User login
Neurology Reviews covers innovative and emerging news in neurology and neuroscience every month, with a focus on practical approaches to treating Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, headache, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and other neurologic disorders.
PML
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Rituxan
The leading independent newspaper covering neurology news and commentary.
Is the troll tracker crying wolf?
I’m a big believer in my state’s Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP), perhaps more commonly known as the troll tracker. The ability to quickly access a patient’s controlled prescription records across pharmacies has been enormously helpful in my everyday practice. I rely on it and check it often.
With it I can see if my patients are getting the same drug from other prescribers, pharmacy-shopping, or carrying out other concerning activities. The database helpfully sends me emails alerting me to such conflicts, so I can take prompt action on them.
Unfortunately, the threshold for such emails has gradually crept lower, to where I now get maybe 10 a week.
A lady to whom I gave two Valium tablets to get her through a lumbar spine MRI also got 20 Percocet for the same back pain from her internist … and I get an alert email.
A long-established patient for whom I’ve been prescribing Ativan and Tramadol for years, fills them both every month … and I get an alert email every month (and I’m the only prescriber who has written for him in the last 10 years).
A patient who suffered a painful vertebral fracture, got 10 Norco in the ED, follows with up with me 5 days later, and I write her for 20 more … and I get an email.
Now, I understand what the program is trying to do – and wholeheartedly agree with it – but the problem is that the more email warnings I get the less likely I am to have time to investigate each one. It’s like the boy who cried “wolf!” In fact, it’s probably been over a year since a warning email from the PMP told me something I didn’t already know.
Granted, these emails are sent by a computer, following a rigid set of parameters to do so. The machine doesn’t know I’m aware of the situation, or keep track of case nuances, or even notice that I’m the only prescriber of all the medications involved. It just does what it’s set to do. And the warnings all make it clear that they’re just warnings, and that the treatment is still left to physician’s discretion.
Arizona currently has roughly 18,000 practicing physicians. Granted, not all of them are routinely prescribing controlled agents, but I’d guess at least two-thirds of them are. So it’s safe to assume at least 12,000 doctors here are receiving email warnings with varying degrees of frequency.
At some point, with all the other tasks and hats your average doctor goes through in a day, too many of these warnings – the vast majority of them meaningless – become part of the background noise.
There are only so many hours in a day to see patients, write notes, send prescriptions, review tests, return calls, fill out forms, and all the other things that are part of our days. Having to log into the PMP website to see what’s up every time you get an email from them, especially when the last 20 (or more) warnings that you received were meaningless, gets pushed farther and farther onto the back burner. So when a real warning shows up, it may not got noticed much at all.
Like I said, I believe in and routinely use the state PMP. But it may be time to take a second look at the criteria under which its email warning system operates.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
I’m a big believer in my state’s Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP), perhaps more commonly known as the troll tracker. The ability to quickly access a patient’s controlled prescription records across pharmacies has been enormously helpful in my everyday practice. I rely on it and check it often.
With it I can see if my patients are getting the same drug from other prescribers, pharmacy-shopping, or carrying out other concerning activities. The database helpfully sends me emails alerting me to such conflicts, so I can take prompt action on them.
Unfortunately, the threshold for such emails has gradually crept lower, to where I now get maybe 10 a week.
A lady to whom I gave two Valium tablets to get her through a lumbar spine MRI also got 20 Percocet for the same back pain from her internist … and I get an alert email.
A long-established patient for whom I’ve been prescribing Ativan and Tramadol for years, fills them both every month … and I get an alert email every month (and I’m the only prescriber who has written for him in the last 10 years).
A patient who suffered a painful vertebral fracture, got 10 Norco in the ED, follows with up with me 5 days later, and I write her for 20 more … and I get an email.
Now, I understand what the program is trying to do – and wholeheartedly agree with it – but the problem is that the more email warnings I get the less likely I am to have time to investigate each one. It’s like the boy who cried “wolf!” In fact, it’s probably been over a year since a warning email from the PMP told me something I didn’t already know.
Granted, these emails are sent by a computer, following a rigid set of parameters to do so. The machine doesn’t know I’m aware of the situation, or keep track of case nuances, or even notice that I’m the only prescriber of all the medications involved. It just does what it’s set to do. And the warnings all make it clear that they’re just warnings, and that the treatment is still left to physician’s discretion.
Arizona currently has roughly 18,000 practicing physicians. Granted, not all of them are routinely prescribing controlled agents, but I’d guess at least two-thirds of them are. So it’s safe to assume at least 12,000 doctors here are receiving email warnings with varying degrees of frequency.
At some point, with all the other tasks and hats your average doctor goes through in a day, too many of these warnings – the vast majority of them meaningless – become part of the background noise.
There are only so many hours in a day to see patients, write notes, send prescriptions, review tests, return calls, fill out forms, and all the other things that are part of our days. Having to log into the PMP website to see what’s up every time you get an email from them, especially when the last 20 (or more) warnings that you received were meaningless, gets pushed farther and farther onto the back burner. So when a real warning shows up, it may not got noticed much at all.
Like I said, I believe in and routinely use the state PMP. But it may be time to take a second look at the criteria under which its email warning system operates.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
I’m a big believer in my state’s Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP), perhaps more commonly known as the troll tracker. The ability to quickly access a patient’s controlled prescription records across pharmacies has been enormously helpful in my everyday practice. I rely on it and check it often.
With it I can see if my patients are getting the same drug from other prescribers, pharmacy-shopping, or carrying out other concerning activities. The database helpfully sends me emails alerting me to such conflicts, so I can take prompt action on them.
Unfortunately, the threshold for such emails has gradually crept lower, to where I now get maybe 10 a week.
A lady to whom I gave two Valium tablets to get her through a lumbar spine MRI also got 20 Percocet for the same back pain from her internist … and I get an alert email.
A long-established patient for whom I’ve been prescribing Ativan and Tramadol for years, fills them both every month … and I get an alert email every month (and I’m the only prescriber who has written for him in the last 10 years).
A patient who suffered a painful vertebral fracture, got 10 Norco in the ED, follows with up with me 5 days later, and I write her for 20 more … and I get an email.
Now, I understand what the program is trying to do – and wholeheartedly agree with it – but the problem is that the more email warnings I get the less likely I am to have time to investigate each one. It’s like the boy who cried “wolf!” In fact, it’s probably been over a year since a warning email from the PMP told me something I didn’t already know.
Granted, these emails are sent by a computer, following a rigid set of parameters to do so. The machine doesn’t know I’m aware of the situation, or keep track of case nuances, or even notice that I’m the only prescriber of all the medications involved. It just does what it’s set to do. And the warnings all make it clear that they’re just warnings, and that the treatment is still left to physician’s discretion.
Arizona currently has roughly 18,000 practicing physicians. Granted, not all of them are routinely prescribing controlled agents, but I’d guess at least two-thirds of them are. So it’s safe to assume at least 12,000 doctors here are receiving email warnings with varying degrees of frequency.
At some point, with all the other tasks and hats your average doctor goes through in a day, too many of these warnings – the vast majority of them meaningless – become part of the background noise.
There are only so many hours in a day to see patients, write notes, send prescriptions, review tests, return calls, fill out forms, and all the other things that are part of our days. Having to log into the PMP website to see what’s up every time you get an email from them, especially when the last 20 (or more) warnings that you received were meaningless, gets pushed farther and farther onto the back burner. So when a real warning shows up, it may not got noticed much at all.
Like I said, I believe in and routinely use the state PMP. But it may be time to take a second look at the criteria under which its email warning system operates.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
ODC1 gene linked to newly described neurodevelopmental disorder
but it may be treated with diet modifications and available therapies, according to the researcher whose group first identified the disorder.
Lance Rodan, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, reported on research into ODC1 gain-of-function disorder –named for ornithine decarboxylase 1, the rate-limiting enzyme involved in polyamine synthesis – in the Linda De Meirleir Neurometabolic award lecture at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Dr. Rodan and colleagues first described ODC1 disorder in a multicenter case series.
Dr. Rodan noted that dysregulated polyamine levels are associated with cancer, and that ODC1 is expressed “ubiquitously” throughout the body.
Pathophysiology and phenotypes
In an interview, he described the metabolic process more fully. “GI flora can produce putrescine, which is the polyamine that accumulates in excess in the ODC1 gain-of-function disorder. It is yet to be elucidated if decreasing putrescine production by GI flora and/or reducing dietary sources of putrescine may play a role in the management of this disorder.”
In the De Meirleir lecture, Dr. Rodan described four patients from his group’s published case series, all found to have heterozygous de novo variants in the ODC1 gene, along with a fifth patient reported by Caleb Bupp, MD, and colleagues at Michigan State University, East Lansing.
“There’s a recognizable phenotype to this disorder,” Dr. Rodan said. “These individuals have neurodevelopment abnormalities. They may have behavioral concerns. They have low-tone central hypertonia and macrocephaly.”
One of the most distinctive characteristics of ODC1 disorder is alopecia, he said, “which in almost everybody with this condition involves the eyebrows and eyelashes and in some individuals also involves the scalp hair.”
These patients also have what Dr. Rodan called “a common yet subtle facial gestalt.” That can include hypertelorism, spareness of the eyebrows and eyelashes, and a tubular- shaped nose with a short columella and a short philtrum.
They may also have abnormalities of the nails and cryptorchidism, and typically a prenatal history of polyhydramnios, he said.
MRI findings include prominent perivascular spaces, periventricular cysts, abnormal white matter and corpus callosum abnormalities, he said, adding that the fetal case MRI demonstrated subepidermal cysts, white matter cysts in the temporal pole, deficiency of the falx cerebri and abnormal white-matter signals.
Biochemical features of ODC1 disorder include increased N-acetylputrescine levels with normal spermine and spermidine levels, Dr. Rodan said. He also noted that Dr. Bupp’s group reported increased putrescine in fibroblasts and increased ODC1 protein levels in red blood cells.
Dr. Rodan also described possible molecular mechanisms in ODC1 disorder. One was the location of the ODC1 variants: all were reported closely located to truncating variants in the final exon of the ODC1 gene. This allows truncating proteins to survive, adding to the degradation that results in a net gain-of-function of ODC1 enzyme activity.
With regard to pathophysiology of ODC1 disorder, Dr. Rodan noted that research has implicated chronically elevated putrescine levels in the alopecia, a finding animal models support. “Since putrescine is a precursor for gamma-aminobutyric acid, it’s possible perturbed GABA levels may also be involved,” he said. Abnormal modulation N-methyl-D-aspirate receptors may also be involved, he said.
Another hypothesis purports that potential of elevated levels of toxic aldehydes/H2O2 similar to Snyder-Robinson syndrome, the better known polyamine-related neurometabolic disorder. “Along those lines, maybe there’s also a secondary mitochondrial or lysosomal dysfunction, but this is something that’s still being actively studied,” Dr. Rodan said.
Treatment
Because ODC1 disorder was only first described 2 years ago, research into treatment is nascent. “In terms of management, I think one of the more fundamental questions is whether this is more of a static developmental disorder or whether this actually represents a progressive degenerative disorder,” Dr. Rodan said.
One potential treatment that has been explored, he said, is difluoromethylornithine, a synthetic ODC1 inhibitor already Food and Drug Administration approved for African sleeping sickness and as a topical treatment for hirsutism. It is also the subject of ongoing clinical trials in colon cancer and neuroblastoma. Potential side effects include myelosuppression, seizures and hearing loss.
Dr. Rodan noted that a single-center study reported that difluoromethylornithine in a 3-year-old patient with ODC1 disorder reduced ODC protein activity and putrescine to control levels.
Other potential treatments include the natural ODC1 inhibitors agmatine and turmeric/curcumin, flagyl/rifaximin to decrease putrescine production in the gut, a low-dairy diet to lower putrescine levels, and antioxidants. “There could be a role for antioxidant stress similar to what is seen in Snyder-Robinson syndrome,” Dr. Rodan said.
Based on mouse studies, patients with ODC1 may be at risk of skin cancer, so regular skin checks along with sun protection should be part of management, he said. “This also raises the question of whether there should be surveillance for other types of cancer given the role of polyamine in various types of tumors.”
Dr. Rodan has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
but it may be treated with diet modifications and available therapies, according to the researcher whose group first identified the disorder.
Lance Rodan, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, reported on research into ODC1 gain-of-function disorder –named for ornithine decarboxylase 1, the rate-limiting enzyme involved in polyamine synthesis – in the Linda De Meirleir Neurometabolic award lecture at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Dr. Rodan and colleagues first described ODC1 disorder in a multicenter case series.
Dr. Rodan noted that dysregulated polyamine levels are associated with cancer, and that ODC1 is expressed “ubiquitously” throughout the body.
Pathophysiology and phenotypes
In an interview, he described the metabolic process more fully. “GI flora can produce putrescine, which is the polyamine that accumulates in excess in the ODC1 gain-of-function disorder. It is yet to be elucidated if decreasing putrescine production by GI flora and/or reducing dietary sources of putrescine may play a role in the management of this disorder.”
In the De Meirleir lecture, Dr. Rodan described four patients from his group’s published case series, all found to have heterozygous de novo variants in the ODC1 gene, along with a fifth patient reported by Caleb Bupp, MD, and colleagues at Michigan State University, East Lansing.
“There’s a recognizable phenotype to this disorder,” Dr. Rodan said. “These individuals have neurodevelopment abnormalities. They may have behavioral concerns. They have low-tone central hypertonia and macrocephaly.”
One of the most distinctive characteristics of ODC1 disorder is alopecia, he said, “which in almost everybody with this condition involves the eyebrows and eyelashes and in some individuals also involves the scalp hair.”
These patients also have what Dr. Rodan called “a common yet subtle facial gestalt.” That can include hypertelorism, spareness of the eyebrows and eyelashes, and a tubular- shaped nose with a short columella and a short philtrum.
They may also have abnormalities of the nails and cryptorchidism, and typically a prenatal history of polyhydramnios, he said.
MRI findings include prominent perivascular spaces, periventricular cysts, abnormal white matter and corpus callosum abnormalities, he said, adding that the fetal case MRI demonstrated subepidermal cysts, white matter cysts in the temporal pole, deficiency of the falx cerebri and abnormal white-matter signals.
Biochemical features of ODC1 disorder include increased N-acetylputrescine levels with normal spermine and spermidine levels, Dr. Rodan said. He also noted that Dr. Bupp’s group reported increased putrescine in fibroblasts and increased ODC1 protein levels in red blood cells.
Dr. Rodan also described possible molecular mechanisms in ODC1 disorder. One was the location of the ODC1 variants: all were reported closely located to truncating variants in the final exon of the ODC1 gene. This allows truncating proteins to survive, adding to the degradation that results in a net gain-of-function of ODC1 enzyme activity.
With regard to pathophysiology of ODC1 disorder, Dr. Rodan noted that research has implicated chronically elevated putrescine levels in the alopecia, a finding animal models support. “Since putrescine is a precursor for gamma-aminobutyric acid, it’s possible perturbed GABA levels may also be involved,” he said. Abnormal modulation N-methyl-D-aspirate receptors may also be involved, he said.
Another hypothesis purports that potential of elevated levels of toxic aldehydes/H2O2 similar to Snyder-Robinson syndrome, the better known polyamine-related neurometabolic disorder. “Along those lines, maybe there’s also a secondary mitochondrial or lysosomal dysfunction, but this is something that’s still being actively studied,” Dr. Rodan said.
Treatment
Because ODC1 disorder was only first described 2 years ago, research into treatment is nascent. “In terms of management, I think one of the more fundamental questions is whether this is more of a static developmental disorder or whether this actually represents a progressive degenerative disorder,” Dr. Rodan said.
One potential treatment that has been explored, he said, is difluoromethylornithine, a synthetic ODC1 inhibitor already Food and Drug Administration approved for African sleeping sickness and as a topical treatment for hirsutism. It is also the subject of ongoing clinical trials in colon cancer and neuroblastoma. Potential side effects include myelosuppression, seizures and hearing loss.
Dr. Rodan noted that a single-center study reported that difluoromethylornithine in a 3-year-old patient with ODC1 disorder reduced ODC protein activity and putrescine to control levels.
Other potential treatments include the natural ODC1 inhibitors agmatine and turmeric/curcumin, flagyl/rifaximin to decrease putrescine production in the gut, a low-dairy diet to lower putrescine levels, and antioxidants. “There could be a role for antioxidant stress similar to what is seen in Snyder-Robinson syndrome,” Dr. Rodan said.
Based on mouse studies, patients with ODC1 may be at risk of skin cancer, so regular skin checks along with sun protection should be part of management, he said. “This also raises the question of whether there should be surveillance for other types of cancer given the role of polyamine in various types of tumors.”
Dr. Rodan has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
but it may be treated with diet modifications and available therapies, according to the researcher whose group first identified the disorder.
Lance Rodan, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, reported on research into ODC1 gain-of-function disorder –named for ornithine decarboxylase 1, the rate-limiting enzyme involved in polyamine synthesis – in the Linda De Meirleir Neurometabolic award lecture at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Dr. Rodan and colleagues first described ODC1 disorder in a multicenter case series.
Dr. Rodan noted that dysregulated polyamine levels are associated with cancer, and that ODC1 is expressed “ubiquitously” throughout the body.
Pathophysiology and phenotypes
In an interview, he described the metabolic process more fully. “GI flora can produce putrescine, which is the polyamine that accumulates in excess in the ODC1 gain-of-function disorder. It is yet to be elucidated if decreasing putrescine production by GI flora and/or reducing dietary sources of putrescine may play a role in the management of this disorder.”
In the De Meirleir lecture, Dr. Rodan described four patients from his group’s published case series, all found to have heterozygous de novo variants in the ODC1 gene, along with a fifth patient reported by Caleb Bupp, MD, and colleagues at Michigan State University, East Lansing.
“There’s a recognizable phenotype to this disorder,” Dr. Rodan said. “These individuals have neurodevelopment abnormalities. They may have behavioral concerns. They have low-tone central hypertonia and macrocephaly.”
One of the most distinctive characteristics of ODC1 disorder is alopecia, he said, “which in almost everybody with this condition involves the eyebrows and eyelashes and in some individuals also involves the scalp hair.”
These patients also have what Dr. Rodan called “a common yet subtle facial gestalt.” That can include hypertelorism, spareness of the eyebrows and eyelashes, and a tubular- shaped nose with a short columella and a short philtrum.
They may also have abnormalities of the nails and cryptorchidism, and typically a prenatal history of polyhydramnios, he said.
MRI findings include prominent perivascular spaces, periventricular cysts, abnormal white matter and corpus callosum abnormalities, he said, adding that the fetal case MRI demonstrated subepidermal cysts, white matter cysts in the temporal pole, deficiency of the falx cerebri and abnormal white-matter signals.
Biochemical features of ODC1 disorder include increased N-acetylputrescine levels with normal spermine and spermidine levels, Dr. Rodan said. He also noted that Dr. Bupp’s group reported increased putrescine in fibroblasts and increased ODC1 protein levels in red blood cells.
Dr. Rodan also described possible molecular mechanisms in ODC1 disorder. One was the location of the ODC1 variants: all were reported closely located to truncating variants in the final exon of the ODC1 gene. This allows truncating proteins to survive, adding to the degradation that results in a net gain-of-function of ODC1 enzyme activity.
With regard to pathophysiology of ODC1 disorder, Dr. Rodan noted that research has implicated chronically elevated putrescine levels in the alopecia, a finding animal models support. “Since putrescine is a precursor for gamma-aminobutyric acid, it’s possible perturbed GABA levels may also be involved,” he said. Abnormal modulation N-methyl-D-aspirate receptors may also be involved, he said.
Another hypothesis purports that potential of elevated levels of toxic aldehydes/H2O2 similar to Snyder-Robinson syndrome, the better known polyamine-related neurometabolic disorder. “Along those lines, maybe there’s also a secondary mitochondrial or lysosomal dysfunction, but this is something that’s still being actively studied,” Dr. Rodan said.
Treatment
Because ODC1 disorder was only first described 2 years ago, research into treatment is nascent. “In terms of management, I think one of the more fundamental questions is whether this is more of a static developmental disorder or whether this actually represents a progressive degenerative disorder,” Dr. Rodan said.
One potential treatment that has been explored, he said, is difluoromethylornithine, a synthetic ODC1 inhibitor already Food and Drug Administration approved for African sleeping sickness and as a topical treatment for hirsutism. It is also the subject of ongoing clinical trials in colon cancer and neuroblastoma. Potential side effects include myelosuppression, seizures and hearing loss.
Dr. Rodan noted that a single-center study reported that difluoromethylornithine in a 3-year-old patient with ODC1 disorder reduced ODC protein activity and putrescine to control levels.
Other potential treatments include the natural ODC1 inhibitors agmatine and turmeric/curcumin, flagyl/rifaximin to decrease putrescine production in the gut, a low-dairy diet to lower putrescine levels, and antioxidants. “There could be a role for antioxidant stress similar to what is seen in Snyder-Robinson syndrome,” Dr. Rodan said.
Based on mouse studies, patients with ODC1 may be at risk of skin cancer, so regular skin checks along with sun protection should be part of management, he said. “This also raises the question of whether there should be surveillance for other types of cancer given the role of polyamine in various types of tumors.”
Dr. Rodan has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
FROM CNS-ICNA 2020
Sleep apnea found to impact pain severity in younger adults
Sleep specialists might want to take a closer look at the connections between obstructive sleep apnea, chronic pain, and reported pain intensity in younger patients. Young adults with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are more likely to report moderate to severe pain intensity, compared with their peers who do not have the diagnosis, results from a large cross-sectional analysis of veterans showed.
“Because of the high burden of chronic pain conditions in younger adults, this study highlights the need to understand the impact of OSA diagnosis and treatment on pain intensity,” researchers led by Wardah Athar, a graduate student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Lori A. Bastian, MD, MPH, a professor of internal medicine at Yale, wrote in an article published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society. “This understanding would then help inform the development of interventions to promote screening for OSA among young adults with chronic pain and pain management among those with diagnosed OSA.”
In an effort to assess whether young adults with diagnosed OSA are more likely to report higher pain intensity, compared with those without OSA, the researchers drew from a sample of 858,226 veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn who had at least one visit to a VA clinic between 2001 and 2014. They used ICD-9 codes to identify OSA and assessed self-reported responses to pain measures on a 0-10 numeric scale which were recorded in each veteran’s EMR. Next, they averaged pain intensity responses over a 12-month period and categorized them as none (0), mild (1-3), and moderate/severe (4–10). Covariates included age, sex, education, race, mental health diagnoses, headache diagnoses, pain diagnoses, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, and smoking status. The researchers used multivariate logistic regression models and multiple imputation to generate values for missing variables.
The mean age of the patients was 30 years, 64% were White, 17% were Black, 12% were Hispanic, and remainder were other/unknown race/ethnicity. Ninety percent were male, and 20% had greater than a high school education. Of the 858,226 patients, 91,244 (11%) had a diagnosis of OSA. Compared with patients who had no diagnosis of OSA, the unadjusted odds of reporting moderate/severe pain was 48% higher among those with OSA (odds ratio 1.48; P < .0001). After the researchers adjusted for all covariates in the model, the association between OSA and moderate/severe pain remained significant though attenuated, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (P < .0001).
Several characteristics were different between those who had a diagnosis of OSA and those who did not, including age (a mean of 36 vs. 26 years, respectively) and having the following diagnoses: pain (36% vs. 16%), headache (28% vs. 14%), diabetes (12% vs. 2%), hypertension (40% vs. 12%), and a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater (69% vs. 35%). Certain psychiatric disorders were also common among patients with OSA, including major depressive disorder (20% vs. 10%), posttraumatic stress disorder (50% vs. 30%), and substance use disorder (26% vs. 17%). Patients with OSA were also more likely to have been prescribed benzodiazepines or opioids within 90 days of their OSA diagnosis. Although men were more likely to have a diagnosis of OSA, no differences related to sex in the association of OSA and pain were observed in sex-based stratified analyses.
“Based on these results, we suggest more thorough and more frequent pain intensity screening in patients with OSA, particularly in those patients who are younger than 60 years old without significant comorbid illness,” the researchers concluded. “Furthermore, we also recommend increased OSA screening for patients with moderate/severe pain intensity and pain diagnoses.” One tool they recommend is the STOP-Bang (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed Apnea, Blood Pressure, Body Mass Index, Age, Neck Circumference, and Gender) questionnaire, which has been validated in multiple settings.
Commenting on the findings of this study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study design. “One of the problems with sleep apnea studies is that there are always confounding effects, especially from BMI. This is a population that has a significant medical burden of disease, but I think this is a well-done study to look at the relationship between pain and OSA in a younger population. The authors tried to adjust for all these confounders and they still found a significant association. This indicates that sleep affects one’s pain threshold. And sleep apnea, by mechanisms still yet to be defined, also alters that pain threshold. It may also affect the expression of pain or management of pain, making treatment more problematic in this population,” he said in an interview.
A key limitation of the study, he continued, was the fact it evaluated only one aspect of sleep: OSA. “They didn’t look at duration of sleep, comorbid insomnia, or fragmentation of sleep from apnea or from other causes,” Dr. Sundar said. “We have multiple ways of treating sleep apnea. Clearly, we need studies of treating sleep apnea with [continuous positive airway pressure] and how that affects the occurrence of pain. The relevant practical aspect of this is that there are pain clinics all over the country that should screen for sleep apnea. Along the same lines, sleep practitioners should be aware that pain has an important association with sleep apnea.”
The study was supported by the Health Services Research & Development in the Department of Veterans Affairs of the Veterans Health Administration, the Yale School of Medicine Medical Student Fellowship, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Athar W et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17(10):1273-48.
Correction, 10/28/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Wardah Athar's name in the photo caption.
Sleep specialists might want to take a closer look at the connections between obstructive sleep apnea, chronic pain, and reported pain intensity in younger patients. Young adults with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are more likely to report moderate to severe pain intensity, compared with their peers who do not have the diagnosis, results from a large cross-sectional analysis of veterans showed.
“Because of the high burden of chronic pain conditions in younger adults, this study highlights the need to understand the impact of OSA diagnosis and treatment on pain intensity,” researchers led by Wardah Athar, a graduate student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Lori A. Bastian, MD, MPH, a professor of internal medicine at Yale, wrote in an article published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society. “This understanding would then help inform the development of interventions to promote screening for OSA among young adults with chronic pain and pain management among those with diagnosed OSA.”
In an effort to assess whether young adults with diagnosed OSA are more likely to report higher pain intensity, compared with those without OSA, the researchers drew from a sample of 858,226 veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn who had at least one visit to a VA clinic between 2001 and 2014. They used ICD-9 codes to identify OSA and assessed self-reported responses to pain measures on a 0-10 numeric scale which were recorded in each veteran’s EMR. Next, they averaged pain intensity responses over a 12-month period and categorized them as none (0), mild (1-3), and moderate/severe (4–10). Covariates included age, sex, education, race, mental health diagnoses, headache diagnoses, pain diagnoses, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, and smoking status. The researchers used multivariate logistic regression models and multiple imputation to generate values for missing variables.
The mean age of the patients was 30 years, 64% were White, 17% were Black, 12% were Hispanic, and remainder were other/unknown race/ethnicity. Ninety percent were male, and 20% had greater than a high school education. Of the 858,226 patients, 91,244 (11%) had a diagnosis of OSA. Compared with patients who had no diagnosis of OSA, the unadjusted odds of reporting moderate/severe pain was 48% higher among those with OSA (odds ratio 1.48; P < .0001). After the researchers adjusted for all covariates in the model, the association between OSA and moderate/severe pain remained significant though attenuated, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (P < .0001).
Several characteristics were different between those who had a diagnosis of OSA and those who did not, including age (a mean of 36 vs. 26 years, respectively) and having the following diagnoses: pain (36% vs. 16%), headache (28% vs. 14%), diabetes (12% vs. 2%), hypertension (40% vs. 12%), and a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater (69% vs. 35%). Certain psychiatric disorders were also common among patients with OSA, including major depressive disorder (20% vs. 10%), posttraumatic stress disorder (50% vs. 30%), and substance use disorder (26% vs. 17%). Patients with OSA were also more likely to have been prescribed benzodiazepines or opioids within 90 days of their OSA diagnosis. Although men were more likely to have a diagnosis of OSA, no differences related to sex in the association of OSA and pain were observed in sex-based stratified analyses.
“Based on these results, we suggest more thorough and more frequent pain intensity screening in patients with OSA, particularly in those patients who are younger than 60 years old without significant comorbid illness,” the researchers concluded. “Furthermore, we also recommend increased OSA screening for patients with moderate/severe pain intensity and pain diagnoses.” One tool they recommend is the STOP-Bang (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed Apnea, Blood Pressure, Body Mass Index, Age, Neck Circumference, and Gender) questionnaire, which has been validated in multiple settings.
Commenting on the findings of this study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study design. “One of the problems with sleep apnea studies is that there are always confounding effects, especially from BMI. This is a population that has a significant medical burden of disease, but I think this is a well-done study to look at the relationship between pain and OSA in a younger population. The authors tried to adjust for all these confounders and they still found a significant association. This indicates that sleep affects one’s pain threshold. And sleep apnea, by mechanisms still yet to be defined, also alters that pain threshold. It may also affect the expression of pain or management of pain, making treatment more problematic in this population,” he said in an interview.
A key limitation of the study, he continued, was the fact it evaluated only one aspect of sleep: OSA. “They didn’t look at duration of sleep, comorbid insomnia, or fragmentation of sleep from apnea or from other causes,” Dr. Sundar said. “We have multiple ways of treating sleep apnea. Clearly, we need studies of treating sleep apnea with [continuous positive airway pressure] and how that affects the occurrence of pain. The relevant practical aspect of this is that there are pain clinics all over the country that should screen for sleep apnea. Along the same lines, sleep practitioners should be aware that pain has an important association with sleep apnea.”
The study was supported by the Health Services Research & Development in the Department of Veterans Affairs of the Veterans Health Administration, the Yale School of Medicine Medical Student Fellowship, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Athar W et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17(10):1273-48.
Correction, 10/28/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Wardah Athar's name in the photo caption.
Sleep specialists might want to take a closer look at the connections between obstructive sleep apnea, chronic pain, and reported pain intensity in younger patients. Young adults with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are more likely to report moderate to severe pain intensity, compared with their peers who do not have the diagnosis, results from a large cross-sectional analysis of veterans showed.
“Because of the high burden of chronic pain conditions in younger adults, this study highlights the need to understand the impact of OSA diagnosis and treatment on pain intensity,” researchers led by Wardah Athar, a graduate student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Lori A. Bastian, MD, MPH, a professor of internal medicine at Yale, wrote in an article published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society. “This understanding would then help inform the development of interventions to promote screening for OSA among young adults with chronic pain and pain management among those with diagnosed OSA.”
In an effort to assess whether young adults with diagnosed OSA are more likely to report higher pain intensity, compared with those without OSA, the researchers drew from a sample of 858,226 veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn who had at least one visit to a VA clinic between 2001 and 2014. They used ICD-9 codes to identify OSA and assessed self-reported responses to pain measures on a 0-10 numeric scale which were recorded in each veteran’s EMR. Next, they averaged pain intensity responses over a 12-month period and categorized them as none (0), mild (1-3), and moderate/severe (4–10). Covariates included age, sex, education, race, mental health diagnoses, headache diagnoses, pain diagnoses, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, and smoking status. The researchers used multivariate logistic regression models and multiple imputation to generate values for missing variables.
The mean age of the patients was 30 years, 64% were White, 17% were Black, 12% were Hispanic, and remainder were other/unknown race/ethnicity. Ninety percent were male, and 20% had greater than a high school education. Of the 858,226 patients, 91,244 (11%) had a diagnosis of OSA. Compared with patients who had no diagnosis of OSA, the unadjusted odds of reporting moderate/severe pain was 48% higher among those with OSA (odds ratio 1.48; P < .0001). After the researchers adjusted for all covariates in the model, the association between OSA and moderate/severe pain remained significant though attenuated, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (P < .0001).
Several characteristics were different between those who had a diagnosis of OSA and those who did not, including age (a mean of 36 vs. 26 years, respectively) and having the following diagnoses: pain (36% vs. 16%), headache (28% vs. 14%), diabetes (12% vs. 2%), hypertension (40% vs. 12%), and a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater (69% vs. 35%). Certain psychiatric disorders were also common among patients with OSA, including major depressive disorder (20% vs. 10%), posttraumatic stress disorder (50% vs. 30%), and substance use disorder (26% vs. 17%). Patients with OSA were also more likely to have been prescribed benzodiazepines or opioids within 90 days of their OSA diagnosis. Although men were more likely to have a diagnosis of OSA, no differences related to sex in the association of OSA and pain were observed in sex-based stratified analyses.
“Based on these results, we suggest more thorough and more frequent pain intensity screening in patients with OSA, particularly in those patients who are younger than 60 years old without significant comorbid illness,” the researchers concluded. “Furthermore, we also recommend increased OSA screening for patients with moderate/severe pain intensity and pain diagnoses.” One tool they recommend is the STOP-Bang (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed Apnea, Blood Pressure, Body Mass Index, Age, Neck Circumference, and Gender) questionnaire, which has been validated in multiple settings.
Commenting on the findings of this study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study design. “One of the problems with sleep apnea studies is that there are always confounding effects, especially from BMI. This is a population that has a significant medical burden of disease, but I think this is a well-done study to look at the relationship between pain and OSA in a younger population. The authors tried to adjust for all these confounders and they still found a significant association. This indicates that sleep affects one’s pain threshold. And sleep apnea, by mechanisms still yet to be defined, also alters that pain threshold. It may also affect the expression of pain or management of pain, making treatment more problematic in this population,” he said in an interview.
A key limitation of the study, he continued, was the fact it evaluated only one aspect of sleep: OSA. “They didn’t look at duration of sleep, comorbid insomnia, or fragmentation of sleep from apnea or from other causes,” Dr. Sundar said. “We have multiple ways of treating sleep apnea. Clearly, we need studies of treating sleep apnea with [continuous positive airway pressure] and how that affects the occurrence of pain. The relevant practical aspect of this is that there are pain clinics all over the country that should screen for sleep apnea. Along the same lines, sleep practitioners should be aware that pain has an important association with sleep apnea.”
The study was supported by the Health Services Research & Development in the Department of Veterans Affairs of the Veterans Health Administration, the Yale School of Medicine Medical Student Fellowship, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Athar W et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17(10):1273-48.
Correction, 10/28/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Wardah Athar's name in the photo caption.
FROM ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY
Brain imaging reveals a neural basis for partisan politics
The differences between politically left- and right-leaning individuals may have neural underpinnings, results from a new brain imaging study suggest.
Investigators found that despite watching the same videos related to immigration policy, neural responses differed between liberals and conservatives.
“This divergence was strongest when the videos used language that highlighted threat, morality, and emotions, suggesting that certain words are more likely to drive polarized response,” lead researcher Yuan Chang Leong, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive neuroscience at the University of California, Berkeley, told Medscape Medical News.
“The results suggest a neural basis for partisan biases in interpreting political messages, the effects these biases have on attitude change, and the type of language most likely to drive biased interpretations,” Leong added.
The study was published online Oct. 20 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Hardwired to disagree?
The researchers combined fMRI with semantic content analysis to investigate neural mechanisms that underlie the biased processing of political content.
They scanned 38 middle-aged men and women with liberal- or conservative-leaning immigration attitudes while the participants watched short news clips, campaign ads, and public speeches related to various immigration policies.
These policies included those that led to the United States–Mexico border wall, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protections for undocumented immigrants, the ban on refugees from majority-Muslim countries coming to the United States, and the cutting of federal funding to sanctuary cities.
After each video, participants rated on a scale of 1 to 5 how much they agreed with the general message of the video, the credibility of the information presented, and the extent to which the video made them likely to change their position and to support the policy in question.
The study revealed evidence of “neural polarization” – activity in the brain that diverges between people who hold liberal vs. conservative political views, the researchers reported.
Neural polarization was observed in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), a brain region associated with the interpretation of narrative content.
Neural polarization in this region intensified during moments in the videos that included risk-related and moral-emotional language, highlighting content features most likely to drive divergent interpretations between conservatives and liberals, they noted.
For a given individual, the closer that brain activity resembled that of the “average conservative” or “average liberal,” the more likely the person was to adopt that group’s position after watching the videos.
“We know that partisans respond differently to the same information. So in that sense, it’s not surprising to find that their brains respond differently as well,” Leong told Medscape Medical News.
“What we weren’t sure about was where in the brain we would find these differences, how neural differences were related to attitude change, and what type of content would be most likely to be associated with these differences,” he said.
Importantly, said Leong, these differences do not imply that people are hardwired to disagree. Rather, individual experiences and the media that is consumed likely contribute to neural polarization.
“ – for example, by framing messages to appeal to the core values of the respective voter,” he said.
Brain stimulation to alter political perception?
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director, Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the research “puts us one step closer to identifying how our brains interpret political information.”
The study, Lakhan noted, implicates a specific brain structure, the DMPFC, which is the “lens” in which information that gets into our brain is “viewed and acted on.”
“I trust that there will be plenty more work using a similar fMRI approach to tease out scenarios outside of immigration policy, as used in this study. Down the line, brain signatures through fMRI may be able to tell an individual’s political bent, and perhaps technologies like transcranial magnetic stimulation may be able to modulate our perceptions of political content, Shaheen said.
The research was supported by a grant from the Army Research Office. Leong and Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The differences between politically left- and right-leaning individuals may have neural underpinnings, results from a new brain imaging study suggest.
Investigators found that despite watching the same videos related to immigration policy, neural responses differed between liberals and conservatives.
“This divergence was strongest when the videos used language that highlighted threat, morality, and emotions, suggesting that certain words are more likely to drive polarized response,” lead researcher Yuan Chang Leong, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive neuroscience at the University of California, Berkeley, told Medscape Medical News.
“The results suggest a neural basis for partisan biases in interpreting political messages, the effects these biases have on attitude change, and the type of language most likely to drive biased interpretations,” Leong added.
The study was published online Oct. 20 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Hardwired to disagree?
The researchers combined fMRI with semantic content analysis to investigate neural mechanisms that underlie the biased processing of political content.
They scanned 38 middle-aged men and women with liberal- or conservative-leaning immigration attitudes while the participants watched short news clips, campaign ads, and public speeches related to various immigration policies.
These policies included those that led to the United States–Mexico border wall, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protections for undocumented immigrants, the ban on refugees from majority-Muslim countries coming to the United States, and the cutting of federal funding to sanctuary cities.
After each video, participants rated on a scale of 1 to 5 how much they agreed with the general message of the video, the credibility of the information presented, and the extent to which the video made them likely to change their position and to support the policy in question.
The study revealed evidence of “neural polarization” – activity in the brain that diverges between people who hold liberal vs. conservative political views, the researchers reported.
Neural polarization was observed in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), a brain region associated with the interpretation of narrative content.
Neural polarization in this region intensified during moments in the videos that included risk-related and moral-emotional language, highlighting content features most likely to drive divergent interpretations between conservatives and liberals, they noted.
For a given individual, the closer that brain activity resembled that of the “average conservative” or “average liberal,” the more likely the person was to adopt that group’s position after watching the videos.
“We know that partisans respond differently to the same information. So in that sense, it’s not surprising to find that their brains respond differently as well,” Leong told Medscape Medical News.
“What we weren’t sure about was where in the brain we would find these differences, how neural differences were related to attitude change, and what type of content would be most likely to be associated with these differences,” he said.
Importantly, said Leong, these differences do not imply that people are hardwired to disagree. Rather, individual experiences and the media that is consumed likely contribute to neural polarization.
“ – for example, by framing messages to appeal to the core values of the respective voter,” he said.
Brain stimulation to alter political perception?
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director, Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the research “puts us one step closer to identifying how our brains interpret political information.”
The study, Lakhan noted, implicates a specific brain structure, the DMPFC, which is the “lens” in which information that gets into our brain is “viewed and acted on.”
“I trust that there will be plenty more work using a similar fMRI approach to tease out scenarios outside of immigration policy, as used in this study. Down the line, brain signatures through fMRI may be able to tell an individual’s political bent, and perhaps technologies like transcranial magnetic stimulation may be able to modulate our perceptions of political content, Shaheen said.
The research was supported by a grant from the Army Research Office. Leong and Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The differences between politically left- and right-leaning individuals may have neural underpinnings, results from a new brain imaging study suggest.
Investigators found that despite watching the same videos related to immigration policy, neural responses differed between liberals and conservatives.
“This divergence was strongest when the videos used language that highlighted threat, morality, and emotions, suggesting that certain words are more likely to drive polarized response,” lead researcher Yuan Chang Leong, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive neuroscience at the University of California, Berkeley, told Medscape Medical News.
“The results suggest a neural basis for partisan biases in interpreting political messages, the effects these biases have on attitude change, and the type of language most likely to drive biased interpretations,” Leong added.
The study was published online Oct. 20 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Hardwired to disagree?
The researchers combined fMRI with semantic content analysis to investigate neural mechanisms that underlie the biased processing of political content.
They scanned 38 middle-aged men and women with liberal- or conservative-leaning immigration attitudes while the participants watched short news clips, campaign ads, and public speeches related to various immigration policies.
These policies included those that led to the United States–Mexico border wall, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protections for undocumented immigrants, the ban on refugees from majority-Muslim countries coming to the United States, and the cutting of federal funding to sanctuary cities.
After each video, participants rated on a scale of 1 to 5 how much they agreed with the general message of the video, the credibility of the information presented, and the extent to which the video made them likely to change their position and to support the policy in question.
The study revealed evidence of “neural polarization” – activity in the brain that diverges between people who hold liberal vs. conservative political views, the researchers reported.
Neural polarization was observed in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), a brain region associated with the interpretation of narrative content.
Neural polarization in this region intensified during moments in the videos that included risk-related and moral-emotional language, highlighting content features most likely to drive divergent interpretations between conservatives and liberals, they noted.
For a given individual, the closer that brain activity resembled that of the “average conservative” or “average liberal,” the more likely the person was to adopt that group’s position after watching the videos.
“We know that partisans respond differently to the same information. So in that sense, it’s not surprising to find that their brains respond differently as well,” Leong told Medscape Medical News.
“What we weren’t sure about was where in the brain we would find these differences, how neural differences were related to attitude change, and what type of content would be most likely to be associated with these differences,” he said.
Importantly, said Leong, these differences do not imply that people are hardwired to disagree. Rather, individual experiences and the media that is consumed likely contribute to neural polarization.
“ – for example, by framing messages to appeal to the core values of the respective voter,” he said.
Brain stimulation to alter political perception?
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director, Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the research “puts us one step closer to identifying how our brains interpret political information.”
The study, Lakhan noted, implicates a specific brain structure, the DMPFC, which is the “lens” in which information that gets into our brain is “viewed and acted on.”
“I trust that there will be plenty more work using a similar fMRI approach to tease out scenarios outside of immigration policy, as used in this study. Down the line, brain signatures through fMRI may be able to tell an individual’s political bent, and perhaps technologies like transcranial magnetic stimulation may be able to modulate our perceptions of political content, Shaheen said.
The research was supported by a grant from the Army Research Office. Leong and Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19: Immunity from antibodies may decline rapidly
Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.
An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.
The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.
Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.
“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”
Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
Antibody prevalence declined in all adults
Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.
There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.
Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.
The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.
No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.
The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.
Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’
Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”
However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.
Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.
However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.
“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.
Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.
An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.
The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.
Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.
“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”
Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
Antibody prevalence declined in all adults
Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.
There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.
Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.
The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.
No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.
The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.
Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’
Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”
However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.
Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.
However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.
“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.
Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.
An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.
The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.
Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.
“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”
Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
Antibody prevalence declined in all adults
Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.
There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.
Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.
The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.
No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.
The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.
Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’
Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”
However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.
Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.
However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.
“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.
Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ataluren delays disease milestones in patients with nonsense mutation DMD
(nmDMD), according to study results presented at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Because so few patients in the study reached one of the negative pulmonary endpoints, longer follow-up will be needed to assess more conclusively the effect of ataluren on pulmonary function, said Francesco Bibbiani, MD, vice president of clinical development at PTC Therapeutics.
DMD is a rare and fatal neuromuscular disorder that causes progressive muscle weakness. Between 10% and 15% of patients with DMD have a nonsense mutation in the DMD gene. This mutation creates a premature stop codon that prevents the translation of a full-length dystrophin protein. Ataluren is designed to promote readthrough of this premature stop codon, thus enabling the production of a full-length dystrophin protein. An oral formulation of the drug has been approved in several European and South American countries.
Comparing treatment and standard of care
Study 019 was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, long-term safety study of ataluren that enrolled international patients with nmDMD, most of whom had participated previously in a trial of ataluren. Dr. Bibbiani and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of Study 019 data to determine whether patients with nmDMD who received ataluren and standard of care for as long as 240 weeks had a different time to loss of ambulation and to decline of pulmonary function, compared with patients who received standard of care alone. Patients who were eligible to participate in Study 019 were male, had nmDMD, and had completed the blinded study drug treatment in a previous PTC-sponsored study. Treatment consisted of two 10-mg/kg doses and one 20-mg/kg dose of ataluren per day.
Dr. Bibbiani and colleagues used participants in the Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group Duchenne Natural History Study (CINRG DNHS) as a control group. CINRG DNHS was a prospective, longitudinal study of patients with DMD who received standard of care at 20 centers worldwide from 2006 to 2016. Dr. Bibbiani and colleagues used propensity-score matching to pair participants in this study with participants in Study 019. They matched patients with respect to age at onset of first symptoms, age at initiation of corticosteroid use, duration of deflazacort use, and duration of use of other corticosteroids. These factors are established predictors of disease progression in DMD.
Patients were eligible for inclusion in the post hoc analysis if they had available data for age, loss of ambulation, and the covariates selected for matching. Of 94 Study 019 participants, 60 were eligible for propensity-score matching with participants in CINRG DNHS. Forty-five nonambulatory patients were eligible for matching in the analysis of age at the decline in pulmonary function because data for age at loss of ambulation and for the three pulmonary endpoints measured were available for them. Thus, comparable population sizes were available for each analysis.
Treatment delayed disease milestones
Kaplan–Meier analysis indicated that the median age at various disease milestones was higher among patients who received ataluren and standard of care, compared with those who received standard of care alone. The median age at loss of ambulation was 15.5 years for Study 019 participants and 13.3 years for CINRG DNHS patients. The median age at predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) of less than 60% was 18.1 years for Study 019 participants and 15.8 years for CINRG DNHS participants. The median age at predicted FVC of less than 50% was 19.1 years for Study 019 participants and 17.9 years for CINRG DNHS participants. Finally, the median age at FVC of less than 1 L was not calculable for Study 019 participants and 23.8 years for CINRG DNHS participants.
The Study 019 and CINRG DNHS study groups are sponsored by PTC Therapeutics, which developed ataluren. Dr. Bibbiani is an employee of PTC Therapeutics.
SOURCE: McDonald C, et al. CNS-ICNA 2020. Abstract PL69.
(nmDMD), according to study results presented at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Because so few patients in the study reached one of the negative pulmonary endpoints, longer follow-up will be needed to assess more conclusively the effect of ataluren on pulmonary function, said Francesco Bibbiani, MD, vice president of clinical development at PTC Therapeutics.
DMD is a rare and fatal neuromuscular disorder that causes progressive muscle weakness. Between 10% and 15% of patients with DMD have a nonsense mutation in the DMD gene. This mutation creates a premature stop codon that prevents the translation of a full-length dystrophin protein. Ataluren is designed to promote readthrough of this premature stop codon, thus enabling the production of a full-length dystrophin protein. An oral formulation of the drug has been approved in several European and South American countries.
Comparing treatment and standard of care
Study 019 was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, long-term safety study of ataluren that enrolled international patients with nmDMD, most of whom had participated previously in a trial of ataluren. Dr. Bibbiani and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of Study 019 data to determine whether patients with nmDMD who received ataluren and standard of care for as long as 240 weeks had a different time to loss of ambulation and to decline of pulmonary function, compared with patients who received standard of care alone. Patients who were eligible to participate in Study 019 were male, had nmDMD, and had completed the blinded study drug treatment in a previous PTC-sponsored study. Treatment consisted of two 10-mg/kg doses and one 20-mg/kg dose of ataluren per day.
Dr. Bibbiani and colleagues used participants in the Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group Duchenne Natural History Study (CINRG DNHS) as a control group. CINRG DNHS was a prospective, longitudinal study of patients with DMD who received standard of care at 20 centers worldwide from 2006 to 2016. Dr. Bibbiani and colleagues used propensity-score matching to pair participants in this study with participants in Study 019. They matched patients with respect to age at onset of first symptoms, age at initiation of corticosteroid use, duration of deflazacort use, and duration of use of other corticosteroids. These factors are established predictors of disease progression in DMD.
Patients were eligible for inclusion in the post hoc analysis if they had available data for age, loss of ambulation, and the covariates selected for matching. Of 94 Study 019 participants, 60 were eligible for propensity-score matching with participants in CINRG DNHS. Forty-five nonambulatory patients were eligible for matching in the analysis of age at the decline in pulmonary function because data for age at loss of ambulation and for the three pulmonary endpoints measured were available for them. Thus, comparable population sizes were available for each analysis.
Treatment delayed disease milestones
Kaplan–Meier analysis indicated that the median age at various disease milestones was higher among patients who received ataluren and standard of care, compared with those who received standard of care alone. The median age at loss of ambulation was 15.5 years for Study 019 participants and 13.3 years for CINRG DNHS patients. The median age at predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) of less than 60% was 18.1 years for Study 019 participants and 15.8 years for CINRG DNHS participants. The median age at predicted FVC of less than 50% was 19.1 years for Study 019 participants and 17.9 years for CINRG DNHS participants. Finally, the median age at FVC of less than 1 L was not calculable for Study 019 participants and 23.8 years for CINRG DNHS participants.
The Study 019 and CINRG DNHS study groups are sponsored by PTC Therapeutics, which developed ataluren. Dr. Bibbiani is an employee of PTC Therapeutics.
SOURCE: McDonald C, et al. CNS-ICNA 2020. Abstract PL69.
(nmDMD), according to study results presented at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Because so few patients in the study reached one of the negative pulmonary endpoints, longer follow-up will be needed to assess more conclusively the effect of ataluren on pulmonary function, said Francesco Bibbiani, MD, vice president of clinical development at PTC Therapeutics.
DMD is a rare and fatal neuromuscular disorder that causes progressive muscle weakness. Between 10% and 15% of patients with DMD have a nonsense mutation in the DMD gene. This mutation creates a premature stop codon that prevents the translation of a full-length dystrophin protein. Ataluren is designed to promote readthrough of this premature stop codon, thus enabling the production of a full-length dystrophin protein. An oral formulation of the drug has been approved in several European and South American countries.
Comparing treatment and standard of care
Study 019 was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label, long-term safety study of ataluren that enrolled international patients with nmDMD, most of whom had participated previously in a trial of ataluren. Dr. Bibbiani and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of Study 019 data to determine whether patients with nmDMD who received ataluren and standard of care for as long as 240 weeks had a different time to loss of ambulation and to decline of pulmonary function, compared with patients who received standard of care alone. Patients who were eligible to participate in Study 019 were male, had nmDMD, and had completed the blinded study drug treatment in a previous PTC-sponsored study. Treatment consisted of two 10-mg/kg doses and one 20-mg/kg dose of ataluren per day.
Dr. Bibbiani and colleagues used participants in the Cooperative International Neuromuscular Research Group Duchenne Natural History Study (CINRG DNHS) as a control group. CINRG DNHS was a prospective, longitudinal study of patients with DMD who received standard of care at 20 centers worldwide from 2006 to 2016. Dr. Bibbiani and colleagues used propensity-score matching to pair participants in this study with participants in Study 019. They matched patients with respect to age at onset of first symptoms, age at initiation of corticosteroid use, duration of deflazacort use, and duration of use of other corticosteroids. These factors are established predictors of disease progression in DMD.
Patients were eligible for inclusion in the post hoc analysis if they had available data for age, loss of ambulation, and the covariates selected for matching. Of 94 Study 019 participants, 60 were eligible for propensity-score matching with participants in CINRG DNHS. Forty-five nonambulatory patients were eligible for matching in the analysis of age at the decline in pulmonary function because data for age at loss of ambulation and for the three pulmonary endpoints measured were available for them. Thus, comparable population sizes were available for each analysis.
Treatment delayed disease milestones
Kaplan–Meier analysis indicated that the median age at various disease milestones was higher among patients who received ataluren and standard of care, compared with those who received standard of care alone. The median age at loss of ambulation was 15.5 years for Study 019 participants and 13.3 years for CINRG DNHS patients. The median age at predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) of less than 60% was 18.1 years for Study 019 participants and 15.8 years for CINRG DNHS participants. The median age at predicted FVC of less than 50% was 19.1 years for Study 019 participants and 17.9 years for CINRG DNHS participants. Finally, the median age at FVC of less than 1 L was not calculable for Study 019 participants and 23.8 years for CINRG DNHS participants.
The Study 019 and CINRG DNHS study groups are sponsored by PTC Therapeutics, which developed ataluren. Dr. Bibbiani is an employee of PTC Therapeutics.
SOURCE: McDonald C, et al. CNS-ICNA 2020. Abstract PL69.
FROM CNS-ICNA 2020
Newer DMTs are more effective than injectable DMTs in pediatric MS
Nevertheless, all DMTs reduce children’s annualized relapse rate (ARR), according to results presented at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year.
“Our study adds weight to the argument for an imminent shift in clinical practice toward the use of newer, more efficacious DMTs in the first instance,” said Omar Abdel-Mannan, MD, of Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. MRI activity continues among patients treated with DMTs, and the number of relapses is highest in the period following diagnosis. But because the effect of treatment on brain atrophy is greatest in the initial period of disease, “this time period may represent a critical therapeutic window for the use of highly effective therapies,” said Dr. Abdel-Mannan.
An examination of medical records
MS is much less prevalent among children than among adults. Compared with adults with MS, children with MS have a higher relapse rate and slower accumulation of disability. The individual response to DMTs is variable, said Dr. Abdel-Mannan. Furthermore, current standards of care for pediatric MS vary by center and are based on adult protocols.
Dr. Abdel-Mannan and colleagues conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of the newer oral and infusion DMTs, compared with the older injectable DMTs, in children with relapsing-remitting MS. They examined data from seven tertiary pediatric neurology centers in the United Kingdom and identified patients under age 18 years with relapsing-remitting MS who were treated with DMTs between 2012 and 2018. The investigators reviewed clinical and paraclinical data retrospectively using electronic medical records. They compared patients’ ARR, new radiological activity, and Expanded Disability Status Scale score pretreatment and on treatment.
The researchers included 103 patients in their analysis. The population’s median age was 14 years. The ratio of girls to boys was approximately 3:1. Whites and other races/ethnicities accounted for approximately equal groups of patients. About one-third of patients presented with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) in the form of transverse myelitis or optic neuritis. Two-thirds presented with other CIS phenotypes. Almost all children had an abnormal MRI at onset.
Most patients initiated injectable DMTs
Of the 103 patients, 89 started treatment with an injectable (e.g., glatiramer or interferon) or an older DMT. Fourteen patients began treatment with a newer DMT (e.g., dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and alemtuzumab). Three of the 89 patients on an injectable DMT switched to another injectable DMT, and two of these patients later escalated to a newer DMT. Thirty-five of the 89 patients who initiated an injectable DMT were escalated immediately to a newer DMT. One of these patients later switched to another newer DMT. Two of the 14 patients who started on a newer DMT as their first drug switched to another newer DMT.
The investigators observed a reduction in ARR for all DMTs used during the study period. Nevertheless, a significant number of patients receiving injectable DMTs continued to relapse on treatment. Almost all patients receiving newer DMTs, however, had a reduction in relapses. When Dr. Abdel-Mannan and colleagues performed Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, they found that patients receiving newer DMTs had a longer time to first relapse and a longer time to switch treatment over 2 years, compared with patients receiving injectable DMTs. In addition, patients receiving newer DMTs had a longer time to develop new radiological activity, compared with patients receiving injectables. The analysis also indicated that the proportion of patients with new radiological activity was higher than the proportion who had clinical relapses and an Expanded Disability Status Scale score increase of more than 1 point over 2 years.
In all, 55 of the children receiving injectable DMTs and 18 of the patients receiving newer DMTs had side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were flulike symptoms and injection-site reactions. Five patients discontinued or switched their DMTs because of side effects. “Reassuringly, no pediatric-specific side effects were reported,” said Dr. Abdel-Mannan. The newer DMTs had similar short-term safety, tolerability, and side-effect profiles in these children as in adult patients.
The study was conducted on behalf of the UK Childhood Inflammatory Demyelination Network. Dr. Abdel-Mannan had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Abdel-Mannan O et al. CNS-ICNA 2020, Abstract PL10.
Nevertheless, all DMTs reduce children’s annualized relapse rate (ARR), according to results presented at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year.
“Our study adds weight to the argument for an imminent shift in clinical practice toward the use of newer, more efficacious DMTs in the first instance,” said Omar Abdel-Mannan, MD, of Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. MRI activity continues among patients treated with DMTs, and the number of relapses is highest in the period following diagnosis. But because the effect of treatment on brain atrophy is greatest in the initial period of disease, “this time period may represent a critical therapeutic window for the use of highly effective therapies,” said Dr. Abdel-Mannan.
An examination of medical records
MS is much less prevalent among children than among adults. Compared with adults with MS, children with MS have a higher relapse rate and slower accumulation of disability. The individual response to DMTs is variable, said Dr. Abdel-Mannan. Furthermore, current standards of care for pediatric MS vary by center and are based on adult protocols.
Dr. Abdel-Mannan and colleagues conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of the newer oral and infusion DMTs, compared with the older injectable DMTs, in children with relapsing-remitting MS. They examined data from seven tertiary pediatric neurology centers in the United Kingdom and identified patients under age 18 years with relapsing-remitting MS who were treated with DMTs between 2012 and 2018. The investigators reviewed clinical and paraclinical data retrospectively using electronic medical records. They compared patients’ ARR, new radiological activity, and Expanded Disability Status Scale score pretreatment and on treatment.
The researchers included 103 patients in their analysis. The population’s median age was 14 years. The ratio of girls to boys was approximately 3:1. Whites and other races/ethnicities accounted for approximately equal groups of patients. About one-third of patients presented with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) in the form of transverse myelitis or optic neuritis. Two-thirds presented with other CIS phenotypes. Almost all children had an abnormal MRI at onset.
Most patients initiated injectable DMTs
Of the 103 patients, 89 started treatment with an injectable (e.g., glatiramer or interferon) or an older DMT. Fourteen patients began treatment with a newer DMT (e.g., dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and alemtuzumab). Three of the 89 patients on an injectable DMT switched to another injectable DMT, and two of these patients later escalated to a newer DMT. Thirty-five of the 89 patients who initiated an injectable DMT were escalated immediately to a newer DMT. One of these patients later switched to another newer DMT. Two of the 14 patients who started on a newer DMT as their first drug switched to another newer DMT.
The investigators observed a reduction in ARR for all DMTs used during the study period. Nevertheless, a significant number of patients receiving injectable DMTs continued to relapse on treatment. Almost all patients receiving newer DMTs, however, had a reduction in relapses. When Dr. Abdel-Mannan and colleagues performed Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, they found that patients receiving newer DMTs had a longer time to first relapse and a longer time to switch treatment over 2 years, compared with patients receiving injectable DMTs. In addition, patients receiving newer DMTs had a longer time to develop new radiological activity, compared with patients receiving injectables. The analysis also indicated that the proportion of patients with new radiological activity was higher than the proportion who had clinical relapses and an Expanded Disability Status Scale score increase of more than 1 point over 2 years.
In all, 55 of the children receiving injectable DMTs and 18 of the patients receiving newer DMTs had side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were flulike symptoms and injection-site reactions. Five patients discontinued or switched their DMTs because of side effects. “Reassuringly, no pediatric-specific side effects were reported,” said Dr. Abdel-Mannan. The newer DMTs had similar short-term safety, tolerability, and side-effect profiles in these children as in adult patients.
The study was conducted on behalf of the UK Childhood Inflammatory Demyelination Network. Dr. Abdel-Mannan had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Abdel-Mannan O et al. CNS-ICNA 2020, Abstract PL10.
Nevertheless, all DMTs reduce children’s annualized relapse rate (ARR), according to results presented at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year.
“Our study adds weight to the argument for an imminent shift in clinical practice toward the use of newer, more efficacious DMTs in the first instance,” said Omar Abdel-Mannan, MD, of Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. MRI activity continues among patients treated with DMTs, and the number of relapses is highest in the period following diagnosis. But because the effect of treatment on brain atrophy is greatest in the initial period of disease, “this time period may represent a critical therapeutic window for the use of highly effective therapies,” said Dr. Abdel-Mannan.
An examination of medical records
MS is much less prevalent among children than among adults. Compared with adults with MS, children with MS have a higher relapse rate and slower accumulation of disability. The individual response to DMTs is variable, said Dr. Abdel-Mannan. Furthermore, current standards of care for pediatric MS vary by center and are based on adult protocols.
Dr. Abdel-Mannan and colleagues conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of the newer oral and infusion DMTs, compared with the older injectable DMTs, in children with relapsing-remitting MS. They examined data from seven tertiary pediatric neurology centers in the United Kingdom and identified patients under age 18 years with relapsing-remitting MS who were treated with DMTs between 2012 and 2018. The investigators reviewed clinical and paraclinical data retrospectively using electronic medical records. They compared patients’ ARR, new radiological activity, and Expanded Disability Status Scale score pretreatment and on treatment.
The researchers included 103 patients in their analysis. The population’s median age was 14 years. The ratio of girls to boys was approximately 3:1. Whites and other races/ethnicities accounted for approximately equal groups of patients. About one-third of patients presented with a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) in the form of transverse myelitis or optic neuritis. Two-thirds presented with other CIS phenotypes. Almost all children had an abnormal MRI at onset.
Most patients initiated injectable DMTs
Of the 103 patients, 89 started treatment with an injectable (e.g., glatiramer or interferon) or an older DMT. Fourteen patients began treatment with a newer DMT (e.g., dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and alemtuzumab). Three of the 89 patients on an injectable DMT switched to another injectable DMT, and two of these patients later escalated to a newer DMT. Thirty-five of the 89 patients who initiated an injectable DMT were escalated immediately to a newer DMT. One of these patients later switched to another newer DMT. Two of the 14 patients who started on a newer DMT as their first drug switched to another newer DMT.
The investigators observed a reduction in ARR for all DMTs used during the study period. Nevertheless, a significant number of patients receiving injectable DMTs continued to relapse on treatment. Almost all patients receiving newer DMTs, however, had a reduction in relapses. When Dr. Abdel-Mannan and colleagues performed Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, they found that patients receiving newer DMTs had a longer time to first relapse and a longer time to switch treatment over 2 years, compared with patients receiving injectable DMTs. In addition, patients receiving newer DMTs had a longer time to develop new radiological activity, compared with patients receiving injectables. The analysis also indicated that the proportion of patients with new radiological activity was higher than the proportion who had clinical relapses and an Expanded Disability Status Scale score increase of more than 1 point over 2 years.
In all, 55 of the children receiving injectable DMTs and 18 of the patients receiving newer DMTs had side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were flulike symptoms and injection-site reactions. Five patients discontinued or switched their DMTs because of side effects. “Reassuringly, no pediatric-specific side effects were reported,” said Dr. Abdel-Mannan. The newer DMTs had similar short-term safety, tolerability, and side-effect profiles in these children as in adult patients.
The study was conducted on behalf of the UK Childhood Inflammatory Demyelination Network. Dr. Abdel-Mannan had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Abdel-Mannan O et al. CNS-ICNA 2020, Abstract PL10.
FROM CNS-ICNA 2020
Study supports halting antiseizure medications after neonatal seizures
Maintaining antiseizure medication in infants who have had acute symptomatic neonatal seizures has been standard practice, but a prospective, observational, comparative effectiveness study calls that practice into question, providing evidence that discontinuing therapy at discharge poses no harm to children and has no effect on the development of epilepsies.
“,” said Hannah C. Glass, MDCM, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, Benioff Children’s Hospital, co-principal investigator, who presented results of the study at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Renee Shellhaas, MD, MS, clinical associate professor of pediatrics at C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, University of Michigan, was the other co-principal investigator.
“Although other, smaller studies have suggested it is safe to discontinue antiseizure medication after resolution of acute symptomatic seizures, the practice of early discontinuation has been very variable and depends largely on individual provider preference,” Dr. Glass said in an interview. “In our study, two-thirds of newborns with acute symptomatic seizures were maintained on antiseizure medication at the time of hospital discharge. Thus, a change to early medication discontinuation represents a major shift.”
The study evaluated 270 infants at nine centers enrolled in the Neonatal Seizure Registry and born from July 2015 through March 2018. Inclusion criteria were acute symptomatic seizures that occurred at up to 44 weeks postmenstrual age. In this cohort, 36% of patients had antiseizure medication discontinued after a median of 6 days; the remainder stayed on antiseizure medication after discharge at a median of 4 months.
The patients were followed for 2 years. The primary outcome was functional development measured by the Warner Initial Development Evaluation of Adaptive and Functional Skills (WIDEA-FS) assessment. The secondary outcome was epilepsy defined by International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) criteria. Follow-up consisted of phone calls and chart reviews at 12, 18, and 24 months.
“The primary outcome, functional development, was not significantly different between those children who were maintained on antiseizure medication as compared with those who were discontinued,” Dr. Glass said.
After propensity adjustment, the discontinued ASM group had an estimated WIDEA-FS score 4 points higher on average, she said. “The confidence intervals met our a priori noninferiority limit, indicating no harm to neurodevelopment for discontinuing antiseizure medication before discharge home from the neonatal seizure admission,” Dr. Glass noted.
The study also found that 13% of all participants developed epilepsy at a median of 8 months. “There was no significant difference in the frequency or timing of epilepsy between the two groups,” she said.
“We conclude there is no clear rationale for antiseizure medication maintenance,” Dr. Glass said. “There is no benefit to neurodevelopment, it prolongs the exposure to potentially harmful antiseizure medications, it does not significantly delay the onset of epilepsy, and the earliest-onset epilepsies occur in spite of antiseizure medication.”
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation funded the study. Dr. Glass has no other financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Glass HC et al. CNS-ICNA 2020. Presentation PL58.
Maintaining antiseizure medication in infants who have had acute symptomatic neonatal seizures has been standard practice, but a prospective, observational, comparative effectiveness study calls that practice into question, providing evidence that discontinuing therapy at discharge poses no harm to children and has no effect on the development of epilepsies.
“,” said Hannah C. Glass, MDCM, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, Benioff Children’s Hospital, co-principal investigator, who presented results of the study at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Renee Shellhaas, MD, MS, clinical associate professor of pediatrics at C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, University of Michigan, was the other co-principal investigator.
“Although other, smaller studies have suggested it is safe to discontinue antiseizure medication after resolution of acute symptomatic seizures, the practice of early discontinuation has been very variable and depends largely on individual provider preference,” Dr. Glass said in an interview. “In our study, two-thirds of newborns with acute symptomatic seizures were maintained on antiseizure medication at the time of hospital discharge. Thus, a change to early medication discontinuation represents a major shift.”
The study evaluated 270 infants at nine centers enrolled in the Neonatal Seizure Registry and born from July 2015 through March 2018. Inclusion criteria were acute symptomatic seizures that occurred at up to 44 weeks postmenstrual age. In this cohort, 36% of patients had antiseizure medication discontinued after a median of 6 days; the remainder stayed on antiseizure medication after discharge at a median of 4 months.
The patients were followed for 2 years. The primary outcome was functional development measured by the Warner Initial Development Evaluation of Adaptive and Functional Skills (WIDEA-FS) assessment. The secondary outcome was epilepsy defined by International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) criteria. Follow-up consisted of phone calls and chart reviews at 12, 18, and 24 months.
“The primary outcome, functional development, was not significantly different between those children who were maintained on antiseizure medication as compared with those who were discontinued,” Dr. Glass said.
After propensity adjustment, the discontinued ASM group had an estimated WIDEA-FS score 4 points higher on average, she said. “The confidence intervals met our a priori noninferiority limit, indicating no harm to neurodevelopment for discontinuing antiseizure medication before discharge home from the neonatal seizure admission,” Dr. Glass noted.
The study also found that 13% of all participants developed epilepsy at a median of 8 months. “There was no significant difference in the frequency or timing of epilepsy between the two groups,” she said.
“We conclude there is no clear rationale for antiseizure medication maintenance,” Dr. Glass said. “There is no benefit to neurodevelopment, it prolongs the exposure to potentially harmful antiseizure medications, it does not significantly delay the onset of epilepsy, and the earliest-onset epilepsies occur in spite of antiseizure medication.”
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation funded the study. Dr. Glass has no other financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Glass HC et al. CNS-ICNA 2020. Presentation PL58.
Maintaining antiseizure medication in infants who have had acute symptomatic neonatal seizures has been standard practice, but a prospective, observational, comparative effectiveness study calls that practice into question, providing evidence that discontinuing therapy at discharge poses no harm to children and has no effect on the development of epilepsies.
“,” said Hannah C. Glass, MDCM, MAS, of the University of California, San Francisco, Benioff Children’s Hospital, co-principal investigator, who presented results of the study at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Renee Shellhaas, MD, MS, clinical associate professor of pediatrics at C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, University of Michigan, was the other co-principal investigator.
“Although other, smaller studies have suggested it is safe to discontinue antiseizure medication after resolution of acute symptomatic seizures, the practice of early discontinuation has been very variable and depends largely on individual provider preference,” Dr. Glass said in an interview. “In our study, two-thirds of newborns with acute symptomatic seizures were maintained on antiseizure medication at the time of hospital discharge. Thus, a change to early medication discontinuation represents a major shift.”
The study evaluated 270 infants at nine centers enrolled in the Neonatal Seizure Registry and born from July 2015 through March 2018. Inclusion criteria were acute symptomatic seizures that occurred at up to 44 weeks postmenstrual age. In this cohort, 36% of patients had antiseizure medication discontinued after a median of 6 days; the remainder stayed on antiseizure medication after discharge at a median of 4 months.
The patients were followed for 2 years. The primary outcome was functional development measured by the Warner Initial Development Evaluation of Adaptive and Functional Skills (WIDEA-FS) assessment. The secondary outcome was epilepsy defined by International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) criteria. Follow-up consisted of phone calls and chart reviews at 12, 18, and 24 months.
“The primary outcome, functional development, was not significantly different between those children who were maintained on antiseizure medication as compared with those who were discontinued,” Dr. Glass said.
After propensity adjustment, the discontinued ASM group had an estimated WIDEA-FS score 4 points higher on average, she said. “The confidence intervals met our a priori noninferiority limit, indicating no harm to neurodevelopment for discontinuing antiseizure medication before discharge home from the neonatal seizure admission,” Dr. Glass noted.
The study also found that 13% of all participants developed epilepsy at a median of 8 months. “There was no significant difference in the frequency or timing of epilepsy between the two groups,” she said.
“We conclude there is no clear rationale for antiseizure medication maintenance,” Dr. Glass said. “There is no benefit to neurodevelopment, it prolongs the exposure to potentially harmful antiseizure medications, it does not significantly delay the onset of epilepsy, and the earliest-onset epilepsies occur in spite of antiseizure medication.”
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation funded the study. Dr. Glass has no other financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Glass HC et al. CNS-ICNA 2020. Presentation PL58.
FROM CNS-ICNA 2020
Valvular disease and COVID-19 are a deadly mix; don’t delay intervention
Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.
Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.
“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.
The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.
“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”
Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.
Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”
He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.
“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”
Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”
Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.
“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.
Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.
“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.
Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.
Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.
Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.
“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.
The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.
“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”
Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.
Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”
He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.
“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”
Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”
Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.
“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.
Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.
“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.
Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.
Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.
Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.
“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.
The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.
“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”
Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.
Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”
He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.
“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”
Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”
Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.
“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.
Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.
“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.
Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.
FROM TCT 2020
COVID-19: Thromboembolic events high despite prophylaxis
in a new large observational U.S. study.
“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.
However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.
The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Rates similar to other very sick patients
The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.
“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”
He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”
Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.
“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.
“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.
The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.
“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”
For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White.
Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.
Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.
Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.
Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.
“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.
“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”
Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.
“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
ARDS biggest risk factor
Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.
“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”
They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.
“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.
“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.
The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
Wait for randomized trials
In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.
Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.
“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”
He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.
“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.
This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
in a new large observational U.S. study.
“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.
However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.
The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Rates similar to other very sick patients
The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.
“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”
He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”
Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.
“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.
“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.
The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.
“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”
For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White.
Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.
Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.
Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.
Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.
“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.
“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”
Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.
“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
ARDS biggest risk factor
Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.
“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”
They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.
“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.
“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.
The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
Wait for randomized trials
In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.
Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.
“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”
He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.
“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.
This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
in a new large observational U.S. study.
“Despite very high rate of antithrombotic prophylaxis there were a high rate of thromboembolic events suggesting that we are probably not providing enough thromboprophylaxis,” lead author Gregory Piazza, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“Standard prophylaxis as recommended in the guidelines is a low dose of low-molecular-weight heparin once daily, but these results suggest [patients] probably need higher doses,” he added.
However, Dr. Piazza cautioned that this is an observational study and randomized trials are needed to make changes in treatment strategies. Several such trials are currently underway.
The current study was published online ahead of print in the Nov. 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Rates similar to other very sick patients
The study showed that while thromboembolic complications were high, they were not as high as seen in some of the earlier studies from Asia and Europe, Dr. Piazza noted.
“The numbers we were seeing in early reports were so high we couldn’t figure out how that was possible,” he said. “Our study suggests that, in a U.S. population receiving thromboprophylaxis, the rate of thromboembolic complications [are] more in line with what we would expect to see in other very sick patients who end up in ICU.”
He suggested that the very high rates of thromboembolic complications in the early studies from Asia may have been because of the lack of thromboprophylaxis, which is not routine in hospitalized patients there. “Some of the earlier studies also used routine ultrasound and so picked up asymptomatic thrombotic events, which was not the case in our study. So our results are more representative of the U.S. population.”
Dr. Piazza attributed the high rate of thromboembolic complications being reported with COVID-19 to the sheer number of very sick patients being admitted to the hospital.
“We are accustomed to seeing a rare case of thrombosis despite prophylaxis in hospitalized patients, but we are seeing more in COVID patients. This is probably just because we have more critically ill patients,” he said.
“We are seeing an incredible influx of patients to the ICU that we have never experienced before, so the increase in thromboembolic complications is more obvious. In prior years we probably haven’t had enough critically ill patients at any one time to raise the flag about thromboprophylaxis,” he commented.
The study also found a high rate of cardiovascular complications. They are seeing an increase in the risk of MI, which is to be expected in such sick patients, but they also see quite a bit of new atrial fibrillation, myocarditis, and heart failure in patients who don’t always have underlying cardiovascular disease, he said.
“So this virus does appear to have a predilection to causing cardiovascular complications, but this is probably because it is making patients so sick,” Dr. Piazza said. “If flu was this virulent and resulted in such high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we would probably see similar cardiovascular complication rates.”
For the current report, the researchers analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed through the Mass General Brigham integrated health network. Of these, 170 had been admitted to the ICU, 229 had been hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 715 were outpatients. In terms of ethnicity, 22% were Hispanic/Latino and 44% were non-White.
Cardiovascular risk factors were common, with 36% of patients having hypertension, 29% hyperlipidemia, and 18% diabetes. Prophylactic anticoagulation was prescribed in 89% of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care cohort and 85% of those in the hospitalized non–intensive care setting.
Results showed that major arterial or venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 35% of the intensive care cohort, 2.6% of those hospitalized but not treated in ICU, and 0% of outpatients.
Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 46% of the intensive care cohort, 6.1% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.
Symptomatic VTE occurred in 27% of those admitted to ICU, 2.2% of those hospitalized but non-ICU, and 0% of outpatients.
“We found that outpatients had a very low rate of thromboembolic complications, with the vast majority of the risk being in hospitalized patients, especially those in ICU,” Dr. Piazza said.
“These results suggest that we don’t need routine thromboprophylaxis for all outpatients with COVID-19, but there will probably be some patients who need it – those with risk factors for thromboembolism.”
Catheter- and device-associated deep vein thrombosis accounted for 76.9% of the DVTs observed in the study.
“Our finding of high frequency of catheter-associated DVT supports the judicious use of central venous catheters that have been widely implemented, especially in the ICU, to minimize recurrent health care team exposure and facilitate monitoring,” the researchers wrote.
ARDS biggest risk factor
Of all the markers of disease severity, the presence of ARDS had the strongest association with adverse outcomes, including major arterial or VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, symptomatic VTE, and death.
“The severe inflammatory state associated with ARDS and other complications of COVID-19 and its resultant hypercoagulability may explain, at least in part, the high frequency of thromboembolic events. Improved risk stratification, utilizing biochemical markers of inflammation and activated coagulation as well as clinical indicators, such as ARDS, may play an important role in the early identification of patients with an increased likelihood of developing symptomatic VTE or arterial thrombosis,” the researchers wrote. “They may benefit from full- or intermediate-intensity antithrombotic therapy rather than prophylactic anticoagulation.”
They point out that this study provides a cross-sectional view of the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in a large health care network, consisting of two academic medical centers serving the greater Boston area, several community hospitals, and numerous outpatient care sites.
“The study incorporates a wide scope of clinically meaningful cardiovascular endpoints and utilizes a rigorous process of event adjudication. Although data on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU have been the subject of most reports, our study provides insights into the broad spectrum of all hospitalized and outpatient populations,” the authors noted.
“The high frequency of arterial or venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients despite routine thromboprophylaxis suggests the need for improved risk stratification and enhanced preventive efforts,” they concluded.
The study is continuing, and the researchers expect to have data on 10,000 patients by the end of winter.
Wait for randomized trials
In an accompanying editorial, Robert McBane, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that these data provide important real-world arterial and venous thrombotic event rates across a large, integrated health care network and an experienced roster of clinician-scientists devoted to thrombosis research.
Noting that whether to interpret these results as alarming or reassuring requires a comparison of expected thromboembolic event rates separate from the pandemic, he pointed out that, while the overall VTE rate among ICU patients was high, the vast majority of these events were attributable to central venous lines, and apart from these, the event rates do not appear inflated relative to prior published incidence rates from the pre–COVID-19 era.
“It is therefore important to resist the urge to overprevent or overtreat patients and expose them to the serious risks of major bleeding,” Dr. McBane wrote, adding that “the systematized approach to delivery of guideline-driven VTE prophylaxis across this large, integrated health network likely contributed to the relatively low rates of serious thrombotic outcomes reported.”
He further noted that, as the majority of VTE events were related to central venous lines in ICU patients, “this underscores the importance of a bundled care approach to central venous line management with daily assessment of the continued necessity of central access.
“A number of important clinical trials aimed at optimizing thromboprophylaxis during hospitalization, following hospital dismissal, and in ambulatory settings are underway. Until available, the lessons of thoughtful anticoagulant prophylaxis and treatment guidelines harvested from years of clinical research appear to apply,” he concluded.
This study was funded, in part, by a research grant from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Piazza has received research grant support from EKOS Corporation, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Pfizer, Boston Scientific, Agile, and Thrombolex. Dr. McBane reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.