Neurology Reviews

Migraine aura sometimes accompanies or precedes migraine pain, but the phenomenon is difficult to treat and poorly understood. However, some evidence points to potential neurological mechanisms, and migraine aura is associated with cardiovascular disease risk.

“We now have an accumulating body of evidence that supports cortical spreading depression (CSD) as the underlying pathophysiological event of migraine aura,” Andrea Harriott, MD, PhD, said at the Stowe Headache Symposium sponsored by the Headache Cooperative of New England, which was conducted virtually. Dr. Harriott is assistant professor of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Somewhere between 20% and 40% of patients with migraine experience aura. It is most often visual, though it can also include sensory, aphasic, and motor symptoms. Visual aura usually begins as a flickering zigzag pattern in the central visual field that moves slowly toward the periphery and often leaves a scotoma. Typical duration is 15-30 minutes. Aura symptoms are more common in females.

Research in the 1940s conducted by the Brazilian researcher Aristides de Azevedo Pacheco Leão, PhD, then at Harvard Medical School, Boston, showed evidence of CSD in rabbits after electrical or mechanical stimulation. He observed a wave of vasodilation and increased blood flow over the cortex that spread over nearly the entire dorsolateral cortex within 3-6 minutes.

In the 1940s and 1950s, researchers sketched on paper the visual disturbance over 10 minutes, tracking the expanding spectrum across the visual field, from the center toward the periphery. The resulting scotoma advanced across the visual cortex at a rate very similar to that of the cortical spreading observed by Dr. Leão, “potentially linking this electrical event that was described with the aura event of migraine,” said Dr. Harriott. Those researchers hypothesized that the aura was produced by a strong excitation phase, followed by a wave of total inhibition.

More recent functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have also shown that CSD-like disturbances occur when patients experience migraine aura. In one study, researchers observed an initial increase and then a decrease in the blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) signal, which spread slowly across the visual cortex and correlated with the aura event. “This study was really important in confirming that a CSD-like phenomenon was likely the underlying perturbation that produced the visual aura of migraine,” said Dr. Harriott.

Despite the evidence that CSD causes migraine aura, its connection to migraine pain hasn’t been firmly established. But Dr. Harriott presented some evidence linking the two. Migraine aura is usually followed by pain, and aura precedes migraine attacks 78%-93% of the time. Cephalic allodynia occurs in migraine about 70% to 80% of the time, and migraine with aura is more often associated with severe cutaneous allodynia than is migraine without aura. Finally, migraine patients with comorbidities have more severe disability, and more frequent cutaneous allodynia and aura than does the general migraine population (40% vs. 29%).

All of that suggests that activation of trigeminal nociceptors is involved with migraine aura, according to Dr. Harriott. Preclinical studies have also suggested links between CSD and activation of trigeminal nociceptors, with both immunohistochemical and electrophysiological lines of evidence. “These data suggest that spreading depression actually activates trigeminal nociceptors that we know are involved in signal pain in the head and neck, and that we know are involved in cephalic allodynia as well,” Dr. Harriott said.

The evidence impressed Allan Purdy, MD, professor of medicine at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., who was the discussant for the presentation. “It’s an excellent case that CSD is a remarkably good correlate for aura,” he said during the session.

Along with potential impacts on migraine pain, aura is also associated with cardiovascular risk. “This is really important to know about in our clinical population,” said Dr. Harriott.

Meta-analyses of case control and cohort studies have shown associations between migraine aura and vascular disorders such as ischemic stroke. One meta-analysis showed about a twofold increased risk associated with migraine compared with the nonmigraine population. This difference was driven by migraine with aura (relative risk [RR], 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-3.33) rather than migraine without aura (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.86-1.79). Migraine generally is associated with greater risk of myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.64), and that association may be stronger in the aura phenotype.

There doesn’t appear to be evidence that traditional risk factors for heart disease – such as hypertension, diabetes, or high cholesterol – play a role in the association between aura and heart disease. One possibility is that variables like platelet activation, hypercoagulable state, or genetic susceptibility could be responsible.

The risks associated with migraine aura should be noted, but with a caveat, according to Dr. Purdy. “Even though the relative risk is high, the absolute risk is still relatively low, and patients with migraine with aura, who smoke or are female and over 45, those are the cases where the worry comes in.”

Dr. Harriott and Dr. Purdy have nothing to disclose.

Migraine aura sometimes accompanies or precedes migraine pain, but the phenomenon is difficult to treat and poorly understood. However, some evidence points to potential neurological mechanisms, and migraine aura is associated with cardiovascular disease risk.

“We now have an accumulating body of evidence that supports cortical spreading depression (CSD) as the underlying pathophysiological event of migraine aura,” Andrea Harriott, MD, PhD, said at the Stowe Headache Symposium sponsored by the Headache Cooperative of New England, which was conducted virtually. Dr. Harriott is assistant professor of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Somewhere between 20% and 40% of patients with migraine experience aura. It is most often visual, though it can also include sensory, aphasic, and motor symptoms. Visual aura usually begins as a flickering zigzag pattern in the central visual field that moves slowly toward the periphery and often leaves a scotoma. Typical duration is 15-30 minutes. Aura symptoms are more common in females.

Research in the 1940s conducted by the Brazilian researcher Aristides de Azevedo Pacheco Leão, PhD, then at Harvard Medical School, Boston, showed evidence of CSD in rabbits after electrical or mechanical stimulation. He observed a wave of vasodilation and increased blood flow over the cortex that spread over nearly the entire dorsolateral cortex within 3-6 minutes.

In the 1940s and 1950s, researchers sketched on paper the visual disturbance over 10 minutes, tracking the expanding spectrum across the visual field, from the center toward the periphery. The resulting scotoma advanced across the visual cortex at a rate very similar to that of the cortical spreading observed by Dr. Leão, “potentially linking this electrical event that was described with the aura event of migraine,” said Dr. Harriott. Those researchers hypothesized that the aura was produced by a strong excitation phase, followed by a wave of total inhibition.

More recent functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have also shown that CSD-like disturbances occur when patients experience migraine aura. In one study, researchers observed an initial increase and then a decrease in the blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) signal, which spread slowly across the visual cortex and correlated with the aura event. “This study was really important in confirming that a CSD-like phenomenon was likely the underlying perturbation that produced the visual aura of migraine,” said Dr. Harriott.

Despite the evidence that CSD causes migraine aura, its connection to migraine pain hasn’t been firmly established. But Dr. Harriott presented some evidence linking the two. Migraine aura is usually followed by pain, and aura precedes migraine attacks 78%-93% of the time. Cephalic allodynia occurs in migraine about 70% to 80% of the time, and migraine with aura is more often associated with severe cutaneous allodynia than is migraine without aura. Finally, migraine patients with comorbidities have more severe disability, and more frequent cutaneous allodynia and aura than does the general migraine population (40% vs. 29%).

All of that suggests that activation of trigeminal nociceptors is involved with migraine aura, according to Dr. Harriott. Preclinical studies have also suggested links between CSD and activation of trigeminal nociceptors, with both immunohistochemical and electrophysiological lines of evidence. “These data suggest that spreading depression actually activates trigeminal nociceptors that we know are involved in signal pain in the head and neck, and that we know are involved in cephalic allodynia as well,” Dr. Harriott said.

The evidence impressed Allan Purdy, MD, professor of medicine at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., who was the discussant for the presentation. “It’s an excellent case that CSD is a remarkably good correlate for aura,” he said during the session.

Along with potential impacts on migraine pain, aura is also associated with cardiovascular risk. “This is really important to know about in our clinical population,” said Dr. Harriott.

Meta-analyses of case control and cohort studies have shown associations between migraine aura and vascular disorders such as ischemic stroke. One meta-analysis showed about a twofold increased risk associated with migraine compared with the nonmigraine population. This difference was driven by migraine with aura (relative risk [RR], 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-3.33) rather than migraine without aura (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.86-1.79). Migraine generally is associated with greater risk of myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.64), and that association may be stronger in the aura phenotype.

There doesn’t appear to be evidence that traditional risk factors for heart disease – such as hypertension, diabetes, or high cholesterol – play a role in the association between aura and heart disease. One possibility is that variables like platelet activation, hypercoagulable state, or genetic susceptibility could be responsible.

The risks associated with migraine aura should be noted, but with a caveat, according to Dr. Purdy. “Even though the relative risk is high, the absolute risk is still relatively low, and patients with migraine with aura, who smoke or are female and over 45, those are the cases where the worry comes in.”

Dr. Harriott and Dr. Purdy have nothing to disclose.

Migraine aura sometimes accompanies or precedes migraine pain, but the phenomenon is difficult to treat and poorly understood. However, some evidence points to potential neurological mechanisms, and migraine aura is associated with cardiovascular disease risk.

“We now have an accumulating body of evidence that supports cortical spreading depression (CSD) as the underlying pathophysiological event of migraine aura,” Andrea Harriott, MD, PhD, said at the Stowe Headache Symposium sponsored by the Headache Cooperative of New England, which was conducted virtually. Dr. Harriott is assistant professor of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Somewhere between 20% and 40% of patients with migraine experience aura. It is most often visual, though it can also include sensory, aphasic, and motor symptoms. Visual aura usually begins as a flickering zigzag pattern in the central visual field that moves slowly toward the periphery and often leaves a scotoma. Typical duration is 15-30 minutes. Aura symptoms are more common in females.

Research in the 1940s conducted by the Brazilian researcher Aristides de Azevedo Pacheco Leão, PhD, then at Harvard Medical School, Boston, showed evidence of CSD in rabbits after electrical or mechanical stimulation. He observed a wave of vasodilation and increased blood flow over the cortex that spread over nearly the entire dorsolateral cortex within 3-6 minutes.

In the 1940s and 1950s, researchers sketched on paper the visual disturbance over 10 minutes, tracking the expanding spectrum across the visual field, from the center toward the periphery. The resulting scotoma advanced across the visual cortex at a rate very similar to that of the cortical spreading observed by Dr. Leão, “potentially linking this electrical event that was described with the aura event of migraine,” said Dr. Harriott. Those researchers hypothesized that the aura was produced by a strong excitation phase, followed by a wave of total inhibition.

More recent functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have also shown that CSD-like disturbances occur when patients experience migraine aura. In one study, researchers observed an initial increase and then a decrease in the blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) signal, which spread slowly across the visual cortex and correlated with the aura event. “This study was really important in confirming that a CSD-like phenomenon was likely the underlying perturbation that produced the visual aura of migraine,” said Dr. Harriott.

Despite the evidence that CSD causes migraine aura, its connection to migraine pain hasn’t been firmly established. But Dr. Harriott presented some evidence linking the two. Migraine aura is usually followed by pain, and aura precedes migraine attacks 78%-93% of the time. Cephalic allodynia occurs in migraine about 70% to 80% of the time, and migraine with aura is more often associated with severe cutaneous allodynia than is migraine without aura. Finally, migraine patients with comorbidities have more severe disability, and more frequent cutaneous allodynia and aura than does the general migraine population (40% vs. 29%).

All of that suggests that activation of trigeminal nociceptors is involved with migraine aura, according to Dr. Harriott. Preclinical studies have also suggested links between CSD and activation of trigeminal nociceptors, with both immunohistochemical and electrophysiological lines of evidence. “These data suggest that spreading depression actually activates trigeminal nociceptors that we know are involved in signal pain in the head and neck, and that we know are involved in cephalic allodynia as well,” Dr. Harriott said.

The evidence impressed Allan Purdy, MD, professor of medicine at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., who was the discussant for the presentation. “It’s an excellent case that CSD is a remarkably good correlate for aura,” he said during the session.

Along with potential impacts on migraine pain, aura is also associated with cardiovascular risk. “This is really important to know about in our clinical population,” said Dr. Harriott.

Meta-analyses of case control and cohort studies have shown associations between migraine aura and vascular disorders such as ischemic stroke. One meta-analysis showed about a twofold increased risk associated with migraine compared with the nonmigraine population. This difference was driven by migraine with aura (relative risk [RR], 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-3.33) rather than migraine without aura (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.86-1.79). Migraine generally is associated with greater risk of myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.64), and that association may be stronger in the aura phenotype.

There doesn’t appear to be evidence that traditional risk factors for heart disease – such as hypertension, diabetes, or high cholesterol – play a role in the association between aura and heart disease. One possibility is that variables like platelet activation, hypercoagulable state, or genetic susceptibility could be responsible.

The risks associated with migraine aura should be noted, but with a caveat, according to Dr. Purdy. “Even though the relative risk is high, the absolute risk is still relatively low, and patients with migraine with aura, who smoke or are female and over 45, those are the cases where the worry comes in.”

Dr. Harriott and Dr. Purdy have nothing to disclose.

Patients with a primary humoral immunodeficiency (PID) are 91% more likely to have a psychiatric disorder and 84% more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior, compared against those without the condition, new research shows.

Results showed that this association, which was stronger in women, could not be fully explained by comorbid autoimmune diseases or by familial confounding.

These findings have important clinical implications, study investigator Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Clinicians managing patients with PID “should be aware of this increased association with psychiatric disorders and perhaps screen for them,” said Isung.

The study was published in the November issue of JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Registry study

Mounting evidence suggests immune disruption plays a role in psychiatric disorders through a range of mechanisms, including altered neurodevelopment. However, little is known about the neuropsychiatric consequences resulting from the underproduction of homeostatic antibodies.

PIDs involve a deficiency in antibody production, mainly affecting immunoglobulin, “or the humoral aspect of the immune system,” said Isung. They’re associated with an increased risk for recurrent infections and of developing autoimmune diseases.

The immunodeficiency can be severe, even life threatening, but can also be relatively mild. One of the less severe PID types is selective IgA deficiency, which is linked to increased infections within the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), an important immune barrier.

Experts have long suspected that infections within the MALT are associated with certain forms of psychopathology in children, particularly obsessive-compulsive disorder and chronic tic disorders.

While patients with this selective IgA subtype may be at some increased risk for infection and autoimmune disease, their overall health otherwise is good, said Isung.

The prevalence of PIDs ranges from about 1:250 to 1:20,000, depending on the type of humoral immunodeficiency, although most would fall into the relatively rare category, he added.

Using several linked national Swedish registries, researchers identified individuals with any PID diagnosis affecting immunoglobulin levels, their full siblings, and those with a lifetime diagnosis of selective IgA deficiency. In addition, they collected data on autoimmune diseases.

The study outcome was a lifetime record of a psychiatric disorder, a suicide attempt, or death by suicide.
 

Strong link to autism

Researchers identified 8378 patients (59% women) with PID affecting immunoglobulin levels (median age at first diagnosis, 47.8 years). They compared this group with almost 14.3 million subjects without PID.

In those with PID, 27.6% had an autoimmune disease vs 6.8% of those without PID, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

About 20.5% of those with PID and 10.7% of unexposed subjects had at least one diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder.

In a model adjusted for year of birth, sex, and history of autoimmune disease, subjects with PID had a 91% higher likelihood of any psychiatric disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.91; 95% CI, 1.81 - 2.01; P < .001) vs their counterparts without PID.

The AORs for individual psychiatric disorders ranged from 1.34 (95% CI, 1.17 - 1.54; P < .001) for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to 2.99 (95% CI, 2.42 - 3.70; P < .001) for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)

It’s unclear why the association with PID was strongest for autism, “but being a neurodevelopmental disorder, maybe autism is logically more associated with this type of disruption,” said Isung.

Research suggests that immunologic disruption may play a role in ASD, either through altered maternal immune function in utero or through immune disruption after birth, the researchers note.

Compared to those without PID, individuals with it had a significantly increased likelihood of any suicidal behavior (AOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.66 - 2.04, P < .001) as well as individual outcomes of death by suicide and suicide attempts.

The association with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior was markedly stronger for exposure to both PID and autoimmune disease than for exposure to either of these alone, which suggest an additive effect for these immune-related conditions.
 

Sex differences

“It was unclear to us why women seemed particularly vulnerable,” said Isung. He noted that PIDs are generally about as common in women as in men, but women tend to have higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

The analysis of the sibling cohort also revealed an elevated risk for psychiatric disorders, including ASD and suicidal behavior, but to a lesser degree.

“From this we could infer that at least part of the associations would be genetic, but part would be related to the disruption in itself,” said Isung.

An analysis examining selective IgA subtype also revealed a link with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, suggesting this link is not exclusive to severe PID cases.

“Our conclusion here was that it seems like PID itself, or the immune disruption in itself, could explain the association rather than the burden of illness,” said Isung.

However, he acknowledged that the long-term stress and mental health fallout of having a chronic illness like PID may also explain some of the increased risk for psychiatric disorders.

This study, he said, provides more evidence that immune disruptions affect neurodevelopment and the brain. However, he added, the underlying mechanism still isn’t fully understood.

The results highlight the need to raise awareness of the association between immunodeficiency and mental illness, including suicidality among clinicians, patients, and advocates.

These findings may also have implications in patients with other immune deficiencies, said Isung, noting, “it would be interesting to further explore associations with other immunocompromised populations.”
 

No surprises

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Igor Galynker, MD, professor of psychiatry at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the study was “very well-done” and used “reliable and well-controlled” databases.

However, he added, the results “are neither particularly dramatic nor conclusive” as it makes sense that medical illnesses like PID would “increase risk of psychopathology,” said Galynker.

PID patients are much more likely to have contact with clinicians and to receive a psychiatric diagnosis, he said.

“People with a chronic illness are more stressed and generally have high incidences of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. In addition to that, they may be more likely to be diagnosed with those conditions because they see a clinician more frequently.”

However, that reasoning doesn’t apply to autism, which manifests in early childhood and so is unlikely to be the result of stress, said Galynker, which is why he believes the finding that ASD is the psychiatric outcome most strongly associated with PID is “the most convincing.”

Galynker wasn’t surprised that the association between PID and psychiatric illnesses, and suicidal behaviors, was stronger among women.

“Women attempt suicide four times more often than men to begin with, so you would expect this to be more pronounced” in those with PID.

The study was supported by grants from the Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute; Stockholm Care Services; the Soderstrom Konig Foundation; and the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Foundation. Isung and Galynker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a primary humoral immunodeficiency (PID) are 91% more likely to have a psychiatric disorder and 84% more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior, compared against those without the condition, new research shows.

Results showed that this association, which was stronger in women, could not be fully explained by comorbid autoimmune diseases or by familial confounding.

These findings have important clinical implications, study investigator Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Clinicians managing patients with PID “should be aware of this increased association with psychiatric disorders and perhaps screen for them,” said Isung.

The study was published in the November issue of JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Registry study

Mounting evidence suggests immune disruption plays a role in psychiatric disorders through a range of mechanisms, including altered neurodevelopment. However, little is known about the neuropsychiatric consequences resulting from the underproduction of homeostatic antibodies.

PIDs involve a deficiency in antibody production, mainly affecting immunoglobulin, “or the humoral aspect of the immune system,” said Isung. They’re associated with an increased risk for recurrent infections and of developing autoimmune diseases.

The immunodeficiency can be severe, even life threatening, but can also be relatively mild. One of the less severe PID types is selective IgA deficiency, which is linked to increased infections within the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), an important immune barrier.

Experts have long suspected that infections within the MALT are associated with certain forms of psychopathology in children, particularly obsessive-compulsive disorder and chronic tic disorders.

While patients with this selective IgA subtype may be at some increased risk for infection and autoimmune disease, their overall health otherwise is good, said Isung.

The prevalence of PIDs ranges from about 1:250 to 1:20,000, depending on the type of humoral immunodeficiency, although most would fall into the relatively rare category, he added.

Using several linked national Swedish registries, researchers identified individuals with any PID diagnosis affecting immunoglobulin levels, their full siblings, and those with a lifetime diagnosis of selective IgA deficiency. In addition, they collected data on autoimmune diseases.

The study outcome was a lifetime record of a psychiatric disorder, a suicide attempt, or death by suicide.
 

Strong link to autism

Researchers identified 8378 patients (59% women) with PID affecting immunoglobulin levels (median age at first diagnosis, 47.8 years). They compared this group with almost 14.3 million subjects without PID.

In those with PID, 27.6% had an autoimmune disease vs 6.8% of those without PID, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

About 20.5% of those with PID and 10.7% of unexposed subjects had at least one diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder.

In a model adjusted for year of birth, sex, and history of autoimmune disease, subjects with PID had a 91% higher likelihood of any psychiatric disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.91; 95% CI, 1.81 - 2.01; P < .001) vs their counterparts without PID.

The AORs for individual psychiatric disorders ranged from 1.34 (95% CI, 1.17 - 1.54; P < .001) for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to 2.99 (95% CI, 2.42 - 3.70; P < .001) for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)

It’s unclear why the association with PID was strongest for autism, “but being a neurodevelopmental disorder, maybe autism is logically more associated with this type of disruption,” said Isung.

Research suggests that immunologic disruption may play a role in ASD, either through altered maternal immune function in utero or through immune disruption after birth, the researchers note.

Compared to those without PID, individuals with it had a significantly increased likelihood of any suicidal behavior (AOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.66 - 2.04, P < .001) as well as individual outcomes of death by suicide and suicide attempts.

The association with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior was markedly stronger for exposure to both PID and autoimmune disease than for exposure to either of these alone, which suggest an additive effect for these immune-related conditions.
 

Sex differences

“It was unclear to us why women seemed particularly vulnerable,” said Isung. He noted that PIDs are generally about as common in women as in men, but women tend to have higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

The analysis of the sibling cohort also revealed an elevated risk for psychiatric disorders, including ASD and suicidal behavior, but to a lesser degree.

“From this we could infer that at least part of the associations would be genetic, but part would be related to the disruption in itself,” said Isung.

An analysis examining selective IgA subtype also revealed a link with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, suggesting this link is not exclusive to severe PID cases.

“Our conclusion here was that it seems like PID itself, or the immune disruption in itself, could explain the association rather than the burden of illness,” said Isung.

However, he acknowledged that the long-term stress and mental health fallout of having a chronic illness like PID may also explain some of the increased risk for psychiatric disorders.

This study, he said, provides more evidence that immune disruptions affect neurodevelopment and the brain. However, he added, the underlying mechanism still isn’t fully understood.

The results highlight the need to raise awareness of the association between immunodeficiency and mental illness, including suicidality among clinicians, patients, and advocates.

These findings may also have implications in patients with other immune deficiencies, said Isung, noting, “it would be interesting to further explore associations with other immunocompromised populations.”
 

No surprises

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Igor Galynker, MD, professor of psychiatry at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the study was “very well-done” and used “reliable and well-controlled” databases.

However, he added, the results “are neither particularly dramatic nor conclusive” as it makes sense that medical illnesses like PID would “increase risk of psychopathology,” said Galynker.

PID patients are much more likely to have contact with clinicians and to receive a psychiatric diagnosis, he said.

“People with a chronic illness are more stressed and generally have high incidences of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. In addition to that, they may be more likely to be diagnosed with those conditions because they see a clinician more frequently.”

However, that reasoning doesn’t apply to autism, which manifests in early childhood and so is unlikely to be the result of stress, said Galynker, which is why he believes the finding that ASD is the psychiatric outcome most strongly associated with PID is “the most convincing.”

Galynker wasn’t surprised that the association between PID and psychiatric illnesses, and suicidal behaviors, was stronger among women.

“Women attempt suicide four times more often than men to begin with, so you would expect this to be more pronounced” in those with PID.

The study was supported by grants from the Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute; Stockholm Care Services; the Soderstrom Konig Foundation; and the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Foundation. Isung and Galynker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a primary humoral immunodeficiency (PID) are 91% more likely to have a psychiatric disorder and 84% more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior, compared against those without the condition, new research shows.

Results showed that this association, which was stronger in women, could not be fully explained by comorbid autoimmune diseases or by familial confounding.

These findings have important clinical implications, study investigator Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Clinicians managing patients with PID “should be aware of this increased association with psychiatric disorders and perhaps screen for them,” said Isung.

The study was published in the November issue of JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Registry study

Mounting evidence suggests immune disruption plays a role in psychiatric disorders through a range of mechanisms, including altered neurodevelopment. However, little is known about the neuropsychiatric consequences resulting from the underproduction of homeostatic antibodies.

PIDs involve a deficiency in antibody production, mainly affecting immunoglobulin, “or the humoral aspect of the immune system,” said Isung. They’re associated with an increased risk for recurrent infections and of developing autoimmune diseases.

The immunodeficiency can be severe, even life threatening, but can also be relatively mild. One of the less severe PID types is selective IgA deficiency, which is linked to increased infections within the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), an important immune barrier.

Experts have long suspected that infections within the MALT are associated with certain forms of psychopathology in children, particularly obsessive-compulsive disorder and chronic tic disorders.

While patients with this selective IgA subtype may be at some increased risk for infection and autoimmune disease, their overall health otherwise is good, said Isung.

The prevalence of PIDs ranges from about 1:250 to 1:20,000, depending on the type of humoral immunodeficiency, although most would fall into the relatively rare category, he added.

Using several linked national Swedish registries, researchers identified individuals with any PID diagnosis affecting immunoglobulin levels, their full siblings, and those with a lifetime diagnosis of selective IgA deficiency. In addition, they collected data on autoimmune diseases.

The study outcome was a lifetime record of a psychiatric disorder, a suicide attempt, or death by suicide.
 

Strong link to autism

Researchers identified 8378 patients (59% women) with PID affecting immunoglobulin levels (median age at first diagnosis, 47.8 years). They compared this group with almost 14.3 million subjects without PID.

In those with PID, 27.6% had an autoimmune disease vs 6.8% of those without PID, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

About 20.5% of those with PID and 10.7% of unexposed subjects had at least one diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder.

In a model adjusted for year of birth, sex, and history of autoimmune disease, subjects with PID had a 91% higher likelihood of any psychiatric disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.91; 95% CI, 1.81 - 2.01; P < .001) vs their counterparts without PID.

The AORs for individual psychiatric disorders ranged from 1.34 (95% CI, 1.17 - 1.54; P < .001) for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to 2.99 (95% CI, 2.42 - 3.70; P < .001) for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)

It’s unclear why the association with PID was strongest for autism, “but being a neurodevelopmental disorder, maybe autism is logically more associated with this type of disruption,” said Isung.

Research suggests that immunologic disruption may play a role in ASD, either through altered maternal immune function in utero or through immune disruption after birth, the researchers note.

Compared to those without PID, individuals with it had a significantly increased likelihood of any suicidal behavior (AOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.66 - 2.04, P < .001) as well as individual outcomes of death by suicide and suicide attempts.

The association with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior was markedly stronger for exposure to both PID and autoimmune disease than for exposure to either of these alone, which suggest an additive effect for these immune-related conditions.
 

Sex differences

“It was unclear to us why women seemed particularly vulnerable,” said Isung. He noted that PIDs are generally about as common in women as in men, but women tend to have higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

The analysis of the sibling cohort also revealed an elevated risk for psychiatric disorders, including ASD and suicidal behavior, but to a lesser degree.

“From this we could infer that at least part of the associations would be genetic, but part would be related to the disruption in itself,” said Isung.

An analysis examining selective IgA subtype also revealed a link with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, suggesting this link is not exclusive to severe PID cases.

“Our conclusion here was that it seems like PID itself, or the immune disruption in itself, could explain the association rather than the burden of illness,” said Isung.

However, he acknowledged that the long-term stress and mental health fallout of having a chronic illness like PID may also explain some of the increased risk for psychiatric disorders.

This study, he said, provides more evidence that immune disruptions affect neurodevelopment and the brain. However, he added, the underlying mechanism still isn’t fully understood.

The results highlight the need to raise awareness of the association between immunodeficiency and mental illness, including suicidality among clinicians, patients, and advocates.

These findings may also have implications in patients with other immune deficiencies, said Isung, noting, “it would be interesting to further explore associations with other immunocompromised populations.”
 

No surprises

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Igor Galynker, MD, professor of psychiatry at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the study was “very well-done” and used “reliable and well-controlled” databases.

However, he added, the results “are neither particularly dramatic nor conclusive” as it makes sense that medical illnesses like PID would “increase risk of psychopathology,” said Galynker.

PID patients are much more likely to have contact with clinicians and to receive a psychiatric diagnosis, he said.

“People with a chronic illness are more stressed and generally have high incidences of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. In addition to that, they may be more likely to be diagnosed with those conditions because they see a clinician more frequently.”

However, that reasoning doesn’t apply to autism, which manifests in early childhood and so is unlikely to be the result of stress, said Galynker, which is why he believes the finding that ASD is the psychiatric outcome most strongly associated with PID is “the most convincing.”

Galynker wasn’t surprised that the association between PID and psychiatric illnesses, and suicidal behaviors, was stronger among women.

“Women attempt suicide four times more often than men to begin with, so you would expect this to be more pronounced” in those with PID.

The study was supported by grants from the Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute; Stockholm Care Services; the Soderstrom Konig Foundation; and the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Foundation. Isung and Galynker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to historical evidence, among older people, elevated LDL cholesterol levels increase risk for heart attack and cardiovascular disease, and older patients benefit as much, if not more, from statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs than do younger people, two new studies show.

“By contrast with previous historical studies, our data show that LDL cholesterol is an important risk factor for myocardial infarction and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a contemporary primary prevention cohort of individuals aged 70 to 100 years,” Borge Nordestgaard, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues noted in the first of the two studies, published this week in the Lancet.

“By lowering LDL cholesterol in healthy individuals aged 70-100 years, the potential for preventing myocardial infarctions and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is huge, and at a substantially lower number needed to treat when compared with those aged 20-69 years,” they added.

“These findings support the concept of the cumulative burden of LDL cholesterol over one’s lifetime and the progressive increase in risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, with age,” added Frederick J. Raal, PhD, and Farzahna Mohamed, MB BCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in an editorial published with both new studies in the Lancet (2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32333-3).

The studies underscore the need for clinicians to consider continued risks associated with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age, they stressed, adding that statins are also beneficial for younger persons at risk to prevent conditions from worsening.

“The average age of patients in all the trials analyzed was older than 60 years, an age when atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is already well established,” the editorialists wrote.

“Lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated at a younger age, preferably before age 40 years, in those at risk to delay the onset of atherosclerosis, rather than try to manage the condition once fully established or advanced,” they stressed.
 

No RCTs have included patients older than 70

For persons aged 40-75 years, elevated LDL cholesterol levels are a known risk factor for MI and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and there is consensus in guidelines regarding treatment with statins.

However, the risk for people older than 70 is controversial. Some studies show little or no association between elevated LDL cholesterol levels and an increased risk for MI.

Contributing to the uncertainty is that few of the randomized, controlled trials that have investigated the question have included patients aged older than 70 years.

As a consequence, many practice guidelines have noted that the level of evidence in older patients is low, and some organizations have lowered the strength of recommendations regarding the treatment for older patients in comparison with younger patients.
 

Primary prevention: CV events increase with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age

Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues studied data on 91,131 people living in Copenhagen who did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes at baseline and were not taking statins.

Of the participants, 10,592 were aged 70-79 years, and 3,188 participants were aged 80-100 years.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.7 years, 1,515 participants had a first MI, and 3,389 developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In the primary-prevention cohort, after multivariate adjustment, the risk of having a heart attack per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol was increased in the group overall (hazard ratio, 1.34). The increased risk was observed for all age groups, including those aged 80-100 years (HR, 1.28), 70-79 (HR, 1.25), 60-69 (HR, 1.29), 50-59 (HR, 1.28), and 20-49 (HR, 1.68).

Risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was also raised per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol overall (HR, 1.16) and in all age groups, particularly those aged 70-100 years.

Greater elevations in LDL cholesterol (5.0 mmol/L or higher, indicative of possible familial hypercholesterolemia) were associated with a notably higher risk for heart attack after multivariate adjustment in people aged 80-100 (HR, 2.99). Risk was also higher among those aged 70-79 (HR, 1.82).

The highest incidence was in those older than 70. The rate was 8.5 heart attacks per 1,000 people per year among those aged 80-100 and 5.2 heart attacks per 1,000 in those aged 70-79. The rates were 2.5 per 1,000 among those 60-69, 1.8 for those aged 50-59, and 0.8 for those aged 20-49.

“The absolute risk [of cardiovascular events] is of course much higher in the elderly than those under the age of 75, but what was a surprise was how clear our results were on a relative risk scale, that the risk associated with elevated LDL [cholesterol] was as high in people aged 80-100 as the younger patients,” Dr. Nordestgaard said in an interview.

With regard to the benefits of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the study showed that the number needed to prevent one heart attack over 5 years was 80 among those aged 80-100; the number was 439 for people aged 50-59.

With regard to stronger statins, when moderate-intensity statins were used, the number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular disease event of any type dropped to 42 for patients aged 80-100. It was 88 for those aged 70-79, 164 for those aged 60-69, 345 for those aged 50-59, and 769 for those aged 20-49.

“The clinical significance of this is that it appears those in older age groups indeed benefit from cholesterol-lowering therapy,” Dr. Nordestgaard said. “I think many people have this idea that LDL [cholesterol] is not important over the age of about 70-75, but that’s not the case.”

“These robust findings are novel,” he and his colleagues stressed.

Despite these observational findings, the South African editorialists noted that “whether lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated for primary prevention in people aged 75 years or older is unclear,” owing to the host of risks and benefits that need to be balanced.

The findings of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STAREE) may answer this question, they wrote. It is investigating primary prevention in 18,000 older patients (≥70 years) who are being randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 40 mg/d or placebo. The study is seeking to determine whether statin treatment extends the length of a disability-free life, which will be assessed on the basis of survival outside permanent residential care. Results are expected in 2022-2023.
 

Unequivocal reductions in events in elderly, comparable with younger patients

In the second study (Lancet. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32332-1), Baris Gencer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, =and colleagues evaluated the effects of statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs, including ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, in older versus younger patients.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials, also published in the Lancet, were presented virtually as a poster as part of the 2020 American Heart Association scientific session. It included data on 244,090 patients, including 21,492 aged 75 years and older.

The meta-analysis included studies of cardiovascular outcomes of a guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol–lowering drug, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and inclusion of data on patients aged 75 years and older.

The results showed that over a median follow-up of 2.2 to 6 years, statin use by older patients was associated with a relative risk reduction of major vascular events of 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (P = .0019), which was comparable with a risk reduction of 15% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol for patients younger than 75 years (P = .37, compared with older patients).

Treatment of older patients with LDL cholesterol–lowering drugs was also associated with significantly improved outcomes in cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 0.85), MI (RR, 0.80), stroke (RR, 0.73), and coronary revascularization (RR, 0.80).

“We found an unequivocal reduction in the risk of major vascular events with both statin and nonstatin LDL cholesterol-lowering treatments, which was similar to that seen in younger patients,” the authors wrote.

“Cholesterol-lowering medications are affordable drugs that have reduced risk of heart disease for millions of people worldwide, but until now, their benefits for older people have remained less certain,” said lead author Marc Sabatine, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a Lancet press release.

“Our analysis indicates that these therapies are as effective in reducing cardiovascular events and deaths in people aged 75 years and over as they are in younger people. We found no offsetting safety concerns, and together, these results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of cholesterol-lowering medications, including statin and nonstatin therapy, in elderly people.”

The editorialists agreed: “More than 80% of fatal cardiovascular events occur in individuals older than 65 years, and the incidence of cardiovascular events is increasing in those older than 80 years; therefore, the findings of Gencer and colleagues’ study should encourage the use of lipid-lowering therapy in older patients.”

The authors of the two studies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raal has received research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for advisory board membership, professional input, and lectures on lipid-lowering drug therapy from Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, and the Medicines Company.

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

Contrary to historical evidence, among older people, elevated LDL cholesterol levels increase risk for heart attack and cardiovascular disease, and older patients benefit as much, if not more, from statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs than do younger people, two new studies show.

“By contrast with previous historical studies, our data show that LDL cholesterol is an important risk factor for myocardial infarction and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a contemporary primary prevention cohort of individuals aged 70 to 100 years,” Borge Nordestgaard, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues noted in the first of the two studies, published this week in the Lancet.

“By lowering LDL cholesterol in healthy individuals aged 70-100 years, the potential for preventing myocardial infarctions and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is huge, and at a substantially lower number needed to treat when compared with those aged 20-69 years,” they added.

“These findings support the concept of the cumulative burden of LDL cholesterol over one’s lifetime and the progressive increase in risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, with age,” added Frederick J. Raal, PhD, and Farzahna Mohamed, MB BCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in an editorial published with both new studies in the Lancet (2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32333-3).

The studies underscore the need for clinicians to consider continued risks associated with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age, they stressed, adding that statins are also beneficial for younger persons at risk to prevent conditions from worsening.

“The average age of patients in all the trials analyzed was older than 60 years, an age when atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is already well established,” the editorialists wrote.

“Lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated at a younger age, preferably before age 40 years, in those at risk to delay the onset of atherosclerosis, rather than try to manage the condition once fully established or advanced,” they stressed.
 

No RCTs have included patients older than 70

For persons aged 40-75 years, elevated LDL cholesterol levels are a known risk factor for MI and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and there is consensus in guidelines regarding treatment with statins.

However, the risk for people older than 70 is controversial. Some studies show little or no association between elevated LDL cholesterol levels and an increased risk for MI.

Contributing to the uncertainty is that few of the randomized, controlled trials that have investigated the question have included patients aged older than 70 years.

As a consequence, many practice guidelines have noted that the level of evidence in older patients is low, and some organizations have lowered the strength of recommendations regarding the treatment for older patients in comparison with younger patients.
 

Primary prevention: CV events increase with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age

Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues studied data on 91,131 people living in Copenhagen who did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes at baseline and were not taking statins.

Of the participants, 10,592 were aged 70-79 years, and 3,188 participants were aged 80-100 years.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.7 years, 1,515 participants had a first MI, and 3,389 developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In the primary-prevention cohort, after multivariate adjustment, the risk of having a heart attack per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol was increased in the group overall (hazard ratio, 1.34). The increased risk was observed for all age groups, including those aged 80-100 years (HR, 1.28), 70-79 (HR, 1.25), 60-69 (HR, 1.29), 50-59 (HR, 1.28), and 20-49 (HR, 1.68).

Risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was also raised per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol overall (HR, 1.16) and in all age groups, particularly those aged 70-100 years.

Greater elevations in LDL cholesterol (5.0 mmol/L or higher, indicative of possible familial hypercholesterolemia) were associated with a notably higher risk for heart attack after multivariate adjustment in people aged 80-100 (HR, 2.99). Risk was also higher among those aged 70-79 (HR, 1.82).

The highest incidence was in those older than 70. The rate was 8.5 heart attacks per 1,000 people per year among those aged 80-100 and 5.2 heart attacks per 1,000 in those aged 70-79. The rates were 2.5 per 1,000 among those 60-69, 1.8 for those aged 50-59, and 0.8 for those aged 20-49.

“The absolute risk [of cardiovascular events] is of course much higher in the elderly than those under the age of 75, but what was a surprise was how clear our results were on a relative risk scale, that the risk associated with elevated LDL [cholesterol] was as high in people aged 80-100 as the younger patients,” Dr. Nordestgaard said in an interview.

With regard to the benefits of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the study showed that the number needed to prevent one heart attack over 5 years was 80 among those aged 80-100; the number was 439 for people aged 50-59.

With regard to stronger statins, when moderate-intensity statins were used, the number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular disease event of any type dropped to 42 for patients aged 80-100. It was 88 for those aged 70-79, 164 for those aged 60-69, 345 for those aged 50-59, and 769 for those aged 20-49.

“The clinical significance of this is that it appears those in older age groups indeed benefit from cholesterol-lowering therapy,” Dr. Nordestgaard said. “I think many people have this idea that LDL [cholesterol] is not important over the age of about 70-75, but that’s not the case.”

“These robust findings are novel,” he and his colleagues stressed.

Despite these observational findings, the South African editorialists noted that “whether lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated for primary prevention in people aged 75 years or older is unclear,” owing to the host of risks and benefits that need to be balanced.

The findings of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STAREE) may answer this question, they wrote. It is investigating primary prevention in 18,000 older patients (≥70 years) who are being randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 40 mg/d or placebo. The study is seeking to determine whether statin treatment extends the length of a disability-free life, which will be assessed on the basis of survival outside permanent residential care. Results are expected in 2022-2023.
 

Unequivocal reductions in events in elderly, comparable with younger patients

In the second study (Lancet. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32332-1), Baris Gencer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, =and colleagues evaluated the effects of statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs, including ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, in older versus younger patients.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials, also published in the Lancet, were presented virtually as a poster as part of the 2020 American Heart Association scientific session. It included data on 244,090 patients, including 21,492 aged 75 years and older.

The meta-analysis included studies of cardiovascular outcomes of a guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol–lowering drug, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and inclusion of data on patients aged 75 years and older.

The results showed that over a median follow-up of 2.2 to 6 years, statin use by older patients was associated with a relative risk reduction of major vascular events of 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (P = .0019), which was comparable with a risk reduction of 15% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol for patients younger than 75 years (P = .37, compared with older patients).

Treatment of older patients with LDL cholesterol–lowering drugs was also associated with significantly improved outcomes in cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 0.85), MI (RR, 0.80), stroke (RR, 0.73), and coronary revascularization (RR, 0.80).

“We found an unequivocal reduction in the risk of major vascular events with both statin and nonstatin LDL cholesterol-lowering treatments, which was similar to that seen in younger patients,” the authors wrote.

“Cholesterol-lowering medications are affordable drugs that have reduced risk of heart disease for millions of people worldwide, but until now, their benefits for older people have remained less certain,” said lead author Marc Sabatine, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a Lancet press release.

“Our analysis indicates that these therapies are as effective in reducing cardiovascular events and deaths in people aged 75 years and over as they are in younger people. We found no offsetting safety concerns, and together, these results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of cholesterol-lowering medications, including statin and nonstatin therapy, in elderly people.”

The editorialists agreed: “More than 80% of fatal cardiovascular events occur in individuals older than 65 years, and the incidence of cardiovascular events is increasing in those older than 80 years; therefore, the findings of Gencer and colleagues’ study should encourage the use of lipid-lowering therapy in older patients.”

The authors of the two studies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raal has received research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for advisory board membership, professional input, and lectures on lipid-lowering drug therapy from Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, and the Medicines Company.

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

Contrary to historical evidence, among older people, elevated LDL cholesterol levels increase risk for heart attack and cardiovascular disease, and older patients benefit as much, if not more, from statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs than do younger people, two new studies show.

“By contrast with previous historical studies, our data show that LDL cholesterol is an important risk factor for myocardial infarction and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a contemporary primary prevention cohort of individuals aged 70 to 100 years,” Borge Nordestgaard, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues noted in the first of the two studies, published this week in the Lancet.

“By lowering LDL cholesterol in healthy individuals aged 70-100 years, the potential for preventing myocardial infarctions and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is huge, and at a substantially lower number needed to treat when compared with those aged 20-69 years,” they added.

“These findings support the concept of the cumulative burden of LDL cholesterol over one’s lifetime and the progressive increase in risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, with age,” added Frederick J. Raal, PhD, and Farzahna Mohamed, MB BCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in an editorial published with both new studies in the Lancet (2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32333-3).

The studies underscore the need for clinicians to consider continued risks associated with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age, they stressed, adding that statins are also beneficial for younger persons at risk to prevent conditions from worsening.

“The average age of patients in all the trials analyzed was older than 60 years, an age when atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is already well established,” the editorialists wrote.

“Lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated at a younger age, preferably before age 40 years, in those at risk to delay the onset of atherosclerosis, rather than try to manage the condition once fully established or advanced,” they stressed.
 

No RCTs have included patients older than 70

For persons aged 40-75 years, elevated LDL cholesterol levels are a known risk factor for MI and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and there is consensus in guidelines regarding treatment with statins.

However, the risk for people older than 70 is controversial. Some studies show little or no association between elevated LDL cholesterol levels and an increased risk for MI.

Contributing to the uncertainty is that few of the randomized, controlled trials that have investigated the question have included patients aged older than 70 years.

As a consequence, many practice guidelines have noted that the level of evidence in older patients is low, and some organizations have lowered the strength of recommendations regarding the treatment for older patients in comparison with younger patients.
 

Primary prevention: CV events increase with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age

Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues studied data on 91,131 people living in Copenhagen who did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes at baseline and were not taking statins.

Of the participants, 10,592 were aged 70-79 years, and 3,188 participants were aged 80-100 years.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.7 years, 1,515 participants had a first MI, and 3,389 developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In the primary-prevention cohort, after multivariate adjustment, the risk of having a heart attack per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol was increased in the group overall (hazard ratio, 1.34). The increased risk was observed for all age groups, including those aged 80-100 years (HR, 1.28), 70-79 (HR, 1.25), 60-69 (HR, 1.29), 50-59 (HR, 1.28), and 20-49 (HR, 1.68).

Risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was also raised per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol overall (HR, 1.16) and in all age groups, particularly those aged 70-100 years.

Greater elevations in LDL cholesterol (5.0 mmol/L or higher, indicative of possible familial hypercholesterolemia) were associated with a notably higher risk for heart attack after multivariate adjustment in people aged 80-100 (HR, 2.99). Risk was also higher among those aged 70-79 (HR, 1.82).

The highest incidence was in those older than 70. The rate was 8.5 heart attacks per 1,000 people per year among those aged 80-100 and 5.2 heart attacks per 1,000 in those aged 70-79. The rates were 2.5 per 1,000 among those 60-69, 1.8 for those aged 50-59, and 0.8 for those aged 20-49.

“The absolute risk [of cardiovascular events] is of course much higher in the elderly than those under the age of 75, but what was a surprise was how clear our results were on a relative risk scale, that the risk associated with elevated LDL [cholesterol] was as high in people aged 80-100 as the younger patients,” Dr. Nordestgaard said in an interview.

With regard to the benefits of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the study showed that the number needed to prevent one heart attack over 5 years was 80 among those aged 80-100; the number was 439 for people aged 50-59.

With regard to stronger statins, when moderate-intensity statins were used, the number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular disease event of any type dropped to 42 for patients aged 80-100. It was 88 for those aged 70-79, 164 for those aged 60-69, 345 for those aged 50-59, and 769 for those aged 20-49.

“The clinical significance of this is that it appears those in older age groups indeed benefit from cholesterol-lowering therapy,” Dr. Nordestgaard said. “I think many people have this idea that LDL [cholesterol] is not important over the age of about 70-75, but that’s not the case.”

“These robust findings are novel,” he and his colleagues stressed.

Despite these observational findings, the South African editorialists noted that “whether lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated for primary prevention in people aged 75 years or older is unclear,” owing to the host of risks and benefits that need to be balanced.

The findings of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STAREE) may answer this question, they wrote. It is investigating primary prevention in 18,000 older patients (≥70 years) who are being randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 40 mg/d or placebo. The study is seeking to determine whether statin treatment extends the length of a disability-free life, which will be assessed on the basis of survival outside permanent residential care. Results are expected in 2022-2023.
 

Unequivocal reductions in events in elderly, comparable with younger patients

In the second study (Lancet. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32332-1), Baris Gencer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, =and colleagues evaluated the effects of statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs, including ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, in older versus younger patients.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials, also published in the Lancet, were presented virtually as a poster as part of the 2020 American Heart Association scientific session. It included data on 244,090 patients, including 21,492 aged 75 years and older.

The meta-analysis included studies of cardiovascular outcomes of a guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol–lowering drug, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and inclusion of data on patients aged 75 years and older.

The results showed that over a median follow-up of 2.2 to 6 years, statin use by older patients was associated with a relative risk reduction of major vascular events of 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (P = .0019), which was comparable with a risk reduction of 15% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol for patients younger than 75 years (P = .37, compared with older patients).

Treatment of older patients with LDL cholesterol–lowering drugs was also associated with significantly improved outcomes in cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 0.85), MI (RR, 0.80), stroke (RR, 0.73), and coronary revascularization (RR, 0.80).

“We found an unequivocal reduction in the risk of major vascular events with both statin and nonstatin LDL cholesterol-lowering treatments, which was similar to that seen in younger patients,” the authors wrote.

“Cholesterol-lowering medications are affordable drugs that have reduced risk of heart disease for millions of people worldwide, but until now, their benefits for older people have remained less certain,” said lead author Marc Sabatine, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a Lancet press release.

“Our analysis indicates that these therapies are as effective in reducing cardiovascular events and deaths in people aged 75 years and over as they are in younger people. We found no offsetting safety concerns, and together, these results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of cholesterol-lowering medications, including statin and nonstatin therapy, in elderly people.”

The editorialists agreed: “More than 80% of fatal cardiovascular events occur in individuals older than 65 years, and the incidence of cardiovascular events is increasing in those older than 80 years; therefore, the findings of Gencer and colleagues’ study should encourage the use of lipid-lowering therapy in older patients.”

The authors of the two studies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raal has received research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for advisory board membership, professional input, and lectures on lipid-lowering drug therapy from Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, and the Medicines Company.

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

Concussion is associated with increased risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as dementia and Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests. Results from a retrospective, population-based cohort study showed that controlling for socioeconomic status and overall health did not significantly affect this association.

The link between concussion and risk for ADHD and for mood and anxiety disorder was stronger in the women than in the men. In addition, having a history of multiple concussions strengthened the association between concussion and subsequent mood and anxiety disorder, dementia, and Parkinson’s disease compared with experiencing just one concussion.

The findings are similar to those of previous studies, noted lead author Marc P. Morissette, PhD, research assistant at the Pan Am Clinic Foundation in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. “The main methodological differences separating our study from previous studies in this area is a focus on concussion-specific injuries identified from medical records and the potential for study participants to have up to 25 years of follow-up data,” said Dr. Morissette.

The findings were published online July 27 in Family Medicine and Community Health, a BMJ journal.
 

Almost 190,000 participants

Several studies have shown associations between head injury and increased risk for ADHD, depression, anxiety, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease. However, many of these studies relied on self-reported medical history, included all forms of traumatic brain injury, and failed to adjust for preexisting health conditions.

An improved understanding of concussion and the risks associated with it could help physicians manage their patients’ long-term needs, the investigators noted.

In the current study, the researchers examined anonymized administrative health data collected between the periods of 1990–1991 and 2014–2015 in the Manitoba Population Research Data Repository at the Manitoba Center for Health Policy.

Eligible patients had been diagnosed with concussion in accordance with standard criteria. Participants were excluded if they had been diagnosed with dementia or Parkinson’s disease before the incident concussion during the study period. The investigators matched three control participants to each included patient on the basis of age, sex, and location.

Study outcome was time from index date (date of first concussion) to diagnosis of ADHD, mood and anxiety disorder, dementia, or Parkinson’s disease. The researchers controlled for socioeconomic status using the Socioeconomic Factor Index, version 2 (SEFI2), and for preexisting medical conditions using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

The study included 28,021 men (mean age, 25 years) and 19,462 women (mean age, 30 years) in the concussion group and 81,871 men (mean age, 25 years) and 57,159 women (mean age, 30 years) in the control group. Mean SEFI2 score was approximately −0.05, and mean CCI score was approximately 0.2.
 

Dose effect?

Results showed that concussion was associated with an increased risk for ADHD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39), mood and anxiety disorder (HR, 1.72), dementia (HR, 1.72), and Parkinson’s disease (HR, 1.57).

After a concussion, the risk of developing ADHD was 28% higher and the risk of developing mood and anxiety disorder was 7% higher among women than among men. Gender was not associated with risk for dementia or Parkinson’s disease after concussion.

Sustaining a second concussion increased the strength of the association with risk for dementia compared with sustaining a single concussion (HR, 1.62). Similarly, sustaining more than three concussions increased the strength of the association with the risk for mood and anxiety disorders (HR for more than three vs one concussion, 1.22) and Parkinson›s disease (HR, 3.27).

A sensitivity analysis found similar associations between concussion and risk for mood and anxiety disorder among all age groups. Younger participants were at greater risk for ADHD, however, and older participants were at greater risk for dementia and Parkinson’s disease.

Increased awareness of concussion and the outcomes of interest, along with improved diagnostic tools, may have influenced the study’s findings, Dr. Morissette noted. “The sex-based differences may be due to either pathophysiological differences in response to concussive injuries or potentially a difference in willingness to seek medical care or share symptoms, concussion-related or otherwise, with a medical professional,” he said.

“We are hopeful that our findings will encourage practitioners to be cognizant of various conditions that may present in individuals who have previously experienced a concussion,” Dr. Morissette added. “If physicians are aware of the various associations identified following a concussion, it may lead to more thorough clinical examination at initial presentation, along with more dedicated care throughout the patient’s life.”
 

Association versus causation

Commenting on the research, Steven Erickson, MD, sports medicine specialist at Banner–University Medicine Neuroscience Institute, Phoenix, Ariz., noted that although the study showed an association between concussion and subsequent diagnosis of ADHD, anxiety, and Parkinson’s disease, “this association should not be misconstrued as causation.” He added that the study’s conclusions “are just as likely to be due to labeling theory” or a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Patients diagnosed with ADHD, anxiety, or Parkinson’s disease may recall concussion and associate the two diagnoses; but patients who have not previously been diagnosed with a concussion cannot draw that conclusion,” said Dr. Erickson, who was not involved with the research.

Citing the apparent gender difference in the strength of the association between concussion and the outcomes of interest, Dr. Erickson noted that women are more likely to report symptoms in general “and therefore are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and anxiety disorders” because of differences in reporting rather than incidence of disease.

“Further research needs to be done to definitively determine a causal relationship between concussion and any psychiatric or neurologic diagnosis,” Dr. Erickson concluded.

The study was funded by the Pan Am Clinic Foundation. Dr. Morissette and Dr. Erickson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Concussion is associated with increased risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as dementia and Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests. Results from a retrospective, population-based cohort study showed that controlling for socioeconomic status and overall health did not significantly affect this association.

The link between concussion and risk for ADHD and for mood and anxiety disorder was stronger in the women than in the men. In addition, having a history of multiple concussions strengthened the association between concussion and subsequent mood and anxiety disorder, dementia, and Parkinson’s disease compared with experiencing just one concussion.

The findings are similar to those of previous studies, noted lead author Marc P. Morissette, PhD, research assistant at the Pan Am Clinic Foundation in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. “The main methodological differences separating our study from previous studies in this area is a focus on concussion-specific injuries identified from medical records and the potential for study participants to have up to 25 years of follow-up data,” said Dr. Morissette.

The findings were published online July 27 in Family Medicine and Community Health, a BMJ journal.
 

Almost 190,000 participants

Several studies have shown associations between head injury and increased risk for ADHD, depression, anxiety, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease. However, many of these studies relied on self-reported medical history, included all forms of traumatic brain injury, and failed to adjust for preexisting health conditions.

An improved understanding of concussion and the risks associated with it could help physicians manage their patients’ long-term needs, the investigators noted.

In the current study, the researchers examined anonymized administrative health data collected between the periods of 1990–1991 and 2014–2015 in the Manitoba Population Research Data Repository at the Manitoba Center for Health Policy.

Eligible patients had been diagnosed with concussion in accordance with standard criteria. Participants were excluded if they had been diagnosed with dementia or Parkinson’s disease before the incident concussion during the study period. The investigators matched three control participants to each included patient on the basis of age, sex, and location.

Study outcome was time from index date (date of first concussion) to diagnosis of ADHD, mood and anxiety disorder, dementia, or Parkinson’s disease. The researchers controlled for socioeconomic status using the Socioeconomic Factor Index, version 2 (SEFI2), and for preexisting medical conditions using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

The study included 28,021 men (mean age, 25 years) and 19,462 women (mean age, 30 years) in the concussion group and 81,871 men (mean age, 25 years) and 57,159 women (mean age, 30 years) in the control group. Mean SEFI2 score was approximately −0.05, and mean CCI score was approximately 0.2.
 

Dose effect?

Results showed that concussion was associated with an increased risk for ADHD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39), mood and anxiety disorder (HR, 1.72), dementia (HR, 1.72), and Parkinson’s disease (HR, 1.57).

After a concussion, the risk of developing ADHD was 28% higher and the risk of developing mood and anxiety disorder was 7% higher among women than among men. Gender was not associated with risk for dementia or Parkinson’s disease after concussion.

Sustaining a second concussion increased the strength of the association with risk for dementia compared with sustaining a single concussion (HR, 1.62). Similarly, sustaining more than three concussions increased the strength of the association with the risk for mood and anxiety disorders (HR for more than three vs one concussion, 1.22) and Parkinson›s disease (HR, 3.27).

A sensitivity analysis found similar associations between concussion and risk for mood and anxiety disorder among all age groups. Younger participants were at greater risk for ADHD, however, and older participants were at greater risk for dementia and Parkinson’s disease.

Increased awareness of concussion and the outcomes of interest, along with improved diagnostic tools, may have influenced the study’s findings, Dr. Morissette noted. “The sex-based differences may be due to either pathophysiological differences in response to concussive injuries or potentially a difference in willingness to seek medical care or share symptoms, concussion-related or otherwise, with a medical professional,” he said.

“We are hopeful that our findings will encourage practitioners to be cognizant of various conditions that may present in individuals who have previously experienced a concussion,” Dr. Morissette added. “If physicians are aware of the various associations identified following a concussion, it may lead to more thorough clinical examination at initial presentation, along with more dedicated care throughout the patient’s life.”
 

Association versus causation

Commenting on the research, Steven Erickson, MD, sports medicine specialist at Banner–University Medicine Neuroscience Institute, Phoenix, Ariz., noted that although the study showed an association between concussion and subsequent diagnosis of ADHD, anxiety, and Parkinson’s disease, “this association should not be misconstrued as causation.” He added that the study’s conclusions “are just as likely to be due to labeling theory” or a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Patients diagnosed with ADHD, anxiety, or Parkinson’s disease may recall concussion and associate the two diagnoses; but patients who have not previously been diagnosed with a concussion cannot draw that conclusion,” said Dr. Erickson, who was not involved with the research.

Citing the apparent gender difference in the strength of the association between concussion and the outcomes of interest, Dr. Erickson noted that women are more likely to report symptoms in general “and therefore are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and anxiety disorders” because of differences in reporting rather than incidence of disease.

“Further research needs to be done to definitively determine a causal relationship between concussion and any psychiatric or neurologic diagnosis,” Dr. Erickson concluded.

The study was funded by the Pan Am Clinic Foundation. Dr. Morissette and Dr. Erickson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Concussion is associated with increased risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as dementia and Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests. Results from a retrospective, population-based cohort study showed that controlling for socioeconomic status and overall health did not significantly affect this association.

The link between concussion and risk for ADHD and for mood and anxiety disorder was stronger in the women than in the men. In addition, having a history of multiple concussions strengthened the association between concussion and subsequent mood and anxiety disorder, dementia, and Parkinson’s disease compared with experiencing just one concussion.

The findings are similar to those of previous studies, noted lead author Marc P. Morissette, PhD, research assistant at the Pan Am Clinic Foundation in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. “The main methodological differences separating our study from previous studies in this area is a focus on concussion-specific injuries identified from medical records and the potential for study participants to have up to 25 years of follow-up data,” said Dr. Morissette.

The findings were published online July 27 in Family Medicine and Community Health, a BMJ journal.
 

Almost 190,000 participants

Several studies have shown associations between head injury and increased risk for ADHD, depression, anxiety, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease. However, many of these studies relied on self-reported medical history, included all forms of traumatic brain injury, and failed to adjust for preexisting health conditions.

An improved understanding of concussion and the risks associated with it could help physicians manage their patients’ long-term needs, the investigators noted.

In the current study, the researchers examined anonymized administrative health data collected between the periods of 1990–1991 and 2014–2015 in the Manitoba Population Research Data Repository at the Manitoba Center for Health Policy.

Eligible patients had been diagnosed with concussion in accordance with standard criteria. Participants were excluded if they had been diagnosed with dementia or Parkinson’s disease before the incident concussion during the study period. The investigators matched three control participants to each included patient on the basis of age, sex, and location.

Study outcome was time from index date (date of first concussion) to diagnosis of ADHD, mood and anxiety disorder, dementia, or Parkinson’s disease. The researchers controlled for socioeconomic status using the Socioeconomic Factor Index, version 2 (SEFI2), and for preexisting medical conditions using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

The study included 28,021 men (mean age, 25 years) and 19,462 women (mean age, 30 years) in the concussion group and 81,871 men (mean age, 25 years) and 57,159 women (mean age, 30 years) in the control group. Mean SEFI2 score was approximately −0.05, and mean CCI score was approximately 0.2.
 

Dose effect?

Results showed that concussion was associated with an increased risk for ADHD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39), mood and anxiety disorder (HR, 1.72), dementia (HR, 1.72), and Parkinson’s disease (HR, 1.57).

After a concussion, the risk of developing ADHD was 28% higher and the risk of developing mood and anxiety disorder was 7% higher among women than among men. Gender was not associated with risk for dementia or Parkinson’s disease after concussion.

Sustaining a second concussion increased the strength of the association with risk for dementia compared with sustaining a single concussion (HR, 1.62). Similarly, sustaining more than three concussions increased the strength of the association with the risk for mood and anxiety disorders (HR for more than three vs one concussion, 1.22) and Parkinson›s disease (HR, 3.27).

A sensitivity analysis found similar associations between concussion and risk for mood and anxiety disorder among all age groups. Younger participants were at greater risk for ADHD, however, and older participants were at greater risk for dementia and Parkinson’s disease.

Increased awareness of concussion and the outcomes of interest, along with improved diagnostic tools, may have influenced the study’s findings, Dr. Morissette noted. “The sex-based differences may be due to either pathophysiological differences in response to concussive injuries or potentially a difference in willingness to seek medical care or share symptoms, concussion-related or otherwise, with a medical professional,” he said.

“We are hopeful that our findings will encourage practitioners to be cognizant of various conditions that may present in individuals who have previously experienced a concussion,” Dr. Morissette added. “If physicians are aware of the various associations identified following a concussion, it may lead to more thorough clinical examination at initial presentation, along with more dedicated care throughout the patient’s life.”
 

Association versus causation

Commenting on the research, Steven Erickson, MD, sports medicine specialist at Banner–University Medicine Neuroscience Institute, Phoenix, Ariz., noted that although the study showed an association between concussion and subsequent diagnosis of ADHD, anxiety, and Parkinson’s disease, “this association should not be misconstrued as causation.” He added that the study’s conclusions “are just as likely to be due to labeling theory” or a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Patients diagnosed with ADHD, anxiety, or Parkinson’s disease may recall concussion and associate the two diagnoses; but patients who have not previously been diagnosed with a concussion cannot draw that conclusion,” said Dr. Erickson, who was not involved with the research.

Citing the apparent gender difference in the strength of the association between concussion and the outcomes of interest, Dr. Erickson noted that women are more likely to report symptoms in general “and therefore are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and anxiety disorders” because of differences in reporting rather than incidence of disease.

“Further research needs to be done to definitively determine a causal relationship between concussion and any psychiatric or neurologic diagnosis,” Dr. Erickson concluded.

The study was funded by the Pan Am Clinic Foundation. Dr. Morissette and Dr. Erickson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Marijuana use was associated with a higher prevalence of recurrent MI and a greater risk of bleeding or stroke after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in separate studies.

Rhushik Bhuva, MD, presented the recurrent-MI results from a national U.S. study, and Sang Gune K. Yoo, MD, presented the PCI study, which used data from a Michigan cohort. The studies were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Both studies “add to our accumulating knowledge of the cardiovascular risks of marijuana,” Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. DeFilippis and the two study authors say clinicians and patients need to be more aware of cardiovascular risks from smoking marijuana, and they call for more patient screening, counseling, and research.
 

Need for screening and counseling

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the United States, which makes it illegal to conduct rigorous controlled trials of marijuana products. Existing knowledge is therefore based on observational studies, Dr. DeFilippis noted.

She was lead author of a review of marijuana use by patients with cardiovascular disease. The review was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. An AHA scientific statement about marijuana and cardiovascular health was published in Circulation.

Both documents drew attention to risks from marijuana use in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Until more data are available, “I think it is absolutely critical” that cardiologists and general providers screen patients for marijuana use, “either at the time of their MI or ideally prior to that, when they are making a cardiovascular risk assessment,” said Dr. DeFilippis.

That is also the time to “counsel patients, especially those who have had an MI, about risks associated with continuing to use marijuana.”

Importantly, providers and patients need to be aware that “cannabinoids, through the cytochrome P450 system, can interact with well-known cardiovascular medications, which we know provide benefit in the post-MI period,” she added. “For example, marijuana can interfere with beta-blockers, statins, antiarrhythmics, and certain anticoagulants.”

Dr. Bhuva, a cardiology fellow with the Wright Center for Community Health, Scranton, Pa., said that it is “concerning” that “recurrent heart attacks and cardiac interventions [were] higher among cannabis users, even though they were younger and had fewer risk factors for heart disease.

“Spreading awareness regarding the potential risk of recurrent heart attacks in middle-aged, African American, and male cannabis users and screening them at an earlier age for potential risk factors of future heart attacks should be encouraged among clinicians,” he urged in a statement from the AHA.

Dr. Yoo, an internal medicine resident at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that, in their study of patients who underwent PCI after MI or because they had coronary artery disease, those who smoked or vaped marijuana were younger and were more likely to be male. They were less likely to have traditional cardiovascular risk factors except for smoking tobacco, which was highly prevalent.

After propensity matching, patients who used marijuana had a 1.5-fold increased risk of in-hospital bleeding and an 11-fold higher risk for in-hospital stroke following PCI.

However, the absolute number of strokes in PCI was small, and the confidence interval was wide (indicating a large uncertainty), Dr. Yoo said in an interview.

These risks “should not deter patients from undergoing these [lifesaving] procedures,” he said; however, clinicians should be aware of these risks with marijuana use and should screen and counsel patients about this.
 

Hospitalized patients with prior MI

Dr. Bhuva and colleagues identified patients from the National Inpatient Sample who were hospitalized in the United States from 2007 to 2014 and who had experienced a prior MI and had undergone revascularization with PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

There were about 8 million hospital stays per year. The database did not specify the type of marijuana that patients used.

During the 8-year study period, many states legalized or decriminalized medical and/or recreational marijuana, and marijuana use increased steadily, from 0.2% to 0.7%.

Compared with nonusers, those who used marijuana were younger (median age, 53 vs. 72 years), and there were more men (77% vs. 62%) or Black persons (34% vs. 10%) (all P < .001). Fewer marijuana users had hypertension (72% vs. 75%), diabetes (24% vs. 33%), or dyslipidemia (51% vs. 58%) (all P < .001). More marijuana users underwent a repeat MI (67% vs. 41%).

On the other hand, marijuana users, who were younger and healthier than the other patients, were less likely to die during hospitalization for a recurrent MI (0.8% vs. 2.5%), and their hospital costs were lower.

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include lack of information about marijuana type (smoked, edible, medicinal, or recreational) or dose, as well as the time from marijuana use to cardiac event.
 

In-Hospital outcomes after PCI

Dr. Yoo and colleagues analyzed data from patients who underwent PCI from Jan. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2016, at Michigan’s 48 nonfederal hospitals, which are part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium PCI registry.

In this cohort, 3,970 patients (3.5%) had smoked or vaped marijuana in the month prior to PCI, and 109,507 patients had not done so. The marijuana users were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 66 years) and were more likely to be male (79% vs. 67%) and to smoke cigarettes (73% vs. 27%).

They were less likely to have hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, or prior CABG and were equally likely to have had a prior MI (36%).

Compared with nonusers, marijuana users were more likely to present with non–ST-elevation MI (30% vs. 23%) or ST-elevation MI (27% vs. 16%) and were less likely to present with angina.

Using propensity score matching, the researchers matched 3,803 marijuana users with the same number of nonusers.

In the matched cohort, patients who used marijuana had a greater risk of in-hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.97; P < .001) or stroke (aOR, 11.01; 95% CI, 1.32-91.67; P = .026) following PCI.

Marijuana users had a lower risk for acute kidney injury (2.2% vs. 2.9%; P = .007). Transfusion and mortality rates were similar in both groups.

The researchers acknowledged study limitations, including the fact that it did not include marijuana edibles, that the results may not be generalizable, and that marijuana use is now likely more common in Michigan following legalization of recreational marijuana in 2018.

Dr. Bhuva, Dr. Yoo, and Dr. DeFilippis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Marijuana use was associated with a higher prevalence of recurrent MI and a greater risk of bleeding or stroke after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in separate studies.

Rhushik Bhuva, MD, presented the recurrent-MI results from a national U.S. study, and Sang Gune K. Yoo, MD, presented the PCI study, which used data from a Michigan cohort. The studies were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Both studies “add to our accumulating knowledge of the cardiovascular risks of marijuana,” Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. DeFilippis and the two study authors say clinicians and patients need to be more aware of cardiovascular risks from smoking marijuana, and they call for more patient screening, counseling, and research.
 

Need for screening and counseling

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the United States, which makes it illegal to conduct rigorous controlled trials of marijuana products. Existing knowledge is therefore based on observational studies, Dr. DeFilippis noted.

She was lead author of a review of marijuana use by patients with cardiovascular disease. The review was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. An AHA scientific statement about marijuana and cardiovascular health was published in Circulation.

Both documents drew attention to risks from marijuana use in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Until more data are available, “I think it is absolutely critical” that cardiologists and general providers screen patients for marijuana use, “either at the time of their MI or ideally prior to that, when they are making a cardiovascular risk assessment,” said Dr. DeFilippis.

That is also the time to “counsel patients, especially those who have had an MI, about risks associated with continuing to use marijuana.”

Importantly, providers and patients need to be aware that “cannabinoids, through the cytochrome P450 system, can interact with well-known cardiovascular medications, which we know provide benefit in the post-MI period,” she added. “For example, marijuana can interfere with beta-blockers, statins, antiarrhythmics, and certain anticoagulants.”

Dr. Bhuva, a cardiology fellow with the Wright Center for Community Health, Scranton, Pa., said that it is “concerning” that “recurrent heart attacks and cardiac interventions [were] higher among cannabis users, even though they were younger and had fewer risk factors for heart disease.

“Spreading awareness regarding the potential risk of recurrent heart attacks in middle-aged, African American, and male cannabis users and screening them at an earlier age for potential risk factors of future heart attacks should be encouraged among clinicians,” he urged in a statement from the AHA.

Dr. Yoo, an internal medicine resident at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that, in their study of patients who underwent PCI after MI or because they had coronary artery disease, those who smoked or vaped marijuana were younger and were more likely to be male. They were less likely to have traditional cardiovascular risk factors except for smoking tobacco, which was highly prevalent.

After propensity matching, patients who used marijuana had a 1.5-fold increased risk of in-hospital bleeding and an 11-fold higher risk for in-hospital stroke following PCI.

However, the absolute number of strokes in PCI was small, and the confidence interval was wide (indicating a large uncertainty), Dr. Yoo said in an interview.

These risks “should not deter patients from undergoing these [lifesaving] procedures,” he said; however, clinicians should be aware of these risks with marijuana use and should screen and counsel patients about this.
 

Hospitalized patients with prior MI

Dr. Bhuva and colleagues identified patients from the National Inpatient Sample who were hospitalized in the United States from 2007 to 2014 and who had experienced a prior MI and had undergone revascularization with PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

There were about 8 million hospital stays per year. The database did not specify the type of marijuana that patients used.

During the 8-year study period, many states legalized or decriminalized medical and/or recreational marijuana, and marijuana use increased steadily, from 0.2% to 0.7%.

Compared with nonusers, those who used marijuana were younger (median age, 53 vs. 72 years), and there were more men (77% vs. 62%) or Black persons (34% vs. 10%) (all P < .001). Fewer marijuana users had hypertension (72% vs. 75%), diabetes (24% vs. 33%), or dyslipidemia (51% vs. 58%) (all P < .001). More marijuana users underwent a repeat MI (67% vs. 41%).

On the other hand, marijuana users, who were younger and healthier than the other patients, were less likely to die during hospitalization for a recurrent MI (0.8% vs. 2.5%), and their hospital costs were lower.

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include lack of information about marijuana type (smoked, edible, medicinal, or recreational) or dose, as well as the time from marijuana use to cardiac event.
 

In-Hospital outcomes after PCI

Dr. Yoo and colleagues analyzed data from patients who underwent PCI from Jan. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2016, at Michigan’s 48 nonfederal hospitals, which are part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium PCI registry.

In this cohort, 3,970 patients (3.5%) had smoked or vaped marijuana in the month prior to PCI, and 109,507 patients had not done so. The marijuana users were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 66 years) and were more likely to be male (79% vs. 67%) and to smoke cigarettes (73% vs. 27%).

They were less likely to have hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, or prior CABG and were equally likely to have had a prior MI (36%).

Compared with nonusers, marijuana users were more likely to present with non–ST-elevation MI (30% vs. 23%) or ST-elevation MI (27% vs. 16%) and were less likely to present with angina.

Using propensity score matching, the researchers matched 3,803 marijuana users with the same number of nonusers.

In the matched cohort, patients who used marijuana had a greater risk of in-hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.97; P < .001) or stroke (aOR, 11.01; 95% CI, 1.32-91.67; P = .026) following PCI.

Marijuana users had a lower risk for acute kidney injury (2.2% vs. 2.9%; P = .007). Transfusion and mortality rates were similar in both groups.

The researchers acknowledged study limitations, including the fact that it did not include marijuana edibles, that the results may not be generalizable, and that marijuana use is now likely more common in Michigan following legalization of recreational marijuana in 2018.

Dr. Bhuva, Dr. Yoo, and Dr. DeFilippis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Marijuana use was associated with a higher prevalence of recurrent MI and a greater risk of bleeding or stroke after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in separate studies.

Rhushik Bhuva, MD, presented the recurrent-MI results from a national U.S. study, and Sang Gune K. Yoo, MD, presented the PCI study, which used data from a Michigan cohort. The studies were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Both studies “add to our accumulating knowledge of the cardiovascular risks of marijuana,” Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. DeFilippis and the two study authors say clinicians and patients need to be more aware of cardiovascular risks from smoking marijuana, and they call for more patient screening, counseling, and research.
 

Need for screening and counseling

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the United States, which makes it illegal to conduct rigorous controlled trials of marijuana products. Existing knowledge is therefore based on observational studies, Dr. DeFilippis noted.

She was lead author of a review of marijuana use by patients with cardiovascular disease. The review was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. An AHA scientific statement about marijuana and cardiovascular health was published in Circulation.

Both documents drew attention to risks from marijuana use in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Until more data are available, “I think it is absolutely critical” that cardiologists and general providers screen patients for marijuana use, “either at the time of their MI or ideally prior to that, when they are making a cardiovascular risk assessment,” said Dr. DeFilippis.

That is also the time to “counsel patients, especially those who have had an MI, about risks associated with continuing to use marijuana.”

Importantly, providers and patients need to be aware that “cannabinoids, through the cytochrome P450 system, can interact with well-known cardiovascular medications, which we know provide benefit in the post-MI period,” she added. “For example, marijuana can interfere with beta-blockers, statins, antiarrhythmics, and certain anticoagulants.”

Dr. Bhuva, a cardiology fellow with the Wright Center for Community Health, Scranton, Pa., said that it is “concerning” that “recurrent heart attacks and cardiac interventions [were] higher among cannabis users, even though they were younger and had fewer risk factors for heart disease.

“Spreading awareness regarding the potential risk of recurrent heart attacks in middle-aged, African American, and male cannabis users and screening them at an earlier age for potential risk factors of future heart attacks should be encouraged among clinicians,” he urged in a statement from the AHA.

Dr. Yoo, an internal medicine resident at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that, in their study of patients who underwent PCI after MI or because they had coronary artery disease, those who smoked or vaped marijuana were younger and were more likely to be male. They were less likely to have traditional cardiovascular risk factors except for smoking tobacco, which was highly prevalent.

After propensity matching, patients who used marijuana had a 1.5-fold increased risk of in-hospital bleeding and an 11-fold higher risk for in-hospital stroke following PCI.

However, the absolute number of strokes in PCI was small, and the confidence interval was wide (indicating a large uncertainty), Dr. Yoo said in an interview.

These risks “should not deter patients from undergoing these [lifesaving] procedures,” he said; however, clinicians should be aware of these risks with marijuana use and should screen and counsel patients about this.
 

Hospitalized patients with prior MI

Dr. Bhuva and colleagues identified patients from the National Inpatient Sample who were hospitalized in the United States from 2007 to 2014 and who had experienced a prior MI and had undergone revascularization with PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

There were about 8 million hospital stays per year. The database did not specify the type of marijuana that patients used.

During the 8-year study period, many states legalized or decriminalized medical and/or recreational marijuana, and marijuana use increased steadily, from 0.2% to 0.7%.

Compared with nonusers, those who used marijuana were younger (median age, 53 vs. 72 years), and there were more men (77% vs. 62%) or Black persons (34% vs. 10%) (all P < .001). Fewer marijuana users had hypertension (72% vs. 75%), diabetes (24% vs. 33%), or dyslipidemia (51% vs. 58%) (all P < .001). More marijuana users underwent a repeat MI (67% vs. 41%).

On the other hand, marijuana users, who were younger and healthier than the other patients, were less likely to die during hospitalization for a recurrent MI (0.8% vs. 2.5%), and their hospital costs were lower.

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include lack of information about marijuana type (smoked, edible, medicinal, or recreational) or dose, as well as the time from marijuana use to cardiac event.
 

In-Hospital outcomes after PCI

Dr. Yoo and colleagues analyzed data from patients who underwent PCI from Jan. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2016, at Michigan’s 48 nonfederal hospitals, which are part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium PCI registry.

In this cohort, 3,970 patients (3.5%) had smoked or vaped marijuana in the month prior to PCI, and 109,507 patients had not done so. The marijuana users were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 66 years) and were more likely to be male (79% vs. 67%) and to smoke cigarettes (73% vs. 27%).

They were less likely to have hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, or prior CABG and were equally likely to have had a prior MI (36%).

Compared with nonusers, marijuana users were more likely to present with non–ST-elevation MI (30% vs. 23%) or ST-elevation MI (27% vs. 16%) and were less likely to present with angina.

Using propensity score matching, the researchers matched 3,803 marijuana users with the same number of nonusers.

In the matched cohort, patients who used marijuana had a greater risk of in-hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.97; P < .001) or stroke (aOR, 11.01; 95% CI, 1.32-91.67; P = .026) following PCI.

Marijuana users had a lower risk for acute kidney injury (2.2% vs. 2.9%; P = .007). Transfusion and mortality rates were similar in both groups.

The researchers acknowledged study limitations, including the fact that it did not include marijuana edibles, that the results may not be generalizable, and that marijuana use is now likely more common in Michigan following legalization of recreational marijuana in 2018.

Dr. Bhuva, Dr. Yoo, and Dr. DeFilippis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

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

In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

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

In 1993 I graduated from medical school. That same year Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) came to market as the first treatment specifically approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). This was a groundbreaker at the time, as there’d been little besides steroids and other potent immunosuppressants to try. Now we had a real drug to offer patients.

The demand for Betaseron was huge, so much so that a lottery system was used to determine which patients would get it first, as there simply wasn’t enough to go around. In the next several years a few more agents jumped into the ring – Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), Novantrone (mitoxantrone), and Rebif (interferon beta-1a) – before things went quiet for a while.

In 2006 the first monoclonal antibody for MS – Tysabri (natalizumab) – came out, then almost just as quickly vanished again, not returning until 2009.

Since then we’ve had a gradual explosion of new treatments for MS – like watching kernels become popcorn – first one, then two, then a deluge filling up the basket.

So here we are, approaching the end of 2020, with a remarkable collection of monoclonal antibodies, S1P modulators, fumarates, immunosuppressants, and one symptomatic treatment, many of which weren’t even imagined in 1993. Not to mention the original ABCR (Avonex, Betaseron, Copaxone, Rebif) agents, though they’re riding into the sunset.

A friend and I were talking about this remarkable success story. MS certainly hasn’t been cured, but its treatments have had a dramatic improvement in efficacy over the last quarter century.

He made a point though: that this selection of treatments may be relegating MS from the province of a general neurologist to that of the fellowship-trained MS subspecialist.

Not that that is such a bad thing, as MS is a very challenging disease. But the point is well taken. As treatments become increasingly complicated, and numerous, it becomes harder to know which one is best. Most of us likely choose orals first and monoclonal antibodies second, but the question of “which one?” arises for each category. They each have their own risks, side effects, initiation protocols, and peculiarities. In a disease of heterogeneous presentations and courses, there are no clear data on which agent to start first for what patient type. To a general neurologist, also juggling migraines, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and neuropathy (and many other disorders) in the course of a day, it becomes tricky to keep up on such.

At some point do general neurologists become a victim of this success? Maybe, but probably not. Just as there are more general practitioners than neurologists, there are more general neurologists than MS subspecialists. Their knowledge and training should be reserved for those patients not responding to our first- (and second-) line treatments, presentations that are atypical, and more complex issues outside the scope of those of us practicing whatever-comes-to-the-door neurology.

It would, however, be nice to have a good consensus on how to best use this array of treatments. Solid guidelines, breaking disease subtypes and treatments down by patient types, drugs, and mechanisms of action, would help those of us on the neurology frontlines to better care for those who need us.

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

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.