence supports the efficacy of these and other treatments over placebo in reducing muscle spasticity. Patient ratings of its effects tend to be higher than clinician assessment.

Parkinson’s disease has not yet been approved as an indication for treatment with cannabis or cannabinoids, yet a growing body of preclinical data suggests these could influence the dopaminergic system, said Carsten Buhmann, MD, from the department of neurology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“In general, cannabinoids modulate basal-ganglia function on two levels which are especially relevant in Parkinson’s disease, i.e., the glutamatergic/dopaminergic synaptic neurotransmission and the corticostriatal plasticity,” he said. “Furthermore, activation of the endocannabinoid system might induce neuroprotective effects related to direct receptor-independent mechanisms, activation of anti-inflammatory cascades in glial cells via the cannabinoid receptor type 2, and antiglutamatergic antiexcitotoxic properties.”

Dr. Buhmann said that currently, clinical evidence is scarce, consisting of only four double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs involving 49 patients. Various cannabinoids and methods of administering treatment were employed. Improvement was only observed in one of these RCTs, which found that the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone significantly reduced levodopa-induced dyskinesia for patients with Parkinson’s disease. Subjective data support a beneficial effect. In a nationwide survey of 1,348 respondents conducted by Dr. Buhmann and colleagues, the majority of medical cannabis users reported that it improved their symptoms (54% with oral CBD and 68% with inhaled THC-containing cannabis).

NASEM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of medical cannabis for other neurologic conditions, including Tourette syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, dystonia, or dementia. A 2020 position statement from the American Academy of Neurology cited the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research as the reason it could not currently support the use of cannabis for neurologic disorders.

Yet, according to Dr. Freedman, who served as a coauthor of the AAN position statement, this hasn’t stymied research interest in the topic. He’s seen a substantial uptick in studies of CBD over the past 2 years. “The body of evidence grows, but I still see many claims being made without evidence. And no one seems to care about all the negative trials.”
 

Cannabis as a treatment for, and cause of, psychiatric disorders

Mental health problems – such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD – are among the most common reasons patients seek out medical cannabis. There is an understandable interest in using cannabis and cannabinoids to treat psychiatric disorders. Preclinical studies suggest that the endocannabinoid system plays a prominent role in modulating feelings of anxiety, mood, and fear. As with opioids and chronic pain management, there is hope that medical cannabis may provide a means of reducing prescription anxiolytics and their associated risks.

The authors of the first systematic review (BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jan 16;20[1]:24) of the use of medical cannabis for major psychiatric disorders noted that the current evidence was “encouraging, albeit embryonic.”

Meta-analyses have indicated a small but positive association between cannabis use and anxiety, although this may reflect the fact that patients with anxiety sought out this treatment. Given the risks for substance use disorders among patients with anxiety, CBD may present a more viable option. Positive results have been shown as treatment for generalized social anxiety disorder.

Limited but encouraging results have also been reported regarding the alleviation of PTSD symptoms with both cannabis and CBD, although the body of high-quality evidence hasn’t notably progressed since 2017, when NASEM declared that the evidence was insufficient. Supportive evidence is similarly lacking regarding the treatment of depression. Longitudinal studies suggest that cannabis use, particularly heavy use, may increase the risk of developing this disorder. Because THC is psychoactive, it is advised that it be avoided by patients at risk for psychotic disorders. However, CBD has yielded limited benefits for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and for young people at risk for psychosis.

The use of medical cannabis for psychiatric conditions requires a complex balancing act, inasmuch as these treatments may exacerbate the very problems they are intended to alleviate.

Marta Di Forti, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatric research at Kings College London, has been at the forefront of determining the mental health risks of continued cannabis use. In 2019, Dr. Di Forti developed the first and only Cannabis Clinic for Patients With Psychosis in London where she and her colleagues have continued to elucidate this connection.

Dr. Di Forti and colleagues have linked daily cannabis use to an increase in the risk of experiencing psychotic disorder, compared with never using it. That risk was further increased among users of high-potency cannabis (≥10% THC). The latter finding has troubling implications, because concentrations of THC have steadily risen since 1970. By contrast, CBD concentrations have remained generally stable. High-potency cannabis products are common in both recreational and medicinal settings.

“For somebody prescribing medicinal cannabis that has a ≥10% concentration of THC, I’d be particularly wary of the risk of psychosis,” said Dr. Di Forti. “If you’re expecting people to use a high content of THC daily to medicate pain or a chronic condition, you even more so need to be aware that this is a potential side effect.”

Dr. Di Forti noted that her findings come from a cohort of recreational users, most of whom were aged 18-35 years.

“There have actually not been studies developed from collecting data in this area from groups specifically using cannabis for medicinal rather than recreational purposes,” she said.

She added that she personally has no concerns about the use of medical cannabis but wants clinicians to be aware of the risk for psychosis, to structure their patient conversations to identify risk factors or family histories of psychosis, and to become knowledgeable in detecting the often subtle signs of its initial onset.

When cannabis-associated psychosis occurs, Dr. Di Forti said it is primarily treated with conventional means, such as antipsychotics and therapeutic interventions and by refraining from using cannabis. Achieving the latter goal can be a challenge for patients who are daily users of high-potency cannabis. Currently, there are no treatment options such as those offered to patients withdrawing from the use of alcohol or opioids. Dr. Di Forti and colleagues are currently researching a solution to that problem through the use of another medical cannabis, the oromucosal spray Sativex, which has been approved in the European Union.
 

The regulatory obstacles to clarifying cannabis’ role in medicine

That currently there is limited or no evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions points to the inherent difficulties in conducting high-level research in this area.

“There’s a tremendous shortage of reliable data, largely due to regulatory barriers,” said Dr. Martinez.

Since 1970, cannabis has been listed as a Schedule I drug that is illegal to prescribe (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 removed hemp from such restrictions). The FDA has issued guidance for researchers who wish to investigate treatments using Cannabis sativa or its derivatives in which the THC content is greater than 0.3%. Such research requires regular interactions with several federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“It’s impossible to do multicenter RCTs with large numbers of patients, because you can’t transport cannabis across state lines,” said Dr. Wallace.

Regulatory restrictions regarding medical cannabis vary considerably throughout the world (the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction provides a useful breakdown of this on their website). The lack of consistency in regulatory oversight acts as an impediment for conducting large-scale international multicenter studies on the topic.

Dr. Buhmann noted that, in Germany, cannabis has been broadly approved for treatment-resistant conditions with severe symptoms that impair quality of life. In addition, it is easy to be reimbursed for the use of cannabis as a medical treatment. These factors serve as disincentives for the funding of high-quality studies.

“It’s likely that no pharmaceutical company will do an expensive RCT to get an approval for Parkinson’s disease because it is already possible to prescribe medical cannabis of any type of THC-containing cannabinoid, dose, or route of application,” Dr. Buhmann said.

In the face of such restrictions and barriers, researchers are turning to ambitious real-world data projects to better understand medical cannabis’ efficacy and safety. A notable example is ProjectTwenty21, which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project is collecting outcomes of the use of medical cannabis among 20,000 U.K. patients whose conventional treatments of chronic pain, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, substance use disorder, and Tourette syndrome failed.

Dr. Freedman noted that the continued lack of high-quality data creates a void that commercial interests fill with unfounded claims.

“The danger is that patients might abandon a medication or intervention backed by robust science in favor of something without any science or evidence behind it,” he said. “There is no reason not to expect the same level of data for claims about cannabis products as we would expect from pharmaceutical products.”

Getting to that point, however, will require that the authorities governing clinical trials begin to view cannabis as the research community does, as a possible treatment with potential value, rather than as an illicit drug that needs to be tamped down.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

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

Some, perhaps many, previously unrecognized cases of atrial fibrillation (AF) will come to light in a screening program aimed at older asymptomatic adults. The key question is whether the challenges of such systematic but age-restricted AF screening in the community, with oral anticoagulation (OAC) offered to those found to have the arrhythmia, is worthwhile in preventing events such as death or stroke.
 

Now there is evidence supporting such a clinical benefit from a large, prospective, randomized trial. A screening program restricted to people 75 or 76 years of age in two Swedish communities, which called on them to use a handheld single-lead ECG system at home intermittently for 2 weeks, was followed by a slight drop in clinical events over about 7 years.

The 4% decline in risk (P = .045) in the STROKESTOP trial’s “intention-to-treat” (ITT) analysis yielded a number needed to treat of 91; that is, that many people had to be targeted by the screening program to prevent one primary-endpoint clinical event.

Those included ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism, hospitalization for severe bleeding, and death from any cause, investigators reported April 23 during the virtual European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) 2021 Congress.

If that benefit and its significance seem marginal, some secondary findings might be reassuring. Half the population of the target age in the two communities – 13,979 randomly selected people – were invited to join the trial and follow the screening protocol, comprising the ITT cohort. The other half, numbering 13,996, was not invited and served as control subjects.

However, only 51% of the ITT cohort accepted the invitation and participated in the trial; they represented the “as-treated” cohort, observed Emma Svennberg, MD, PhD, Karolinska Institute, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, who presented the analysis at the EHRA sessions.

The screening protocol identified untreated AF, whether previously known or unknown, in about 5% of the 7,165 as-treated screening participants; OAC was initiated in about three-fourths of those cases.

The as-treated group, on their own, benefited with a 24% drop in the prospectively defined secondary endpoint of ischemic stroke, compared with the entire control group.

The clinical benefit in the ITT population was “small but significant,” but over the same period in the as-treated cohort, there was a highly significant drop in risk for ischemic stroke, Dr. Svennberg said in an interview.

The trial’s lead message, she said, is that “screening for atrial fibrillation in an elderly population reduces the risk of death and ischemic stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding.”
 

Caveats: As-treated vs. ITT

But there are caveats that complicate interpretation of the trial and, Dr. Svennberg proposed, point to the importance of that interpretation of both the ITT and as-treated analyses.

“We detected significantly more atrial fibrillation in the group that was randomized to screening. A major strength of our study was that we referred all of those individuals for a structured follow-up within the study,” she said. “Although the focus of the follow-up was oral anticoagulant therapy, other risk factors were also assessed and managed, such as hypertension and diabetes.”

It’s possible that increased detection of AF followed by such structured management contributed to the observed benefit, Dr. Svennberg proposed.

However, the exclusion of those in the prespecified ITT population who declined to be screened or otherwise didn’t participate left an as-treated cohort that was healthier than the ITT population or the control group.

Indeed, the nonparticipating invitees were sicker, with significantly more diabetes, vascular disease, hypertension, and heart failure, and higher CHA2DS2VASc stroke risk scores than those who agreed to participate.

“We took a more difficult route in setting up this study, in that we identified all individuals aged 75 to 76 residing in our two regions and excluded no one,” Dr. Svennberg said in an interview. “That means even individuals with end-stage disease, severe dementia, bedridden in nursing homes, et cetera, were also randomized but perhaps not likely or eligible to participate.”

Therefore, some invitees were unable to join the study even as others might have declined “out of low interest” or other personal reasons, she said. “We believe that this mimics how a population-based screening program would be performed if done in our country.”

In the ITT analysis, screening successfully identified previously unknown or untreated cases of AF, which led to expanded OAC use and intensified risk-factor management, “which was key to a successful outcome.”

In the as-treated analysis, Dr. Svennberg said, “I think a combination of the intervention and the population being overall more healthy was driving the secondary endpoint.”
 

Systematic vs. opportunistic screening

Although “opportunistic screening in individuals aged 65 and older” is recommended by current European Society of Cardiology guidelines, systematic screening, such as that used in STROKESTOP, has a much weaker evidence base, observed Renate B. Schnabel, MD, PhD, University Heart & Vascular Center, Hamburg, Germany, as the invited discussant after the STROKESTOP presentation.

STROKESTOP “is one of the first studies, if not the first study,” to show a clinical benefit from screening for AF, Dr. Schnabel said.

Fewer-than-projected primary outcome events were seen during the trial, and event curves for screened and control participants didn’t start to separate until about 4 years into the study, she said. It therefore might take a long time for the screened elderly to realize the clinical benefits of screening.

Studies such as the recent SCREEN-AF and mSTOPS have amply shown that AF screening in the asymptomatic elderly can reveal previously unrecognized AF far more often than would be detected in routine practice, allowing them the opportunity to go on OAC. But the trials weren’t able to show whether the benefits of such management outweigh the risks or costs.

Indeed, on April 20, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released a draft recommendation statement concluding that “the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms” associated with AF screening in asymptomatic people at least 50 years of age.

In STROKESTOP, however, benefit for the primary outcome reached significance in the prespecified ITT analysis and “appeared to be driven by the reduction in ischemic stroke incidence,” Dr. Schnabel said.

“The future guidelines have gained strong evidence to judge on systematic atrial fibrillation screening” as it was performed in the trial, she said. “How to implement atrial fibrillation screening, including systematic screening in health care systems across Europe and beyond, remains an open question.”
 

A randomized population

STROKESTOP considered all 75- and 76-year-olds living in Sweden’s Stockholm County (n = 23,888) and the Halland region (n = 4,880) and randomly assigned them to the ITT group or a control group, with stratification by sex, birth year, and geographic region. In both groups, 54.6% were female and the mean CHA2DS2VASc score was 3.5.

People assigned to the ITT cohort were invited to be screened and followed. Those who agreed to participate underwent a baseline ECG assessment to detect or rule out permanent AF. Guideline-based OAC and follow-up was offered to those found with the arrhythmia. Those in sinus rhythm with no history of AF used a handheld single-lead ECG recorder (Zenicor) for 30 seconds twice daily for 14 days.

Structured management, including OAC, was offered to anyone demonstrating sufficient AF, that is, at least one bout without p waves in one 30-second recording or at least two such episodes lasting 10-29 seconds during the 2-week screening period.

In the ITT analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) for the composite clinical primary endpoint was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.920-0.999; P = .045), but in the as-treated analysis, the HR for ischemic stroke was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87; P < .001).

“I believe that this will likely be generalizable to most countries’ elderly residents,” Dr. Svennberg said. “I think if we can find a significant difference in our elderly population in Sweden, most countries will be able to do so, or find even more significant results.”

That’s because “baseline detection of AF in Sweden is high,” she said, “so new detection is likely more difficult.” Also, in Sweden, “care can be sought without monetary concern, and prescriptions are provided at low costs to the patients.” Therefore, patients newly identified with AF, whether in studies or not, “would likely be started on therapy.”

It will be important to know whether the screening strategy is cost-effective, Dr. Schnabel said, because “the overall effect, with a hazard ratio of 0.96, is not too big, and costs incurred by systematic screening are comparatively high.”

STROKESTOP “now provides sound information for cost-effectiveness analyses, which to date have largely relied on assumptions.”

STROKESTOP was partially supported by Carl Bennet AB, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Pfizer. Dr. Svennberg disclosed receiving fees for lectures or consulting from Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi; and institutional grants from Roche Diagnostics and Carl Bennett Ltd.

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

Some, perhaps many, previously unrecognized cases of atrial fibrillation (AF) will come to light in a screening program aimed at older asymptomatic adults. The key question is whether the challenges of such systematic but age-restricted AF screening in the community, with oral anticoagulation (OAC) offered to those found to have the arrhythmia, is worthwhile in preventing events such as death or stroke.
 

Now there is evidence supporting such a clinical benefit from a large, prospective, randomized trial. A screening program restricted to people 75 or 76 years of age in two Swedish communities, which called on them to use a handheld single-lead ECG system at home intermittently for 2 weeks, was followed by a slight drop in clinical events over about 7 years.

The 4% decline in risk (P = .045) in the STROKESTOP trial’s “intention-to-treat” (ITT) analysis yielded a number needed to treat of 91; that is, that many people had to be targeted by the screening program to prevent one primary-endpoint clinical event.

Those included ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism, hospitalization for severe bleeding, and death from any cause, investigators reported April 23 during the virtual European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) 2021 Congress.

If that benefit and its significance seem marginal, some secondary findings might be reassuring. Half the population of the target age in the two communities – 13,979 randomly selected people – were invited to join the trial and follow the screening protocol, comprising the ITT cohort. The other half, numbering 13,996, was not invited and served as control subjects.

However, only 51% of the ITT cohort accepted the invitation and participated in the trial; they represented the “as-treated” cohort, observed Emma Svennberg, MD, PhD, Karolinska Institute, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, who presented the analysis at the EHRA sessions.

The screening protocol identified untreated AF, whether previously known or unknown, in about 5% of the 7,165 as-treated screening participants; OAC was initiated in about three-fourths of those cases.

The as-treated group, on their own, benefited with a 24% drop in the prospectively defined secondary endpoint of ischemic stroke, compared with the entire control group.

The clinical benefit in the ITT population was “small but significant,” but over the same period in the as-treated cohort, there was a highly significant drop in risk for ischemic stroke, Dr. Svennberg said in an interview.

The trial’s lead message, she said, is that “screening for atrial fibrillation in an elderly population reduces the risk of death and ischemic stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding.”
 

Caveats: As-treated vs. ITT

But there are caveats that complicate interpretation of the trial and, Dr. Svennberg proposed, point to the importance of that interpretation of both the ITT and as-treated analyses.

“We detected significantly more atrial fibrillation in the group that was randomized to screening. A major strength of our study was that we referred all of those individuals for a structured follow-up within the study,” she said. “Although the focus of the follow-up was oral anticoagulant therapy, other risk factors were also assessed and managed, such as hypertension and diabetes.”

It’s possible that increased detection of AF followed by such structured management contributed to the observed benefit, Dr. Svennberg proposed.

However, the exclusion of those in the prespecified ITT population who declined to be screened or otherwise didn’t participate left an as-treated cohort that was healthier than the ITT population or the control group.

Indeed, the nonparticipating invitees were sicker, with significantly more diabetes, vascular disease, hypertension, and heart failure, and higher CHA2DS2VASc stroke risk scores than those who agreed to participate.

“We took a more difficult route in setting up this study, in that we identified all individuals aged 75 to 76 residing in our two regions and excluded no one,” Dr. Svennberg said in an interview. “That means even individuals with end-stage disease, severe dementia, bedridden in nursing homes, et cetera, were also randomized but perhaps not likely or eligible to participate.”

Therefore, some invitees were unable to join the study even as others might have declined “out of low interest” or other personal reasons, she said. “We believe that this mimics how a population-based screening program would be performed if done in our country.”

In the ITT analysis, screening successfully identified previously unknown or untreated cases of AF, which led to expanded OAC use and intensified risk-factor management, “which was key to a successful outcome.”

In the as-treated analysis, Dr. Svennberg said, “I think a combination of the intervention and the population being overall more healthy was driving the secondary endpoint.”
 

Systematic vs. opportunistic screening

Although “opportunistic screening in individuals aged 65 and older” is recommended by current European Society of Cardiology guidelines, systematic screening, such as that used in STROKESTOP, has a much weaker evidence base, observed Renate B. Schnabel, MD, PhD, University Heart & Vascular Center, Hamburg, Germany, as the invited discussant after the STROKESTOP presentation.

STROKESTOP “is one of the first studies, if not the first study,” to show a clinical benefit from screening for AF, Dr. Schnabel said.

Fewer-than-projected primary outcome events were seen during the trial, and event curves for screened and control participants didn’t start to separate until about 4 years into the study, she said. It therefore might take a long time for the screened elderly to realize the clinical benefits of screening.

Studies such as the recent SCREEN-AF and mSTOPS have amply shown that AF screening in the asymptomatic elderly can reveal previously unrecognized AF far more often than would be detected in routine practice, allowing them the opportunity to go on OAC. But the trials weren’t able to show whether the benefits of such management outweigh the risks or costs.

Indeed, on April 20, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released a draft recommendation statement concluding that “the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms” associated with AF screening in asymptomatic people at least 50 years of age.

In STROKESTOP, however, benefit for the primary outcome reached significance in the prespecified ITT analysis and “appeared to be driven by the reduction in ischemic stroke incidence,” Dr. Schnabel said.

“The future guidelines have gained strong evidence to judge on systematic atrial fibrillation screening” as it was performed in the trial, she said. “How to implement atrial fibrillation screening, including systematic screening in health care systems across Europe and beyond, remains an open question.”
 

A randomized population

STROKESTOP considered all 75- and 76-year-olds living in Sweden’s Stockholm County (n = 23,888) and the Halland region (n = 4,880) and randomly assigned them to the ITT group or a control group, with stratification by sex, birth year, and geographic region. In both groups, 54.6% were female and the mean CHA2DS2VASc score was 3.5.

People assigned to the ITT cohort were invited to be screened and followed. Those who agreed to participate underwent a baseline ECG assessment to detect or rule out permanent AF. Guideline-based OAC and follow-up was offered to those found with the arrhythmia. Those in sinus rhythm with no history of AF used a handheld single-lead ECG recorder (Zenicor) for 30 seconds twice daily for 14 days.

Structured management, including OAC, was offered to anyone demonstrating sufficient AF, that is, at least one bout without p waves in one 30-second recording or at least two such episodes lasting 10-29 seconds during the 2-week screening period.

In the ITT analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) for the composite clinical primary endpoint was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.920-0.999; P = .045), but in the as-treated analysis, the HR for ischemic stroke was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87; P < .001).

“I believe that this will likely be generalizable to most countries’ elderly residents,” Dr. Svennberg said. “I think if we can find a significant difference in our elderly population in Sweden, most countries will be able to do so, or find even more significant results.”

That’s because “baseline detection of AF in Sweden is high,” she said, “so new detection is likely more difficult.” Also, in Sweden, “care can be sought without monetary concern, and prescriptions are provided at low costs to the patients.” Therefore, patients newly identified with AF, whether in studies or not, “would likely be started on therapy.”

It will be important to know whether the screening strategy is cost-effective, Dr. Schnabel said, because “the overall effect, with a hazard ratio of 0.96, is not too big, and costs incurred by systematic screening are comparatively high.”

STROKESTOP “now provides sound information for cost-effectiveness analyses, which to date have largely relied on assumptions.”

STROKESTOP was partially supported by Carl Bennet AB, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Pfizer. Dr. Svennberg disclosed receiving fees for lectures or consulting from Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi; and institutional grants from Roche Diagnostics and Carl Bennett Ltd.

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

Some, perhaps many, previously unrecognized cases of atrial fibrillation (AF) will come to light in a screening program aimed at older asymptomatic adults. The key question is whether the challenges of such systematic but age-restricted AF screening in the community, with oral anticoagulation (OAC) offered to those found to have the arrhythmia, is worthwhile in preventing events such as death or stroke.
 

Now there is evidence supporting such a clinical benefit from a large, prospective, randomized trial. A screening program restricted to people 75 or 76 years of age in two Swedish communities, which called on them to use a handheld single-lead ECG system at home intermittently for 2 weeks, was followed by a slight drop in clinical events over about 7 years.

The 4% decline in risk (P = .045) in the STROKESTOP trial’s “intention-to-treat” (ITT) analysis yielded a number needed to treat of 91; that is, that many people had to be targeted by the screening program to prevent one primary-endpoint clinical event.

Those included ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism, hospitalization for severe bleeding, and death from any cause, investigators reported April 23 during the virtual European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) 2021 Congress.

If that benefit and its significance seem marginal, some secondary findings might be reassuring. Half the population of the target age in the two communities – 13,979 randomly selected people – were invited to join the trial and follow the screening protocol, comprising the ITT cohort. The other half, numbering 13,996, was not invited and served as control subjects.

However, only 51% of the ITT cohort accepted the invitation and participated in the trial; they represented the “as-treated” cohort, observed Emma Svennberg, MD, PhD, Karolinska Institute, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, who presented the analysis at the EHRA sessions.

The screening protocol identified untreated AF, whether previously known or unknown, in about 5% of the 7,165 as-treated screening participants; OAC was initiated in about three-fourths of those cases.

The as-treated group, on their own, benefited with a 24% drop in the prospectively defined secondary endpoint of ischemic stroke, compared with the entire control group.

The clinical benefit in the ITT population was “small but significant,” but over the same period in the as-treated cohort, there was a highly significant drop in risk for ischemic stroke, Dr. Svennberg said in an interview.

The trial’s lead message, she said, is that “screening for atrial fibrillation in an elderly population reduces the risk of death and ischemic stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding.”
 

Caveats: As-treated vs. ITT

But there are caveats that complicate interpretation of the trial and, Dr. Svennberg proposed, point to the importance of that interpretation of both the ITT and as-treated analyses.

“We detected significantly more atrial fibrillation in the group that was randomized to screening. A major strength of our study was that we referred all of those individuals for a structured follow-up within the study,” she said. “Although the focus of the follow-up was oral anticoagulant therapy, other risk factors were also assessed and managed, such as hypertension and diabetes.”

It’s possible that increased detection of AF followed by such structured management contributed to the observed benefit, Dr. Svennberg proposed.

However, the exclusion of those in the prespecified ITT population who declined to be screened or otherwise didn’t participate left an as-treated cohort that was healthier than the ITT population or the control group.

Indeed, the nonparticipating invitees were sicker, with significantly more diabetes, vascular disease, hypertension, and heart failure, and higher CHA2DS2VASc stroke risk scores than those who agreed to participate.

“We took a more difficult route in setting up this study, in that we identified all individuals aged 75 to 76 residing in our two regions and excluded no one,” Dr. Svennberg said in an interview. “That means even individuals with end-stage disease, severe dementia, bedridden in nursing homes, et cetera, were also randomized but perhaps not likely or eligible to participate.”

Therefore, some invitees were unable to join the study even as others might have declined “out of low interest” or other personal reasons, she said. “We believe that this mimics how a population-based screening program would be performed if done in our country.”

In the ITT analysis, screening successfully identified previously unknown or untreated cases of AF, which led to expanded OAC use and intensified risk-factor management, “which was key to a successful outcome.”

In the as-treated analysis, Dr. Svennberg said, “I think a combination of the intervention and the population being overall more healthy was driving the secondary endpoint.”
 

Systematic vs. opportunistic screening

Although “opportunistic screening in individuals aged 65 and older” is recommended by current European Society of Cardiology guidelines, systematic screening, such as that used in STROKESTOP, has a much weaker evidence base, observed Renate B. Schnabel, MD, PhD, University Heart & Vascular Center, Hamburg, Germany, as the invited discussant after the STROKESTOP presentation.

STROKESTOP “is one of the first studies, if not the first study,” to show a clinical benefit from screening for AF, Dr. Schnabel said.

Fewer-than-projected primary outcome events were seen during the trial, and event curves for screened and control participants didn’t start to separate until about 4 years into the study, she said. It therefore might take a long time for the screened elderly to realize the clinical benefits of screening.

Studies such as the recent SCREEN-AF and mSTOPS have amply shown that AF screening in the asymptomatic elderly can reveal previously unrecognized AF far more often than would be detected in routine practice, allowing them the opportunity to go on OAC. But the trials weren’t able to show whether the benefits of such management outweigh the risks or costs.

Indeed, on April 20, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released a draft recommendation statement concluding that “the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms” associated with AF screening in asymptomatic people at least 50 years of age.

In STROKESTOP, however, benefit for the primary outcome reached significance in the prespecified ITT analysis and “appeared to be driven by the reduction in ischemic stroke incidence,” Dr. Schnabel said.

“The future guidelines have gained strong evidence to judge on systematic atrial fibrillation screening” as it was performed in the trial, she said. “How to implement atrial fibrillation screening, including systematic screening in health care systems across Europe and beyond, remains an open question.”
 

A randomized population

STROKESTOP considered all 75- and 76-year-olds living in Sweden’s Stockholm County (n = 23,888) and the Halland region (n = 4,880) and randomly assigned them to the ITT group or a control group, with stratification by sex, birth year, and geographic region. In both groups, 54.6% were female and the mean CHA2DS2VASc score was 3.5.

People assigned to the ITT cohort were invited to be screened and followed. Those who agreed to participate underwent a baseline ECG assessment to detect or rule out permanent AF. Guideline-based OAC and follow-up was offered to those found with the arrhythmia. Those in sinus rhythm with no history of AF used a handheld single-lead ECG recorder (Zenicor) for 30 seconds twice daily for 14 days.

Structured management, including OAC, was offered to anyone demonstrating sufficient AF, that is, at least one bout without p waves in one 30-second recording or at least two such episodes lasting 10-29 seconds during the 2-week screening period.

In the ITT analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) for the composite clinical primary endpoint was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.920-0.999; P = .045), but in the as-treated analysis, the HR for ischemic stroke was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87; P < .001).

“I believe that this will likely be generalizable to most countries’ elderly residents,” Dr. Svennberg said. “I think if we can find a significant difference in our elderly population in Sweden, most countries will be able to do so, or find even more significant results.”

That’s because “baseline detection of AF in Sweden is high,” she said, “so new detection is likely more difficult.” Also, in Sweden, “care can be sought without monetary concern, and prescriptions are provided at low costs to the patients.” Therefore, patients newly identified with AF, whether in studies or not, “would likely be started on therapy.”

It will be important to know whether the screening strategy is cost-effective, Dr. Schnabel said, because “the overall effect, with a hazard ratio of 0.96, is not too big, and costs incurred by systematic screening are comparatively high.”

STROKESTOP “now provides sound information for cost-effectiveness analyses, which to date have largely relied on assumptions.”

STROKESTOP was partially supported by Carl Bennet AB, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Pfizer. Dr. Svennberg disclosed receiving fees for lectures or consulting from Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Sanofi; and institutional grants from Roche Diagnostics and Carl Bennett Ltd.

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

Motor and cognitive aspects of Parkinson’s disease are associated with discrete neural microcircuits within the brain’s basal ganglia, according to a new study using a mouse model of disease. 

Parkinson’s disease is characterized by a range of cognitive and motor symptoms, which appear at different disease stages. While recent research has pointed to specific neuronal subpopulations, or microcircuits, operating in the basal ganglia, researchers lacked a clear understanding of how they might correspond with specific symptom domains. 

In a study published online March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, lead author Varoth Lilascharoen, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported that two different neuronal subpopulations within the external globus pallidus, an important nucleus within the basal ganglia, are associated, respectively, with movement and with reversal learning (having to adapt to a reward pattern that is the reverse of a previous pattern). This is the first time, the investigators said, that the contributions of specific microcircuits in the basal ganglia have been linked to different behaviors.

Using electrophysiology, viral tracing, and other approaches, Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues demonstrated that two microcircuits or populations of parvalbumin-expressing neurons could be manipulated to exacerbate or alleviate the motor or cognitive deficits in the dopamine-depleted mice. 

One of these microcircuits, made up of substantia nigra pars reticulata-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated in ways that promoted or inhibited the mice’s movement. The other, which comprises parafascicular thalamus-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated to affect reversal learning, the researchers found. Activation or inhibition of either circuit was not seen affecting function in the other. 

The results shed light on the functional organization of the different basal ganglia nuclei at the circuit level, and suggest, the authors argued, that differences in how different neuronal subpopulations adapt to dopamine loss could explain some of the patterns of progression seen in Parkinson’s disease.

The findings “establish the differential contributions from two distinct GPe-PV microcircuits in specific Parkinsonian-like behaviors linked to early and late stages of the disease,” Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “[F]urther elucidation of the detailed connectivity of GPe subpopulations to their downstream targets … is needed to fully define the function of each microcircuit and design better therapeutic strategies for the various behavioral impairments of Parkinson’s disease.” 

Commenting on the research, Stefan Lang, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta said, “While Parkinson’s disease is often referred to as a movement disorder, it is well known that nonmotor symptoms, including cognitive and behavioral impairment, are common and debilitating. Impairment of basal ganglia function is known to contribute to these different symptom domains, though the specific circuits have never been elucidated. [Dr.] Lilascharoen et al. tease apart specific basal ganglia circuits associated with motor and behavioral symptoms, thereby providing evidence that distinct microcircuits might contribute to unique behaviours. As technological advances in neuromodulatory therapies continue to improve the spatial and temporal resolution of stimulation, future treatments may allow for specific targeting of behavioral impairment symptoms in Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Lilascharoen and Dr. Lang did not report outside funding or conflicts of interest.

Motor and cognitive aspects of Parkinson’s disease are associated with discrete neural microcircuits within the brain’s basal ganglia, according to a new study using a mouse model of disease. 

Parkinson’s disease is characterized by a range of cognitive and motor symptoms, which appear at different disease stages. While recent research has pointed to specific neuronal subpopulations, or microcircuits, operating in the basal ganglia, researchers lacked a clear understanding of how they might correspond with specific symptom domains. 

In a study published online March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, lead author Varoth Lilascharoen, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported that two different neuronal subpopulations within the external globus pallidus, an important nucleus within the basal ganglia, are associated, respectively, with movement and with reversal learning (having to adapt to a reward pattern that is the reverse of a previous pattern). This is the first time, the investigators said, that the contributions of specific microcircuits in the basal ganglia have been linked to different behaviors.

Using electrophysiology, viral tracing, and other approaches, Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues demonstrated that two microcircuits or populations of parvalbumin-expressing neurons could be manipulated to exacerbate or alleviate the motor or cognitive deficits in the dopamine-depleted mice. 

One of these microcircuits, made up of substantia nigra pars reticulata-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated in ways that promoted or inhibited the mice’s movement. The other, which comprises parafascicular thalamus-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated to affect reversal learning, the researchers found. Activation or inhibition of either circuit was not seen affecting function in the other. 

The results shed light on the functional organization of the different basal ganglia nuclei at the circuit level, and suggest, the authors argued, that differences in how different neuronal subpopulations adapt to dopamine loss could explain some of the patterns of progression seen in Parkinson’s disease.

The findings “establish the differential contributions from two distinct GPe-PV microcircuits in specific Parkinsonian-like behaviors linked to early and late stages of the disease,” Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “[F]urther elucidation of the detailed connectivity of GPe subpopulations to their downstream targets … is needed to fully define the function of each microcircuit and design better therapeutic strategies for the various behavioral impairments of Parkinson’s disease.” 

Commenting on the research, Stefan Lang, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta said, “While Parkinson’s disease is often referred to as a movement disorder, it is well known that nonmotor symptoms, including cognitive and behavioral impairment, are common and debilitating. Impairment of basal ganglia function is known to contribute to these different symptom domains, though the specific circuits have never been elucidated. [Dr.] Lilascharoen et al. tease apart specific basal ganglia circuits associated with motor and behavioral symptoms, thereby providing evidence that distinct microcircuits might contribute to unique behaviours. As technological advances in neuromodulatory therapies continue to improve the spatial and temporal resolution of stimulation, future treatments may allow for specific targeting of behavioral impairment symptoms in Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Lilascharoen and Dr. Lang did not report outside funding or conflicts of interest.

Motor and cognitive aspects of Parkinson’s disease are associated with discrete neural microcircuits within the brain’s basal ganglia, according to a new study using a mouse model of disease. 

Parkinson’s disease is characterized by a range of cognitive and motor symptoms, which appear at different disease stages. While recent research has pointed to specific neuronal subpopulations, or microcircuits, operating in the basal ganglia, researchers lacked a clear understanding of how they might correspond with specific symptom domains. 

In a study published online March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, lead author Varoth Lilascharoen, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported that two different neuronal subpopulations within the external globus pallidus, an important nucleus within the basal ganglia, are associated, respectively, with movement and with reversal learning (having to adapt to a reward pattern that is the reverse of a previous pattern). This is the first time, the investigators said, that the contributions of specific microcircuits in the basal ganglia have been linked to different behaviors.

Using electrophysiology, viral tracing, and other approaches, Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues demonstrated that two microcircuits or populations of parvalbumin-expressing neurons could be manipulated to exacerbate or alleviate the motor or cognitive deficits in the dopamine-depleted mice. 

One of these microcircuits, made up of substantia nigra pars reticulata-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated in ways that promoted or inhibited the mice’s movement. The other, which comprises parafascicular thalamus-projecting GPe-PV neurons, could be manipulated to affect reversal learning, the researchers found. Activation or inhibition of either circuit was not seen affecting function in the other. 

The results shed light on the functional organization of the different basal ganglia nuclei at the circuit level, and suggest, the authors argued, that differences in how different neuronal subpopulations adapt to dopamine loss could explain some of the patterns of progression seen in Parkinson’s disease.

The findings “establish the differential contributions from two distinct GPe-PV microcircuits in specific Parkinsonian-like behaviors linked to early and late stages of the disease,” Dr. Lilascharoen and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “[F]urther elucidation of the detailed connectivity of GPe subpopulations to their downstream targets … is needed to fully define the function of each microcircuit and design better therapeutic strategies for the various behavioral impairments of Parkinson’s disease.” 

Commenting on the research, Stefan Lang, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary in Alberta said, “While Parkinson’s disease is often referred to as a movement disorder, it is well known that nonmotor symptoms, including cognitive and behavioral impairment, are common and debilitating. Impairment of basal ganglia function is known to contribute to these different symptom domains, though the specific circuits have never been elucidated. [Dr.] Lilascharoen et al. tease apart specific basal ganglia circuits associated with motor and behavioral symptoms, thereby providing evidence that distinct microcircuits might contribute to unique behaviours. As technological advances in neuromodulatory therapies continue to improve the spatial and temporal resolution of stimulation, future treatments may allow for specific targeting of behavioral impairment symptoms in Parkinson’s disease.”

Dr. Lilascharoen and Dr. Lang did not report outside funding or conflicts of interest.

Plasma levels of neurofilament light (NfL) are a better predictor of cognitive decline and changes in neuroimaging in comparison with total tau (T-tau), new research suggests. In certain contexts, T-tau improves cross-sectional analyses of these outcomes, but adding T-tau measurements to NfL measurements does not improve the predictive power of NfL, results of a longitudinal analysis show.

“The major distinction, for cognition at least, was that NfL cross-sectionally was associated with most cognitive outcomes, and longitudinally, higher NfL at baseline was associated with cognitive decline in every domain,” said study investigator Jordan Marks, an MD/PhD student at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

New tool for dementia diagnosis?

In recent years, researchers have studied NfL and T-tau as potential blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration. In cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, NfL and T-tau have been associated with worse cognition and with neuroimaging measures of cortical thickness, cortical atrophy, white-matter hyperintensity, and white-matter integrity. However, no previous research has directly compared the prognostic ability of these two biomarkers.

The study included 995 participants without dementia in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. All participants underwent measurement of NfL and T-tau and assessment of cognitive status, as well as neuroimaging. The investigators measured NfL and T-tau on the Simoa HD-1 platform. They reexamined patients approximately every 15 months. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years.

To examine associations between baseline plasma NfL or T-tau and cognitive or neuroimaging outcomes, the researchers conducted data analyses using linear mixed effects models and adjusted the data for age, sex, and education. They replicated these analyses using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). For these analyses, they selected 387 participants without dementia who had been followed for a median of 3.0 years.

In all analyses, baseline plasma NfL was more strongly associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes than T-tau. “Baseline plasma NfL was associated with cognitive decline in all domains measured, while T-tau was not associated with cognitive decline,” said Mr. Marks.

Plasma NfL was more strongly associated with decreases in cortical thickness over time than T-tau was. NfL was also more strongly associated with declining hippocampal volume and white-matter changes.

However, in cross-sectional analysis, the combination of elevated NfL levels and elevated T-tau levels at baseline was more strongly associated with decreased global cognition and memory, compared with elevated NfL levels alone. The combination also was more strongly associated with neuroimaging measures, such as temporal cortex thickness and increased number of infarcts. However, in longitudinal analyses, T-tau did not add to the predictive value of NfL.

The analyses using ADNI data yielded similar results. Overall, the results suggest that NfL is a better prognostic marker of neurodegeneration in general, said Mr. Marks.

These findings, he said, may have implications for screening and diagnosis. “I’m definitely hopeful that NfL will be useful in a clinical setting to screen for those at risk of dementia and will be helpful, along with other modalities, like cognitive testing, for dementia diagnosis,” said Mr. Marks.

Future research should examine how changes in these biomarkers are associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes over time.

“We used plasma levels at one point in time in this study, but we need a better sense of how to interpret, for example, what a rise in plasma NfL over a certain time period means for someone’s risk of developing neurodegenerative disease,” Mr. Marks added.
 

An ‘exciting’ prospect

Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Memory and Cognition Program for Geisinger Health in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., said the findings add to neurologists’ ability to screen for brain diseases. “Evidence of neurodegeneration is part of the modern diagnosis of several disorders. While brain imaging can also provide that and may be needed for other reasons, this could provide an easy, potentially inexpensive way to screen for damage to the brain, giving us an added tool,” said Dr. Finney.

The prospect of using blood plasma markers to explore disease of the brain is exciting, Dr. Finney added. “I would like to see ongoing refinement of this approach and would like to see if there’s other markers in blood that could be used to find what specifically may be causing the damage,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, and the GHR Foundation. Mr. Marks and Dr. Finney have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Plasma levels of neurofilament light (NfL) are a better predictor of cognitive decline and changes in neuroimaging in comparison with total tau (T-tau), new research suggests. In certain contexts, T-tau improves cross-sectional analyses of these outcomes, but adding T-tau measurements to NfL measurements does not improve the predictive power of NfL, results of a longitudinal analysis show.

“The major distinction, for cognition at least, was that NfL cross-sectionally was associated with most cognitive outcomes, and longitudinally, higher NfL at baseline was associated with cognitive decline in every domain,” said study investigator Jordan Marks, an MD/PhD student at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

New tool for dementia diagnosis?

In recent years, researchers have studied NfL and T-tau as potential blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration. In cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, NfL and T-tau have been associated with worse cognition and with neuroimaging measures of cortical thickness, cortical atrophy, white-matter hyperintensity, and white-matter integrity. However, no previous research has directly compared the prognostic ability of these two biomarkers.

The study included 995 participants without dementia in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. All participants underwent measurement of NfL and T-tau and assessment of cognitive status, as well as neuroimaging. The investigators measured NfL and T-tau on the Simoa HD-1 platform. They reexamined patients approximately every 15 months. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years.

To examine associations between baseline plasma NfL or T-tau and cognitive or neuroimaging outcomes, the researchers conducted data analyses using linear mixed effects models and adjusted the data for age, sex, and education. They replicated these analyses using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). For these analyses, they selected 387 participants without dementia who had been followed for a median of 3.0 years.

In all analyses, baseline plasma NfL was more strongly associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes than T-tau. “Baseline plasma NfL was associated with cognitive decline in all domains measured, while T-tau was not associated with cognitive decline,” said Mr. Marks.

Plasma NfL was more strongly associated with decreases in cortical thickness over time than T-tau was. NfL was also more strongly associated with declining hippocampal volume and white-matter changes.

However, in cross-sectional analysis, the combination of elevated NfL levels and elevated T-tau levels at baseline was more strongly associated with decreased global cognition and memory, compared with elevated NfL levels alone. The combination also was more strongly associated with neuroimaging measures, such as temporal cortex thickness and increased number of infarcts. However, in longitudinal analyses, T-tau did not add to the predictive value of NfL.

The analyses using ADNI data yielded similar results. Overall, the results suggest that NfL is a better prognostic marker of neurodegeneration in general, said Mr. Marks.

These findings, he said, may have implications for screening and diagnosis. “I’m definitely hopeful that NfL will be useful in a clinical setting to screen for those at risk of dementia and will be helpful, along with other modalities, like cognitive testing, for dementia diagnosis,” said Mr. Marks.

Future research should examine how changes in these biomarkers are associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes over time.

“We used plasma levels at one point in time in this study, but we need a better sense of how to interpret, for example, what a rise in plasma NfL over a certain time period means for someone’s risk of developing neurodegenerative disease,” Mr. Marks added.
 

An ‘exciting’ prospect

Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Memory and Cognition Program for Geisinger Health in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., said the findings add to neurologists’ ability to screen for brain diseases. “Evidence of neurodegeneration is part of the modern diagnosis of several disorders. While brain imaging can also provide that and may be needed for other reasons, this could provide an easy, potentially inexpensive way to screen for damage to the brain, giving us an added tool,” said Dr. Finney.

The prospect of using blood plasma markers to explore disease of the brain is exciting, Dr. Finney added. “I would like to see ongoing refinement of this approach and would like to see if there’s other markers in blood that could be used to find what specifically may be causing the damage,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, and the GHR Foundation. Mr. Marks and Dr. Finney have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Plasma levels of neurofilament light (NfL) are a better predictor of cognitive decline and changes in neuroimaging in comparison with total tau (T-tau), new research suggests. In certain contexts, T-tau improves cross-sectional analyses of these outcomes, but adding T-tau measurements to NfL measurements does not improve the predictive power of NfL, results of a longitudinal analysis show.

“The major distinction, for cognition at least, was that NfL cross-sectionally was associated with most cognitive outcomes, and longitudinally, higher NfL at baseline was associated with cognitive decline in every domain,” said study investigator Jordan Marks, an MD/PhD student at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

New tool for dementia diagnosis?

In recent years, researchers have studied NfL and T-tau as potential blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration. In cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, NfL and T-tau have been associated with worse cognition and with neuroimaging measures of cortical thickness, cortical atrophy, white-matter hyperintensity, and white-matter integrity. However, no previous research has directly compared the prognostic ability of these two biomarkers.

The study included 995 participants without dementia in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. All participants underwent measurement of NfL and T-tau and assessment of cognitive status, as well as neuroimaging. The investigators measured NfL and T-tau on the Simoa HD-1 platform. They reexamined patients approximately every 15 months. The median follow-up time was 6.2 years.

To examine associations between baseline plasma NfL or T-tau and cognitive or neuroimaging outcomes, the researchers conducted data analyses using linear mixed effects models and adjusted the data for age, sex, and education. They replicated these analyses using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). For these analyses, they selected 387 participants without dementia who had been followed for a median of 3.0 years.

In all analyses, baseline plasma NfL was more strongly associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes than T-tau. “Baseline plasma NfL was associated with cognitive decline in all domains measured, while T-tau was not associated with cognitive decline,” said Mr. Marks.

Plasma NfL was more strongly associated with decreases in cortical thickness over time than T-tau was. NfL was also more strongly associated with declining hippocampal volume and white-matter changes.

However, in cross-sectional analysis, the combination of elevated NfL levels and elevated T-tau levels at baseline was more strongly associated with decreased global cognition and memory, compared with elevated NfL levels alone. The combination also was more strongly associated with neuroimaging measures, such as temporal cortex thickness and increased number of infarcts. However, in longitudinal analyses, T-tau did not add to the predictive value of NfL.

The analyses using ADNI data yielded similar results. Overall, the results suggest that NfL is a better prognostic marker of neurodegeneration in general, said Mr. Marks.

These findings, he said, may have implications for screening and diagnosis. “I’m definitely hopeful that NfL will be useful in a clinical setting to screen for those at risk of dementia and will be helpful, along with other modalities, like cognitive testing, for dementia diagnosis,” said Mr. Marks.

Future research should examine how changes in these biomarkers are associated with cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes over time.

“We used plasma levels at one point in time in this study, but we need a better sense of how to interpret, for example, what a rise in plasma NfL over a certain time period means for someone’s risk of developing neurodegenerative disease,” Mr. Marks added.
 

An ‘exciting’ prospect

Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Memory and Cognition Program for Geisinger Health in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., said the findings add to neurologists’ ability to screen for brain diseases. “Evidence of neurodegeneration is part of the modern diagnosis of several disorders. While brain imaging can also provide that and may be needed for other reasons, this could provide an easy, potentially inexpensive way to screen for damage to the brain, giving us an added tool,” said Dr. Finney.

The prospect of using blood plasma markers to explore disease of the brain is exciting, Dr. Finney added. “I would like to see ongoing refinement of this approach and would like to see if there’s other markers in blood that could be used to find what specifically may be causing the damage,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, and the GHR Foundation. Mr. Marks and Dr. Finney have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The investigational drug tolebrutinib effectively reduces brain lesions in patients with highly active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.

The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.

The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

New drug class

BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.

Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.

Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.

The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.

Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.

At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.

The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.

The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
 

Good safety, tolerability

After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.

After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).

Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.

No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.

One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.

Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.

“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
 

Not an unmet need

Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.

“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.

Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.

In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.

“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.

Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The investigational drug tolebrutinib effectively reduces brain lesions in patients with highly active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.

The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.

The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

New drug class

BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.

Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.

Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.

The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.

Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.

At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.

The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.

The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
 

Good safety, tolerability

After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.

After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).

Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.

No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.

One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.

Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.

“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
 

Not an unmet need

Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.

“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.

Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.

In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.

“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.

Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The investigational drug tolebrutinib effectively reduces brain lesions in patients with highly active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. After 12 weeks of treatment, MRI revealed the drug, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was associated with a 93% reduction in new gadolinium-enhancing lesions and an 89% reduction in new and enlarging T2 lesions, compared with placebo.

The analysis supports that tolebrutinib is as effective in this group of patients with highly active relapsing remitting MS as it is in the overall patient population, study investigator said Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

“What is additionally exciting is that this effect was seen within a relatively short period of time – within 3 months. This will be important for patients and physicians to know how soon to expect a treatment to work if they have high-risk baseline features,” he added.

The findings were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

New drug class

BTK inhibitors are a new class of oral therapies, and phase 2 trials in patients with relapsing remitting MS show they are safe and effective. BTK inhibitors modulate B lymphocytes without causing depletion, thus reducing the risk for lymphopenia or immunoglobulin depletion.

Tolebrutinib is a covalent, irreversible BTK inhibitor that penetrates the central nervous system well. In a previous randomized, double-blind, phase 2b trial, it was well tolerated and was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in new or enlarging MRI lesions. Of the four doses studied, the 60-mg dose was the most effective.

Because highly active MS is associated with a more aggressive disease course, the investigators examined tolebrutinib’s efficacy and safety in patients with highly active disease who were participants in the phase 2b trial. This subgroup analysis had been predefined in the study’s statistical analysis plan.

The investigators defined highly active disease as one relapse in the year before screening and one or more gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI performed within 6 months before screening, or nine or more T2 lesions at baseline, or two or more relapses in the year before screening.

Of the 130 participants enrolled in the study, 61 (47%) met criteria for highly active disease at baseline. These patients represented 44% of the placebo group (29 of 66 participants) who later crossed over to tolebrutinib treatment.

At baseline, demographics in patients with highly active disease were similar to those of the overall study population, although it was slightly younger with slightly shorter disease duration, slightly less disability, and a greater likelihood of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at baseline versus the overall study population.

The proportion of patients with highly active disease was 36% in the 5-mg group, 59% in the 15-mg group, 48% in the 30-mg group, and 44% in the 60-mg group.

The study’s primary objective was to examine the dose-response relationship after 12 weeks of treatment with tolebrutinib.
 

Good safety, tolerability

After 12 weeks, the mean number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions in patients with highly active disease was 0.82 in the 5-mg group, 0.50 in the 15-mg group, 0.38 in the 30-mg group, and 0.08 in the 60-mg group. The corresponding measurements in the overall study population were 1.39 in the 5-mg group, 0.77 in the 15-mg group, 0.76 in the 30-mg group, and 0.13 in the 60-mg group.

After 12 weeks, numbers of new or enlarging T2 lesions among patients with highly active disease were 1.09 (5 mg), 0.89 (15 mg), 0.75 (30 mg) and 0.15 (60 mg). The corresponding measurements in the overall population were 1.90 (5 mg), 1.32 (15 mg) 1.30 (30 mg) and 0.23 (60 mg).

Tolebrutinib had excellent safety and tolerability in patients with highly active disease and in the overall population, said Dr. Traboulsee.

No adverse events were linked to the study drug. One patient with highly active disease who received 60 mg of tolebrutinib had transient elevated ALT levels greater than three times the upper limit of normal. This patient also previously had elevated ALT at baseline.

One serious adverse event occurred during the study. One patient was hospitalized for MS relapse. The patient had been assigned to the 60-mg dose of tolebrutinib. The patient recovered and remained on study treatment.

Two independent studies have indicated that BTK inhibition is an effective treatment approach for relapsing remitting MS. The main advantage of tolebrutinib is its ability to penetrate the CNS.

“Most, if not all, MS therapies mostly affect the peripheral immune system, preventing autoreactive lymphocytes crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing damage,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Therapies that enter the CNS can target abnormal immune cells, including microglia that are believed to promote disease progression. “If this is an important target, then we now have a highly CNS-penetrant drug that could potentially change the course of progression,” said Dr. Traboulsee.

Serum biomarkers and advanced imaging data collected during the phase 2 trial could help clarify the mechanisms of disease progression and the effects of tolebrutinib, he added. “Ultimately though, it is the clinical outcomes in the phase 3 programs that are essential to know where to place tolebrutinib in the future care of relapsing and progressive forms of MS.”
 

Not an unmet need

Commenting on the findings, Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the MS division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said there are several available treatments that effectively suppress clinical and radiologic evidence of acute inflammation in relapsing remitting MS.

“Any new drug that is to be added to that pharmacological armamentarium should have distinct advantages over what is currently available. Treating relapsing remitting MS is not, in my opinion, an unmet need in MS; treating progressive disease is,” he said.

Dr. Berger said that tolebrutinib appears to be better than placebo in suppressing disease activity, particularly at higher doses. “However, the study is small – only 61 patients,” noted Dr. Berger, who was not involved in the study.

In addition, disease activity was assessed after 4 weeks with placebo and at 12 weeks with tolebrutinib treatment.

“As there is a regression to the mean with respect to disease activity, the interpretation of the apparent response to tolebrutinib needs to be tempered with that in mind,” said Dr. Berger.

Evaluating how tolebrutinib compares with other BTK inhibitors will require a head-to-head trial. “I’d be more interested in whether the drug has an effect on progressive disease,” Dr. Berger concluded.

The study was supported by Sanofi Genzyme, which is developing tolebrutinib. Dr. Traboulsee has received research grant support, honoraria for consulting, and honoraria for participating in a speakers’ bureau from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 survivors are at risk from a possible second pandemic, this time of opioid addiction, given the high rate of painkillers being prescribed to these patients, health experts say.

sdominick/Getty Images

A new study in Nature found alarmingly high rates of opioid use among COVID survivors with lingering symptoms at Veterans Affairs facilities. About 10% of COVID survivors develop “long COVID,” struggling with often disabling health problems even 6 months or longer after a diagnosis.

For every 1,000 long-COVID patients, known as “long-haulers,” who were treated at a VA facility, doctors wrote nine more prescriptions for opioids than they otherwise would have, along with 22 additional prescriptions for benzodiazepines, which include Xanax and other addictive pills used to treat anxiety.

Although previous studies have found many COVID survivors experience persistent health problems, the new article is the first to show they’re using more addictive medications, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the paper’s lead author.

He’s concerned that even an apparently small increase in the inappropriate use of addictive pain pills will lead to a resurgence of the prescription opioid crisis, given the large number of COVID survivors. More than 3 million of the 31 million Americans infected with COVID develop long-term symptoms, which can include fatigue, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, and memory problems known as “brain fog.”

The new study also found many patients have significant muscle and bone pain.

The frequent use of opioids was surprising, given concerns about their potential for addiction, said Dr. Al-Aly, chief of research and education service at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“Physicians now are supposed to shy away from prescribing opioids,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who studied more than 73,000 patients in the VA system. When Dr. Al-Aly saw the number of opioids prescriptions, he said, he thought to himself: “Is this really happening all over again?”

Doctors need to act now, before “it’s too late to do something,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “We must act now and ensure that people are getting the care they need. We do not want this to balloon into a suicide crisis or another opioid epidemic.”

As more doctors became aware of their addictive potential, new opioid prescriptions fell, by more than half since 2012. But U.S. doctors still prescribe far more of the drugs – which include OxyContin, Vicodin, and codeine – than physicians in other countries, said Andrew Kolodny, MD, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.

Some patients who became addicted to prescription painkillers switched to heroin, either because it was cheaper or because they could no longer obtain opioids from their doctors. Overdose deaths surged in recent years as drug dealers began spiking heroin with a powerful synthetic opioid called fentanyl.

More than 88,000 Americans died from overdoses during the 12 months ending in August 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health experts now advise doctors to avoid prescribing opioids for long periods.

The new study “suggests to me that many clinicians still don’t get it,” Dr. Kolodny said. “Many clinicians are under the false impression that opioids are appropriate for chronic pain patients.”

Hospitalized COVID patients often receive a lot of medication to control pain and anxiety, especially in ICUs, said Greg Martin, MD, president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Patients placed on ventilators, for example, are often sedated to make them more comfortable.

Martin said he’s concerned by the study’s findings, which suggest patients are unnecessarily continuing medications after leaving the hospital.

“I worry that COVID-19 patients, especially those who are severely and critically ill, receive a lot of medications during the hospitalization, and because they have persistent symptoms, the medications are continued after hospital discharge,” Dr. Martin said.

While some COVID patients are experiencing muscle and bone pain for the first time, others say the illness has intensified their preexisting pain.

Rachael Sunshine Burnett has suffered from chronic pain in her back and feet for 20 years, ever since an accident at a warehouse where she once worked. But Ms. Burnett, who first was diagnosed with COVID in April 2020, said the pain soon became 10 times worse and spread to the area between her shoulders and spine. Although she was already taking long-acting OxyContin twice a day, her doctor prescribed an additional opioid called oxycodone, which relieves pain immediately. She was reinfected with COVID in December.

“It’s been a horrible, horrible year,” said Ms. Burnett, 43, of Coxsackie, N.Y.

Doctors should recognize that pain can be a part of long COVID, Dr. Martin said. “We need to find the proper nonnarcotic treatment for it, just like we do with other forms of chronic pain,” he said.

The CDC recommends a number of alternatives to opioids – from physical therapy to biofeedback, over-the-counter anti-inflammatories, antidepressants, and antiseizure drugs that also relieve nerve pain.

The country also needs an overall strategy to cope with the wave of post-COVID complications, Dr. Al-Aly said.

“It’s better to be prepared than to be caught off guard years from now, when doctors realize: ‘Oh, we have a resurgence in opioids,’ ” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Dr. Al-Aly noted that his study may not capture the full complexity of post-COVID patient needs. Although women make up the majority of long-COVID patients in most studies, most patients in the VA system are men.

The study of VA patients makes it “abundantly clear that we are not prepared to meet the needs of 3 million Americans with long COVID,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “We desperately need an intervention that will effectively treat these individuals.”

Dr. Al-Aly said COVID survivors may need care for years.

“That’s going to be a huge, significant burden on the health care system,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Long COVID will reverberate in the health system for years or even decades to come.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

COVID-19 survivors are at risk from a possible second pandemic, this time of opioid addiction, given the high rate of painkillers being prescribed to these patients, health experts say.

sdominick/Getty Images

A new study in Nature found alarmingly high rates of opioid use among COVID survivors with lingering symptoms at Veterans Affairs facilities. About 10% of COVID survivors develop “long COVID,” struggling with often disabling health problems even 6 months or longer after a diagnosis.

For every 1,000 long-COVID patients, known as “long-haulers,” who were treated at a VA facility, doctors wrote nine more prescriptions for opioids than they otherwise would have, along with 22 additional prescriptions for benzodiazepines, which include Xanax and other addictive pills used to treat anxiety.

Although previous studies have found many COVID survivors experience persistent health problems, the new article is the first to show they’re using more addictive medications, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the paper’s lead author.

He’s concerned that even an apparently small increase in the inappropriate use of addictive pain pills will lead to a resurgence of the prescription opioid crisis, given the large number of COVID survivors. More than 3 million of the 31 million Americans infected with COVID develop long-term symptoms, which can include fatigue, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, and memory problems known as “brain fog.”

The new study also found many patients have significant muscle and bone pain.

The frequent use of opioids was surprising, given concerns about their potential for addiction, said Dr. Al-Aly, chief of research and education service at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“Physicians now are supposed to shy away from prescribing opioids,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who studied more than 73,000 patients in the VA system. When Dr. Al-Aly saw the number of opioids prescriptions, he said, he thought to himself: “Is this really happening all over again?”

Doctors need to act now, before “it’s too late to do something,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “We must act now and ensure that people are getting the care they need. We do not want this to balloon into a suicide crisis or another opioid epidemic.”

As more doctors became aware of their addictive potential, new opioid prescriptions fell, by more than half since 2012. But U.S. doctors still prescribe far more of the drugs – which include OxyContin, Vicodin, and codeine – than physicians in other countries, said Andrew Kolodny, MD, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.

Some patients who became addicted to prescription painkillers switched to heroin, either because it was cheaper or because they could no longer obtain opioids from their doctors. Overdose deaths surged in recent years as drug dealers began spiking heroin with a powerful synthetic opioid called fentanyl.

More than 88,000 Americans died from overdoses during the 12 months ending in August 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health experts now advise doctors to avoid prescribing opioids for long periods.

The new study “suggests to me that many clinicians still don’t get it,” Dr. Kolodny said. “Many clinicians are under the false impression that opioids are appropriate for chronic pain patients.”

Hospitalized COVID patients often receive a lot of medication to control pain and anxiety, especially in ICUs, said Greg Martin, MD, president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Patients placed on ventilators, for example, are often sedated to make them more comfortable.

Martin said he’s concerned by the study’s findings, which suggest patients are unnecessarily continuing medications after leaving the hospital.

“I worry that COVID-19 patients, especially those who are severely and critically ill, receive a lot of medications during the hospitalization, and because they have persistent symptoms, the medications are continued after hospital discharge,” Dr. Martin said.

While some COVID patients are experiencing muscle and bone pain for the first time, others say the illness has intensified their preexisting pain.

Rachael Sunshine Burnett has suffered from chronic pain in her back and feet for 20 years, ever since an accident at a warehouse where she once worked. But Ms. Burnett, who first was diagnosed with COVID in April 2020, said the pain soon became 10 times worse and spread to the area between her shoulders and spine. Although she was already taking long-acting OxyContin twice a day, her doctor prescribed an additional opioid called oxycodone, which relieves pain immediately. She was reinfected with COVID in December.

“It’s been a horrible, horrible year,” said Ms. Burnett, 43, of Coxsackie, N.Y.

Doctors should recognize that pain can be a part of long COVID, Dr. Martin said. “We need to find the proper nonnarcotic treatment for it, just like we do with other forms of chronic pain,” he said.

The CDC recommends a number of alternatives to opioids – from physical therapy to biofeedback, over-the-counter anti-inflammatories, antidepressants, and antiseizure drugs that also relieve nerve pain.

The country also needs an overall strategy to cope with the wave of post-COVID complications, Dr. Al-Aly said.

“It’s better to be prepared than to be caught off guard years from now, when doctors realize: ‘Oh, we have a resurgence in opioids,’ ” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Dr. Al-Aly noted that his study may not capture the full complexity of post-COVID patient needs. Although women make up the majority of long-COVID patients in most studies, most patients in the VA system are men.

The study of VA patients makes it “abundantly clear that we are not prepared to meet the needs of 3 million Americans with long COVID,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “We desperately need an intervention that will effectively treat these individuals.”

Dr. Al-Aly said COVID survivors may need care for years.

“That’s going to be a huge, significant burden on the health care system,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Long COVID will reverberate in the health system for years or even decades to come.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

COVID-19 survivors are at risk from a possible second pandemic, this time of opioid addiction, given the high rate of painkillers being prescribed to these patients, health experts say.

sdominick/Getty Images

A new study in Nature found alarmingly high rates of opioid use among COVID survivors with lingering symptoms at Veterans Affairs facilities. About 10% of COVID survivors develop “long COVID,” struggling with often disabling health problems even 6 months or longer after a diagnosis.

For every 1,000 long-COVID patients, known as “long-haulers,” who were treated at a VA facility, doctors wrote nine more prescriptions for opioids than they otherwise would have, along with 22 additional prescriptions for benzodiazepines, which include Xanax and other addictive pills used to treat anxiety.

Although previous studies have found many COVID survivors experience persistent health problems, the new article is the first to show they’re using more addictive medications, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the paper’s lead author.

He’s concerned that even an apparently small increase in the inappropriate use of addictive pain pills will lead to a resurgence of the prescription opioid crisis, given the large number of COVID survivors. More than 3 million of the 31 million Americans infected with COVID develop long-term symptoms, which can include fatigue, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, and memory problems known as “brain fog.”

The new study also found many patients have significant muscle and bone pain.

The frequent use of opioids was surprising, given concerns about their potential for addiction, said Dr. Al-Aly, chief of research and education service at the VA St. Louis Health Care System.

“Physicians now are supposed to shy away from prescribing opioids,” said Dr. Al-Aly, who studied more than 73,000 patients in the VA system. When Dr. Al-Aly saw the number of opioids prescriptions, he said, he thought to himself: “Is this really happening all over again?”

Doctors need to act now, before “it’s too late to do something,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “We must act now and ensure that people are getting the care they need. We do not want this to balloon into a suicide crisis or another opioid epidemic.”

As more doctors became aware of their addictive potential, new opioid prescriptions fell, by more than half since 2012. But U.S. doctors still prescribe far more of the drugs – which include OxyContin, Vicodin, and codeine – than physicians in other countries, said Andrew Kolodny, MD, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.

Some patients who became addicted to prescription painkillers switched to heroin, either because it was cheaper or because they could no longer obtain opioids from their doctors. Overdose deaths surged in recent years as drug dealers began spiking heroin with a powerful synthetic opioid called fentanyl.

More than 88,000 Americans died from overdoses during the 12 months ending in August 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health experts now advise doctors to avoid prescribing opioids for long periods.

The new study “suggests to me that many clinicians still don’t get it,” Dr. Kolodny said. “Many clinicians are under the false impression that opioids are appropriate for chronic pain patients.”

Hospitalized COVID patients often receive a lot of medication to control pain and anxiety, especially in ICUs, said Greg Martin, MD, president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Patients placed on ventilators, for example, are often sedated to make them more comfortable.

Martin said he’s concerned by the study’s findings, which suggest patients are unnecessarily continuing medications after leaving the hospital.

“I worry that COVID-19 patients, especially those who are severely and critically ill, receive a lot of medications during the hospitalization, and because they have persistent symptoms, the medications are continued after hospital discharge,” Dr. Martin said.

While some COVID patients are experiencing muscle and bone pain for the first time, others say the illness has intensified their preexisting pain.

Rachael Sunshine Burnett has suffered from chronic pain in her back and feet for 20 years, ever since an accident at a warehouse where she once worked. But Ms. Burnett, who first was diagnosed with COVID in April 2020, said the pain soon became 10 times worse and spread to the area between her shoulders and spine. Although she was already taking long-acting OxyContin twice a day, her doctor prescribed an additional opioid called oxycodone, which relieves pain immediately. She was reinfected with COVID in December.

“It’s been a horrible, horrible year,” said Ms. Burnett, 43, of Coxsackie, N.Y.

Doctors should recognize that pain can be a part of long COVID, Dr. Martin said. “We need to find the proper nonnarcotic treatment for it, just like we do with other forms of chronic pain,” he said.

The CDC recommends a number of alternatives to opioids – from physical therapy to biofeedback, over-the-counter anti-inflammatories, antidepressants, and antiseizure drugs that also relieve nerve pain.

The country also needs an overall strategy to cope with the wave of post-COVID complications, Dr. Al-Aly said.

“It’s better to be prepared than to be caught off guard years from now, when doctors realize: ‘Oh, we have a resurgence in opioids,’ ” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Dr. Al-Aly noted that his study may not capture the full complexity of post-COVID patient needs. Although women make up the majority of long-COVID patients in most studies, most patients in the VA system are men.

The study of VA patients makes it “abundantly clear that we are not prepared to meet the needs of 3 million Americans with long COVID,” said Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “We desperately need an intervention that will effectively treat these individuals.”

Dr. Al-Aly said COVID survivors may need care for years.

“That’s going to be a huge, significant burden on the health care system,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Long COVID will reverberate in the health system for years or even decades to come.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.