User login
FDA to step up oversight of cosmetics, assess ‘forever chemicals’
They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.
The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.
“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.
In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.
“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.
The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.
MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.
The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.
The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.
PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’
Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.
MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.
The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.
PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.
PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.
This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.
But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.
“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
Interest from a U.S. senator
Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.
In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.
“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”
In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.
But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.
The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.
The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.
“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.
In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.
“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.
The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.
MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.
The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.
The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.
PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’
Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.
MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.
The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.
PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.
PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.
This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.
But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.
“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
Interest from a U.S. senator
Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.
In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.
“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”
In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.
But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.
The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.
The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.
“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.
In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.
“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.
The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.
MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.
The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.
The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.
PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’
Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.
MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.
The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.
PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.
PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.
This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.
But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.
“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
Interest from a U.S. senator
Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.
In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.
“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”
In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.
But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.
The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Probiotics improve nonmotor symptoms of Parkinson’s
COPENHAGEN – results of a new randomized trial show.
Participants taking the probiotic also saw a reduced delay in “time to on” of treatment with levodopa, thus reducing the delay until effectiveness of the treatment, said study presenter Valentina Leta, MD, PhD, department of neurosciences, King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience.
Dr. Leta presented the findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
“Virtually every person with Parkinson’s might have some degree of gastrointestinal dysfunction, and virtually the entire tract might be affected, from the mouth to the rectum,” Dr. Leta told attendees of the congress.
A number of different mechanisms have been associated with this gastrointestinal dysfunction, she noted, including proinflammatory changes in the gut microbiota, so a modulatory intervention “could be a therapeutic strategy for Parkinson’s disease.”
However, “despite numerous preclinical studies showing potential beneficial effects on a variety of pathological mechanisms involved in Parkinson’s disease, the clinical evidence is limited ... to the treatment of constipation,” she explained.
The team therefore conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in which patients with both Parkinson’s disease and constipation, based on the Rome IV criteria, were randomly assigned to receive a probiotic or placebo for 3 months.
The probiotic used was a liquid formulation (Symprove) and contained four strains: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum.
A total of 74 patients were randomly assigned to the two study arms. The two groups were well matched for sociodemographics, Parkinson’s disease, and constipation-related characteristics, Dr. Leta reported, and only 3 patients in each arm discontinued the study. The probiotic intervention had a “good tolerability and safety profile, with a similar number of adverse events between the two groups, and no serious adverse events.”
Increase in healthy bacteria
The study met its primary outcome of changes in gut microbiome at the end of the 12-week intervention, as measured on shallow shotgun sequencing.
The probiotic was associated with a “statistically significant increase of the abundance of bacteria which are known to have beneficial health related properties, such as Odoribacteraceae,” Dr. Leta said.
This bacterium is “known to be reduced in people with Parkinson’s disease,” she explained, “and is involved in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are known to have beneficial health-related properties.”
The secondary endpoint of the study included changes in motor and nonmotor symptoms, and the probiotic was associated with a significant improvement in the “time to on” with levodopa treatment, shortening this period from an average of 31.43 minutes at baseline to 23.95 minutes at the postintervention assessment (P < .027).
There was also a significant improvement in the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score between baseline and the postintervention assessment in patients given the probiotic, from 70.71 to 61.34 (P = .005).
This, Dr. Leta observed, was “driven by improvements in the sleep, fatigue, and gastrointestinal domains.”
No such significant improvements were observed in the placebo arm.
Probiotics ‘hot topic’ among patients
Claudia Trenkwalder, MD, full professor of neurology at University Medical Center Goettingen (Germany), said in an interview that the use of probiotics is a “hot topic in Parkinson’s disease research, especially among patients.”
Dr. Trenkwalder, who was not involved in the study, noted that Lactobacillus strains “are established in Parkinson’s disease constipation treatment, with randomized controlled trials showing a significant improvement in constipation.
“Therefore, this is a useful treatment. The question here is: Do we have additional effects that can be measured in the microbiome and in clinical symptomatology?”
The trial showed that the probiotic studied “did alter the microbiome and did improve the constipation,” said Dr. Trenkwalder; however, the current data cannot prove whether the probiotic influenced the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease because the improvement in NMSS scores “is driven by the improvement in constipation.”
This, she argued, could have resulted in better absorption of levodopa.
A dietitian in the audience agreed. She asked whether the probiotic was doing anything “besides improving constipation,” adding that the resulting increased ability to absorb levodopa is also “going to help your sleep.”
Beyond constipation?
Dr. Leta replied that “we can assume that there is a link between the reduction in the ‘time to on’ and the improvement in constipation. We are doing some analyses in terms of levodopa pharmacokinetics to really understand the mechanisms behind this result.”
Although the improvement in constipation is “one of the possible hypotheses for the improvement in ‘time to on,’” she continued, “there is a more speculative one” in which the probiotics are modulating inflammatory parameters that could contribute to the improvement in sleep.
Veronica Bruno, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.), commented in a press release that there has been “increasing interest” in examining the relationship between gut dysbiosis and the “gut-brain axis” in Parkinson’s disease.
The current study “stands out as a significant contribution to this area of study,” she said.
“While the implications of the observed changes in gut microbiota remain a captivating realm for further investigation, a particularly noteworthy finding revolves around the reduction in the ‘time to on’ observed within the active treatment group.”
Dr. Bruno said that shortening of the time to on “holds promise for substantial enhancements in patients’ lives” by reducing “difficult ‘off’ intervals and enhancing overall well-being.”
The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College London. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – results of a new randomized trial show.
Participants taking the probiotic also saw a reduced delay in “time to on” of treatment with levodopa, thus reducing the delay until effectiveness of the treatment, said study presenter Valentina Leta, MD, PhD, department of neurosciences, King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience.
Dr. Leta presented the findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
“Virtually every person with Parkinson’s might have some degree of gastrointestinal dysfunction, and virtually the entire tract might be affected, from the mouth to the rectum,” Dr. Leta told attendees of the congress.
A number of different mechanisms have been associated with this gastrointestinal dysfunction, she noted, including proinflammatory changes in the gut microbiota, so a modulatory intervention “could be a therapeutic strategy for Parkinson’s disease.”
However, “despite numerous preclinical studies showing potential beneficial effects on a variety of pathological mechanisms involved in Parkinson’s disease, the clinical evidence is limited ... to the treatment of constipation,” she explained.
The team therefore conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in which patients with both Parkinson’s disease and constipation, based on the Rome IV criteria, were randomly assigned to receive a probiotic or placebo for 3 months.
The probiotic used was a liquid formulation (Symprove) and contained four strains: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum.
A total of 74 patients were randomly assigned to the two study arms. The two groups were well matched for sociodemographics, Parkinson’s disease, and constipation-related characteristics, Dr. Leta reported, and only 3 patients in each arm discontinued the study. The probiotic intervention had a “good tolerability and safety profile, with a similar number of adverse events between the two groups, and no serious adverse events.”
Increase in healthy bacteria
The study met its primary outcome of changes in gut microbiome at the end of the 12-week intervention, as measured on shallow shotgun sequencing.
The probiotic was associated with a “statistically significant increase of the abundance of bacteria which are known to have beneficial health related properties, such as Odoribacteraceae,” Dr. Leta said.
This bacterium is “known to be reduced in people with Parkinson’s disease,” she explained, “and is involved in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are known to have beneficial health-related properties.”
The secondary endpoint of the study included changes in motor and nonmotor symptoms, and the probiotic was associated with a significant improvement in the “time to on” with levodopa treatment, shortening this period from an average of 31.43 minutes at baseline to 23.95 minutes at the postintervention assessment (P < .027).
There was also a significant improvement in the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score between baseline and the postintervention assessment in patients given the probiotic, from 70.71 to 61.34 (P = .005).
This, Dr. Leta observed, was “driven by improvements in the sleep, fatigue, and gastrointestinal domains.”
No such significant improvements were observed in the placebo arm.
Probiotics ‘hot topic’ among patients
Claudia Trenkwalder, MD, full professor of neurology at University Medical Center Goettingen (Germany), said in an interview that the use of probiotics is a “hot topic in Parkinson’s disease research, especially among patients.”
Dr. Trenkwalder, who was not involved in the study, noted that Lactobacillus strains “are established in Parkinson’s disease constipation treatment, with randomized controlled trials showing a significant improvement in constipation.
“Therefore, this is a useful treatment. The question here is: Do we have additional effects that can be measured in the microbiome and in clinical symptomatology?”
The trial showed that the probiotic studied “did alter the microbiome and did improve the constipation,” said Dr. Trenkwalder; however, the current data cannot prove whether the probiotic influenced the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease because the improvement in NMSS scores “is driven by the improvement in constipation.”
This, she argued, could have resulted in better absorption of levodopa.
A dietitian in the audience agreed. She asked whether the probiotic was doing anything “besides improving constipation,” adding that the resulting increased ability to absorb levodopa is also “going to help your sleep.”
Beyond constipation?
Dr. Leta replied that “we can assume that there is a link between the reduction in the ‘time to on’ and the improvement in constipation. We are doing some analyses in terms of levodopa pharmacokinetics to really understand the mechanisms behind this result.”
Although the improvement in constipation is “one of the possible hypotheses for the improvement in ‘time to on,’” she continued, “there is a more speculative one” in which the probiotics are modulating inflammatory parameters that could contribute to the improvement in sleep.
Veronica Bruno, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.), commented in a press release that there has been “increasing interest” in examining the relationship between gut dysbiosis and the “gut-brain axis” in Parkinson’s disease.
The current study “stands out as a significant contribution to this area of study,” she said.
“While the implications of the observed changes in gut microbiota remain a captivating realm for further investigation, a particularly noteworthy finding revolves around the reduction in the ‘time to on’ observed within the active treatment group.”
Dr. Bruno said that shortening of the time to on “holds promise for substantial enhancements in patients’ lives” by reducing “difficult ‘off’ intervals and enhancing overall well-being.”
The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College London. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – results of a new randomized trial show.
Participants taking the probiotic also saw a reduced delay in “time to on” of treatment with levodopa, thus reducing the delay until effectiveness of the treatment, said study presenter Valentina Leta, MD, PhD, department of neurosciences, King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience.
Dr. Leta presented the findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
“Virtually every person with Parkinson’s might have some degree of gastrointestinal dysfunction, and virtually the entire tract might be affected, from the mouth to the rectum,” Dr. Leta told attendees of the congress.
A number of different mechanisms have been associated with this gastrointestinal dysfunction, she noted, including proinflammatory changes in the gut microbiota, so a modulatory intervention “could be a therapeutic strategy for Parkinson’s disease.”
However, “despite numerous preclinical studies showing potential beneficial effects on a variety of pathological mechanisms involved in Parkinson’s disease, the clinical evidence is limited ... to the treatment of constipation,” she explained.
The team therefore conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in which patients with both Parkinson’s disease and constipation, based on the Rome IV criteria, were randomly assigned to receive a probiotic or placebo for 3 months.
The probiotic used was a liquid formulation (Symprove) and contained four strains: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum.
A total of 74 patients were randomly assigned to the two study arms. The two groups were well matched for sociodemographics, Parkinson’s disease, and constipation-related characteristics, Dr. Leta reported, and only 3 patients in each arm discontinued the study. The probiotic intervention had a “good tolerability and safety profile, with a similar number of adverse events between the two groups, and no serious adverse events.”
Increase in healthy bacteria
The study met its primary outcome of changes in gut microbiome at the end of the 12-week intervention, as measured on shallow shotgun sequencing.
The probiotic was associated with a “statistically significant increase of the abundance of bacteria which are known to have beneficial health related properties, such as Odoribacteraceae,” Dr. Leta said.
This bacterium is “known to be reduced in people with Parkinson’s disease,” she explained, “and is involved in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are known to have beneficial health-related properties.”
The secondary endpoint of the study included changes in motor and nonmotor symptoms, and the probiotic was associated with a significant improvement in the “time to on” with levodopa treatment, shortening this period from an average of 31.43 minutes at baseline to 23.95 minutes at the postintervention assessment (P < .027).
There was also a significant improvement in the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score between baseline and the postintervention assessment in patients given the probiotic, from 70.71 to 61.34 (P = .005).
This, Dr. Leta observed, was “driven by improvements in the sleep, fatigue, and gastrointestinal domains.”
No such significant improvements were observed in the placebo arm.
Probiotics ‘hot topic’ among patients
Claudia Trenkwalder, MD, full professor of neurology at University Medical Center Goettingen (Germany), said in an interview that the use of probiotics is a “hot topic in Parkinson’s disease research, especially among patients.”
Dr. Trenkwalder, who was not involved in the study, noted that Lactobacillus strains “are established in Parkinson’s disease constipation treatment, with randomized controlled trials showing a significant improvement in constipation.
“Therefore, this is a useful treatment. The question here is: Do we have additional effects that can be measured in the microbiome and in clinical symptomatology?”
The trial showed that the probiotic studied “did alter the microbiome and did improve the constipation,” said Dr. Trenkwalder; however, the current data cannot prove whether the probiotic influenced the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease because the improvement in NMSS scores “is driven by the improvement in constipation.”
This, she argued, could have resulted in better absorption of levodopa.
A dietitian in the audience agreed. She asked whether the probiotic was doing anything “besides improving constipation,” adding that the resulting increased ability to absorb levodopa is also “going to help your sleep.”
Beyond constipation?
Dr. Leta replied that “we can assume that there is a link between the reduction in the ‘time to on’ and the improvement in constipation. We are doing some analyses in terms of levodopa pharmacokinetics to really understand the mechanisms behind this result.”
Although the improvement in constipation is “one of the possible hypotheses for the improvement in ‘time to on,’” she continued, “there is a more speculative one” in which the probiotics are modulating inflammatory parameters that could contribute to the improvement in sleep.
Veronica Bruno, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.), commented in a press release that there has been “increasing interest” in examining the relationship between gut dysbiosis and the “gut-brain axis” in Parkinson’s disease.
The current study “stands out as a significant contribution to this area of study,” she said.
“While the implications of the observed changes in gut microbiota remain a captivating realm for further investigation, a particularly noteworthy finding revolves around the reduction in the ‘time to on’ observed within the active treatment group.”
Dr. Bruno said that shortening of the time to on “holds promise for substantial enhancements in patients’ lives” by reducing “difficult ‘off’ intervals and enhancing overall well-being.”
The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College London. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT MDS 2023
CTE common among young athletes in largest brain donor study
Analysis of brain tissue from athletes who were exposed to RHIs and died before the age of 30 revealed neuropathological evidence of shrinkage of the brain and microscopic changes that indicate a breach of the blood-brain barrier. The case series also identified the first known American female athlete with CTE.
Nearly all of those with CTE had a mild form of the disease and 71% played only at the amateur level in youth, high school, or college sports.
“A lot of people think CTE is a result of high-level, professional play such as football, ice hockey, and boxing, but it can affect amateur athletes and can affect people at a young age,” lead author Ann McKee, MD, professor of neurology and pathology and director of the Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy Center at Boston University, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
A rare look
Brain donation at younger ages is rare, so most of what is known about CTE comes from studies in older athletes.
“We’ve always known that young people could develop this disease early after just amateur high school, youth, and college exposure, but this is the largest study of donor brains at this age,” Dr. McKee said.
The case series included 152 brains of athletes who played contact sports, experienced RHIs, and died before age 30. The tissues are part of the Understanding Neurologic Injury and Traumatic Encephalopathy (UNITE) Brain Bank and were donated between February 2008 and September 2022.
Researchers reviewed the donors’ medical records and conducted retrospective interviews with the donors’ next of kin to assess cognitive symptoms, mood disturbances, and neurobehavioral issues.
Donors died between the ages of 13 and 29 years, 92.8% were male and 73% were White. In 57.2% of the cases, suicide was the cause of death, with no difference between those with or without CTE.
CTE was neuropathologically diagnosed in 41.4% of athletes, using diagnostic criteria developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
More than 95% had mild CTE. Diagnosis was associated with older age (mean difference, 3.92 years; P < .001) and significantly more years of exposure to contact sports (11.6 vs. 8.8 years).
Among those with CTE, 71.4% played amateur sports, including football (60.9%), soccer (17.2%), hockey (7.8%), and wrestling (7%).
The cohort includes the first known American female athlete with CTE. Recruiting female brain donors has always been a challenge, Dr. McKee said. In this study, females comprised about 7% of the entire cohort and tended to be younger and play fewer years of a sport, compared with their male counterparts. All of that could lower their risk for CTE, Dr. McKee said.
“We don’t have enough brain donations to make any comments about differences between the genders, but we’ve always known that women can develop CTE,” she said. “It’s been reported after domestic violence and in an autistic woman who was a headbanger, so it was just a matter of time before we found our first case.”
Early stage of CTE?
Neuropathological analysis revealed neuronal p-tau aggregates in all CTE cases, a hallmark of the disease.
Young athletes with CTE had significantly more ventricular dilatation, suggesting atrophy or shrinkage of the brain, and more cavum septum pellucidum.
“I was surprised that even at this very young age group we could see structural changes to the gross pathology,” Dr. McKee said.
Investigators also found evidence of perivascular macrophages in the deep white matter, a microscopic change that correlated with CTE and years of play and indicates a breach of the blood-brain barrier that could allow pro-inflammatory molecules to enter the brain, setting up a neuroinflammatory response.
“Neuroinflammation is a very early change after repetitive head impacts, as well as in CTE,” Dr. McKee said. “This may be one of the mechanisms by which the inflammation starts, meaning microvascular injury might be an integral part of the pathogenesis of CTE.”
A message for clinicians
All athletes had symptoms of mood and neurobehavioral dysfunction common in people with RHIs. There were no significant differences in those clinical symptoms based on CTE diagnosis, which is likely related to the retrospective nature of the clinical evaluations, Dr. McKee said.
While the study leaves many questions about CTE in younger athletes unanswered, there is a message for clinicians and for patients in the findings, she said.
For clinicians, it’s important to note that “this young population of amateur athletes can be very symptomatic, and in all likelihood, a lot of these symptoms are reversible with proper care and management,” Dr. McKee said.
“For individual athletes, it’s important to note that 58% of this cohort did not have CTE, so just because you have these symptoms is not an indication that you have a neurodegenerative disease,” she added.
The study was funded by Andlinger Foundation, the National Football League, Mac Parkman Foundation, National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, and the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, World Wrestling Entertainment, Alzheimer’s Association, National Institutes of Health, Concussion Legacy Foundation, U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McKee is a member of the Mackey-White Health and Safety Committee of the National Football League Players Association and reported receiving grants from the NIH and Department of Veteran Affairs and other funding from the Buoniconti Foundation and Mac Parkman Foundation during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analysis of brain tissue from athletes who were exposed to RHIs and died before the age of 30 revealed neuropathological evidence of shrinkage of the brain and microscopic changes that indicate a breach of the blood-brain barrier. The case series also identified the first known American female athlete with CTE.
Nearly all of those with CTE had a mild form of the disease and 71% played only at the amateur level in youth, high school, or college sports.
“A lot of people think CTE is a result of high-level, professional play such as football, ice hockey, and boxing, but it can affect amateur athletes and can affect people at a young age,” lead author Ann McKee, MD, professor of neurology and pathology and director of the Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy Center at Boston University, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
A rare look
Brain donation at younger ages is rare, so most of what is known about CTE comes from studies in older athletes.
“We’ve always known that young people could develop this disease early after just amateur high school, youth, and college exposure, but this is the largest study of donor brains at this age,” Dr. McKee said.
The case series included 152 brains of athletes who played contact sports, experienced RHIs, and died before age 30. The tissues are part of the Understanding Neurologic Injury and Traumatic Encephalopathy (UNITE) Brain Bank and were donated between February 2008 and September 2022.
Researchers reviewed the donors’ medical records and conducted retrospective interviews with the donors’ next of kin to assess cognitive symptoms, mood disturbances, and neurobehavioral issues.
Donors died between the ages of 13 and 29 years, 92.8% were male and 73% were White. In 57.2% of the cases, suicide was the cause of death, with no difference between those with or without CTE.
CTE was neuropathologically diagnosed in 41.4% of athletes, using diagnostic criteria developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
More than 95% had mild CTE. Diagnosis was associated with older age (mean difference, 3.92 years; P < .001) and significantly more years of exposure to contact sports (11.6 vs. 8.8 years).
Among those with CTE, 71.4% played amateur sports, including football (60.9%), soccer (17.2%), hockey (7.8%), and wrestling (7%).
The cohort includes the first known American female athlete with CTE. Recruiting female brain donors has always been a challenge, Dr. McKee said. In this study, females comprised about 7% of the entire cohort and tended to be younger and play fewer years of a sport, compared with their male counterparts. All of that could lower their risk for CTE, Dr. McKee said.
“We don’t have enough brain donations to make any comments about differences between the genders, but we’ve always known that women can develop CTE,” she said. “It’s been reported after domestic violence and in an autistic woman who was a headbanger, so it was just a matter of time before we found our first case.”
Early stage of CTE?
Neuropathological analysis revealed neuronal p-tau aggregates in all CTE cases, a hallmark of the disease.
Young athletes with CTE had significantly more ventricular dilatation, suggesting atrophy or shrinkage of the brain, and more cavum septum pellucidum.
“I was surprised that even at this very young age group we could see structural changes to the gross pathology,” Dr. McKee said.
Investigators also found evidence of perivascular macrophages in the deep white matter, a microscopic change that correlated with CTE and years of play and indicates a breach of the blood-brain barrier that could allow pro-inflammatory molecules to enter the brain, setting up a neuroinflammatory response.
“Neuroinflammation is a very early change after repetitive head impacts, as well as in CTE,” Dr. McKee said. “This may be one of the mechanisms by which the inflammation starts, meaning microvascular injury might be an integral part of the pathogenesis of CTE.”
A message for clinicians
All athletes had symptoms of mood and neurobehavioral dysfunction common in people with RHIs. There were no significant differences in those clinical symptoms based on CTE diagnosis, which is likely related to the retrospective nature of the clinical evaluations, Dr. McKee said.
While the study leaves many questions about CTE in younger athletes unanswered, there is a message for clinicians and for patients in the findings, she said.
For clinicians, it’s important to note that “this young population of amateur athletes can be very symptomatic, and in all likelihood, a lot of these symptoms are reversible with proper care and management,” Dr. McKee said.
“For individual athletes, it’s important to note that 58% of this cohort did not have CTE, so just because you have these symptoms is not an indication that you have a neurodegenerative disease,” she added.
The study was funded by Andlinger Foundation, the National Football League, Mac Parkman Foundation, National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, and the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, World Wrestling Entertainment, Alzheimer’s Association, National Institutes of Health, Concussion Legacy Foundation, U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McKee is a member of the Mackey-White Health and Safety Committee of the National Football League Players Association and reported receiving grants from the NIH and Department of Veteran Affairs and other funding from the Buoniconti Foundation and Mac Parkman Foundation during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analysis of brain tissue from athletes who were exposed to RHIs and died before the age of 30 revealed neuropathological evidence of shrinkage of the brain and microscopic changes that indicate a breach of the blood-brain barrier. The case series also identified the first known American female athlete with CTE.
Nearly all of those with CTE had a mild form of the disease and 71% played only at the amateur level in youth, high school, or college sports.
“A lot of people think CTE is a result of high-level, professional play such as football, ice hockey, and boxing, but it can affect amateur athletes and can affect people at a young age,” lead author Ann McKee, MD, professor of neurology and pathology and director of the Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy Center at Boston University, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
A rare look
Brain donation at younger ages is rare, so most of what is known about CTE comes from studies in older athletes.
“We’ve always known that young people could develop this disease early after just amateur high school, youth, and college exposure, but this is the largest study of donor brains at this age,” Dr. McKee said.
The case series included 152 brains of athletes who played contact sports, experienced RHIs, and died before age 30. The tissues are part of the Understanding Neurologic Injury and Traumatic Encephalopathy (UNITE) Brain Bank and were donated between February 2008 and September 2022.
Researchers reviewed the donors’ medical records and conducted retrospective interviews with the donors’ next of kin to assess cognitive symptoms, mood disturbances, and neurobehavioral issues.
Donors died between the ages of 13 and 29 years, 92.8% were male and 73% were White. In 57.2% of the cases, suicide was the cause of death, with no difference between those with or without CTE.
CTE was neuropathologically diagnosed in 41.4% of athletes, using diagnostic criteria developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
More than 95% had mild CTE. Diagnosis was associated with older age (mean difference, 3.92 years; P < .001) and significantly more years of exposure to contact sports (11.6 vs. 8.8 years).
Among those with CTE, 71.4% played amateur sports, including football (60.9%), soccer (17.2%), hockey (7.8%), and wrestling (7%).
The cohort includes the first known American female athlete with CTE. Recruiting female brain donors has always been a challenge, Dr. McKee said. In this study, females comprised about 7% of the entire cohort and tended to be younger and play fewer years of a sport, compared with their male counterparts. All of that could lower their risk for CTE, Dr. McKee said.
“We don’t have enough brain donations to make any comments about differences between the genders, but we’ve always known that women can develop CTE,” she said. “It’s been reported after domestic violence and in an autistic woman who was a headbanger, so it was just a matter of time before we found our first case.”
Early stage of CTE?
Neuropathological analysis revealed neuronal p-tau aggregates in all CTE cases, a hallmark of the disease.
Young athletes with CTE had significantly more ventricular dilatation, suggesting atrophy or shrinkage of the brain, and more cavum septum pellucidum.
“I was surprised that even at this very young age group we could see structural changes to the gross pathology,” Dr. McKee said.
Investigators also found evidence of perivascular macrophages in the deep white matter, a microscopic change that correlated with CTE and years of play and indicates a breach of the blood-brain barrier that could allow pro-inflammatory molecules to enter the brain, setting up a neuroinflammatory response.
“Neuroinflammation is a very early change after repetitive head impacts, as well as in CTE,” Dr. McKee said. “This may be one of the mechanisms by which the inflammation starts, meaning microvascular injury might be an integral part of the pathogenesis of CTE.”
A message for clinicians
All athletes had symptoms of mood and neurobehavioral dysfunction common in people with RHIs. There were no significant differences in those clinical symptoms based on CTE diagnosis, which is likely related to the retrospective nature of the clinical evaluations, Dr. McKee said.
While the study leaves many questions about CTE in younger athletes unanswered, there is a message for clinicians and for patients in the findings, she said.
For clinicians, it’s important to note that “this young population of amateur athletes can be very symptomatic, and in all likelihood, a lot of these symptoms are reversible with proper care and management,” Dr. McKee said.
“For individual athletes, it’s important to note that 58% of this cohort did not have CTE, so just because you have these symptoms is not an indication that you have a neurodegenerative disease,” she added.
The study was funded by Andlinger Foundation, the National Football League, Mac Parkman Foundation, National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, and the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, World Wrestling Entertainment, Alzheimer’s Association, National Institutes of Health, Concussion Legacy Foundation, U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McKee is a member of the Mackey-White Health and Safety Committee of the National Football League Players Association and reported receiving grants from the NIH and Department of Veteran Affairs and other funding from the Buoniconti Foundation and Mac Parkman Foundation during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Could retinal changes be a harbinger of Parkinson’s?
Changes in retinal tissues known to be associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) may occur up to 7 years before clinical symptoms of the disease appear, a new study suggests.
Researchers used artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data from two population-level data sets and the world’s largest database of retinal images and associated clinical data to detect the retinal changes in patients with PD and in healthy individuals who developed the disease years later.
Prior research had shown that PD is associated with a thinning of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) in the retina, something that investigators confirmed in this new study. But they also identified changes in the inner nuclear layer (INL), which is a new finding.
The study is the largest to date on retinal markers in PD and the first to show these changes in living patients.
“I think we are still several years away from converting these findings into individual level prediction for patients,” lead author, Siegfried Wagner, MD, MsC, Honorary Clinical Senior Research Fellow at Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College of London Institute of Ophthalmology in London, told this news organization. “The most important takeaway is that there are observable differences in the retina of individuals who go on to develop Parkinson’s disease.”
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Another look at OCT
Researchers used data from retinal eye scans taken by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive three-dimensional imaging technology that is widely used by opticians.
Other studies have used OCT to detect retinal changes in multiple sclerosis and cognitive decline.
For this research, investigators identified markers in people with PD using ophthalmic imaging data from 700 patients and 105,770 controls who participated in the retrospective AlzEye study.
After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, hypertension, and diabetes, individuals with PD had significantly thinner GCIPL and reduced thickness of the INL.
To evaluate retinal changes in patients before a PD diagnosis, researchers then turned to 50,405 participants in the UK Biobank with no history of PD who received a retinal scan as part of their baseline visit. Of that group, 53 were diagnosed with PD during the study period.
Researchers found an association between new diagnoses of PD and reduced thickness of the GCIPL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .002) and thinner INL, especially at the inferior subfield (HR, 0.66; P = .002). That association persisted even in people whose clinical symptoms developed within 2 years of the retinal scan.
“We wonder if the reduced INL thickness is indicating a direct dopaminergic impairment occurring within the inner retina,” Dr. Wagner said. “Dopaminergic amacrine cells only account for a small proportion of the cells in this layer but previous work in the laboratory shows observable abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease.”
Too early for diagnostics?
Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, noted that the changes in the retinal thickness identified in the study were too small to be useful in the clinic as a screening tool for early PD.
“In order for that to happen, the specificity and sensitivity needs to be established,” she said. “Both specificity and sensitivity need to be high enough so that the test can be used to give clinically meaningful results – and reliably tell an individual with PD that he or she does have the disease and individual without PD that he or she doesn’t have the disease.”
Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed. Valeria Koska, MD, and Philipp Albrecht, MD, both of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf in Germany, noted that though the effect sizes of retinal changes were small, the study “sets new standards for the role of retinal morphology as potential biomarker in neurodegenerative disease.”
The study was funded by Fight for Sight UK, Medical Research Council, UK Research & Innovation, Basque Health Department, and the Wellcome Trust Study. Dr. Wagner reported funding from the Medical Research Council and the Rank Prize. Dr. Gilbert is employed by the American Parkinson Disease Association. Dr. Albrecht has received grant and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Allergan, Biogen, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Roche, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koska reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Changes in retinal tissues known to be associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) may occur up to 7 years before clinical symptoms of the disease appear, a new study suggests.
Researchers used artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data from two population-level data sets and the world’s largest database of retinal images and associated clinical data to detect the retinal changes in patients with PD and in healthy individuals who developed the disease years later.
Prior research had shown that PD is associated with a thinning of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) in the retina, something that investigators confirmed in this new study. But they also identified changes in the inner nuclear layer (INL), which is a new finding.
The study is the largest to date on retinal markers in PD and the first to show these changes in living patients.
“I think we are still several years away from converting these findings into individual level prediction for patients,” lead author, Siegfried Wagner, MD, MsC, Honorary Clinical Senior Research Fellow at Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College of London Institute of Ophthalmology in London, told this news organization. “The most important takeaway is that there are observable differences in the retina of individuals who go on to develop Parkinson’s disease.”
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Another look at OCT
Researchers used data from retinal eye scans taken by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive three-dimensional imaging technology that is widely used by opticians.
Other studies have used OCT to detect retinal changes in multiple sclerosis and cognitive decline.
For this research, investigators identified markers in people with PD using ophthalmic imaging data from 700 patients and 105,770 controls who participated in the retrospective AlzEye study.
After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, hypertension, and diabetes, individuals with PD had significantly thinner GCIPL and reduced thickness of the INL.
To evaluate retinal changes in patients before a PD diagnosis, researchers then turned to 50,405 participants in the UK Biobank with no history of PD who received a retinal scan as part of their baseline visit. Of that group, 53 were diagnosed with PD during the study period.
Researchers found an association between new diagnoses of PD and reduced thickness of the GCIPL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .002) and thinner INL, especially at the inferior subfield (HR, 0.66; P = .002). That association persisted even in people whose clinical symptoms developed within 2 years of the retinal scan.
“We wonder if the reduced INL thickness is indicating a direct dopaminergic impairment occurring within the inner retina,” Dr. Wagner said. “Dopaminergic amacrine cells only account for a small proportion of the cells in this layer but previous work in the laboratory shows observable abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease.”
Too early for diagnostics?
Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, noted that the changes in the retinal thickness identified in the study were too small to be useful in the clinic as a screening tool for early PD.
“In order for that to happen, the specificity and sensitivity needs to be established,” she said. “Both specificity and sensitivity need to be high enough so that the test can be used to give clinically meaningful results – and reliably tell an individual with PD that he or she does have the disease and individual without PD that he or she doesn’t have the disease.”
Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed. Valeria Koska, MD, and Philipp Albrecht, MD, both of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf in Germany, noted that though the effect sizes of retinal changes were small, the study “sets new standards for the role of retinal morphology as potential biomarker in neurodegenerative disease.”
The study was funded by Fight for Sight UK, Medical Research Council, UK Research & Innovation, Basque Health Department, and the Wellcome Trust Study. Dr. Wagner reported funding from the Medical Research Council and the Rank Prize. Dr. Gilbert is employed by the American Parkinson Disease Association. Dr. Albrecht has received grant and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Allergan, Biogen, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Roche, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koska reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Changes in retinal tissues known to be associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) may occur up to 7 years before clinical symptoms of the disease appear, a new study suggests.
Researchers used artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data from two population-level data sets and the world’s largest database of retinal images and associated clinical data to detect the retinal changes in patients with PD and in healthy individuals who developed the disease years later.
Prior research had shown that PD is associated with a thinning of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) in the retina, something that investigators confirmed in this new study. But they also identified changes in the inner nuclear layer (INL), which is a new finding.
The study is the largest to date on retinal markers in PD and the first to show these changes in living patients.
“I think we are still several years away from converting these findings into individual level prediction for patients,” lead author, Siegfried Wagner, MD, MsC, Honorary Clinical Senior Research Fellow at Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College of London Institute of Ophthalmology in London, told this news organization. “The most important takeaway is that there are observable differences in the retina of individuals who go on to develop Parkinson’s disease.”
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Another look at OCT
Researchers used data from retinal eye scans taken by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive three-dimensional imaging technology that is widely used by opticians.
Other studies have used OCT to detect retinal changes in multiple sclerosis and cognitive decline.
For this research, investigators identified markers in people with PD using ophthalmic imaging data from 700 patients and 105,770 controls who participated in the retrospective AlzEye study.
After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, hypertension, and diabetes, individuals with PD had significantly thinner GCIPL and reduced thickness of the INL.
To evaluate retinal changes in patients before a PD diagnosis, researchers then turned to 50,405 participants in the UK Biobank with no history of PD who received a retinal scan as part of their baseline visit. Of that group, 53 were diagnosed with PD during the study period.
Researchers found an association between new diagnoses of PD and reduced thickness of the GCIPL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .002) and thinner INL, especially at the inferior subfield (HR, 0.66; P = .002). That association persisted even in people whose clinical symptoms developed within 2 years of the retinal scan.
“We wonder if the reduced INL thickness is indicating a direct dopaminergic impairment occurring within the inner retina,” Dr. Wagner said. “Dopaminergic amacrine cells only account for a small proportion of the cells in this layer but previous work in the laboratory shows observable abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease.”
Too early for diagnostics?
Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, noted that the changes in the retinal thickness identified in the study were too small to be useful in the clinic as a screening tool for early PD.
“In order for that to happen, the specificity and sensitivity needs to be established,” she said. “Both specificity and sensitivity need to be high enough so that the test can be used to give clinically meaningful results – and reliably tell an individual with PD that he or she does have the disease and individual without PD that he or she doesn’t have the disease.”
Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed. Valeria Koska, MD, and Philipp Albrecht, MD, both of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf in Germany, noted that though the effect sizes of retinal changes were small, the study “sets new standards for the role of retinal morphology as potential biomarker in neurodegenerative disease.”
The study was funded by Fight for Sight UK, Medical Research Council, UK Research & Innovation, Basque Health Department, and the Wellcome Trust Study. Dr. Wagner reported funding from the Medical Research Council and the Rank Prize. Dr. Gilbert is employed by the American Parkinson Disease Association. Dr. Albrecht has received grant and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Allergan, Biogen, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Roche, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koska reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA okays first biosimilar for multiple sclerosis
including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing remitting MS, and active secondary progressive disease.
“Biosimilar medications offer additional effective treatment options that have the potential to increase access for people living with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. [This] approval could have a meaningful impact for patients managing their disease,” Paul R. Lee, MD, PhD, director of the division of neurology II, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.
The natalizumab biosimilar is given using the same dosing and administration schedule. Like the reference product, it is indicated for adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease unresponsive to other medications.
The approval of the natalizumab biosimilar is based on results of the phase 3 Antelope trial, which showed no clinically meaningful differences between it and the reference product.
The trial included 264 adults (mean age, 36 years; 61% women) with relapsing remitting MS from 48 centers in seven Eastern European countries.
All were randomly assigned to receive intravenous infusions every 4 weeks of 300 mg of the natalizumab biosimilar or the reference product for a total of 12 infusions.
At 24 and 48 weeks, there were no between-group differences in annualized relapse rates or Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, which were similar between treatment groups at baseline. There were also no significant differences in safety, tolerability, or immunogenicity.
The prescribing information for both natalizumab products includes a boxed warning about the increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a viral infection of the brain that usually leads to death or severe disability.
Risk factors for the development of PML include the presence of antibodies to the JC virus, longer duration of therapy, and prior use of immunosuppressants.
“These factors should be considered in the context of expected benefit when initiating and continuing treatment with natalizumab products, and health care providers should monitor patients and withhold treatment immediately at the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML,” the FDA advises.
Because of the risks of PML, natalizumab products are available only through a restricted drug distribution program under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.
In a statement, Sandoz said it’s committed to having the product available in the United States “as soon as possible.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing remitting MS, and active secondary progressive disease.
“Biosimilar medications offer additional effective treatment options that have the potential to increase access for people living with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. [This] approval could have a meaningful impact for patients managing their disease,” Paul R. Lee, MD, PhD, director of the division of neurology II, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.
The natalizumab biosimilar is given using the same dosing and administration schedule. Like the reference product, it is indicated for adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease unresponsive to other medications.
The approval of the natalizumab biosimilar is based on results of the phase 3 Antelope trial, which showed no clinically meaningful differences between it and the reference product.
The trial included 264 adults (mean age, 36 years; 61% women) with relapsing remitting MS from 48 centers in seven Eastern European countries.
All were randomly assigned to receive intravenous infusions every 4 weeks of 300 mg of the natalizumab biosimilar or the reference product for a total of 12 infusions.
At 24 and 48 weeks, there were no between-group differences in annualized relapse rates or Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, which were similar between treatment groups at baseline. There were also no significant differences in safety, tolerability, or immunogenicity.
The prescribing information for both natalizumab products includes a boxed warning about the increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a viral infection of the brain that usually leads to death or severe disability.
Risk factors for the development of PML include the presence of antibodies to the JC virus, longer duration of therapy, and prior use of immunosuppressants.
“These factors should be considered in the context of expected benefit when initiating and continuing treatment with natalizumab products, and health care providers should monitor patients and withhold treatment immediately at the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML,” the FDA advises.
Because of the risks of PML, natalizumab products are available only through a restricted drug distribution program under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.
In a statement, Sandoz said it’s committed to having the product available in the United States “as soon as possible.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing remitting MS, and active secondary progressive disease.
“Biosimilar medications offer additional effective treatment options that have the potential to increase access for people living with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. [This] approval could have a meaningful impact for patients managing their disease,” Paul R. Lee, MD, PhD, director of the division of neurology II, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.
The natalizumab biosimilar is given using the same dosing and administration schedule. Like the reference product, it is indicated for adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease unresponsive to other medications.
The approval of the natalizumab biosimilar is based on results of the phase 3 Antelope trial, which showed no clinically meaningful differences between it and the reference product.
The trial included 264 adults (mean age, 36 years; 61% women) with relapsing remitting MS from 48 centers in seven Eastern European countries.
All were randomly assigned to receive intravenous infusions every 4 weeks of 300 mg of the natalizumab biosimilar or the reference product for a total of 12 infusions.
At 24 and 48 weeks, there were no between-group differences in annualized relapse rates or Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, which were similar between treatment groups at baseline. There were also no significant differences in safety, tolerability, or immunogenicity.
The prescribing information for both natalizumab products includes a boxed warning about the increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a viral infection of the brain that usually leads to death or severe disability.
Risk factors for the development of PML include the presence of antibodies to the JC virus, longer duration of therapy, and prior use of immunosuppressants.
“These factors should be considered in the context of expected benefit when initiating and continuing treatment with natalizumab products, and health care providers should monitor patients and withhold treatment immediately at the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML,” the FDA advises.
Because of the risks of PML, natalizumab products are available only through a restricted drug distribution program under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.
In a statement, Sandoz said it’s committed to having the product available in the United States “as soon as possible.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Gene therapy offers new way to fight alcohol use disorder
Researchers from Oregon Health & Science University, Portland implanted the therapy directly into the brains of rhesus monkeys that had been conditioned to drink 8-10 alcoholic drinks a day. A harmless virus that carried a specific gene was placed in the region of the brain that regulates dopamine, which provides feelings of reward and pleasure.
“We wanted to see if we could normalize the dopamine in these motivational areas – if, indeed, motivation to overdrink or drink heavily would be mitigated,” said study author Kathleen Grant, PhD, a professor and chief of the division of neuroscience at the university’s Oregon National Primate Research Center.
The need for new alcohol use disorder treatments may be more dire than ever. Alcohol-related deaths in the United States increased dramatically between 2007 and 2020, especially in women, according to research published in the journal JAMA Network Open. The next year, they spiked again, to 108,791 alcohol-related deaths in 2021 alone, according to the National Institutes of Health. That’s slightly more than the number of drug overdoses recorded in 2021.
For the 29.5 million Americans with alcohol use disorder, also known as alcohol abuse or dependence, the road to recovery can be challenging. One reason is that the reward systems in their brains are working against them.
At the first taste of alcohol, the body releases dopamine. But if a person drinks too much for too long, the brain reduces dopamine production and even more alcohol is needed to feel good again.
The gene researchers placed in the monkeys’ brains is called glial-derived neurotrophic factor. It is a growth factor, stimulating cells to multiply. It may help improve function of brain cells that synthesize dopamine, effectively resetting the whole system and reducing the urge to drink.
The study was surprisingly successful. Compared with primates that received a placebo, those that received the growth factor gene decreased their drinking by about 90%. They basically quit drinking, while the primates that got the placebo resumed their habit.
A similar procedure is already used in patients with Parkinson’s disease. But more animal studies, and human clinical trials, would be needed before this therapy could be used in humans with alcohol use disorder. This invasive treatment involves brain surgery, which has risks, so it would likely be reserved for those with the most severe, dangerous drinking habits.
“I think it’d be appropriate for individuals where other treatment modalities just weren’t effective, and they’re worried for their lives,” Dr. Grant said.
Alcohol use disorder treatments
Today, treatment for alcohol use disorder ranges from a brief conversation with a health care provider, in mild cases, to psychiatric treatment or medication in moderate or severe cases.
There are four Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for alcohol use disorder and a few more medications that health care providers can prescribe off label.
“They’re not widely used,” said Henry Kranzler, MD, a professor of psychiatry and director of the Center for Studies of Addiction at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “They’re shockingly underutilized.”
One reason: Just 4.6% of people with alcohol use disorder seek treatment each year, according to NIH data.
“Some of the issues include the ubiquity of alcohol, and its acceptance in American culture – and the fact that that makes it difficult for people to acknowledge that they have a problem with alcohol,” said Dr. Kranzler.
But another problem is that many health care professionals don’t recognize and treat alcohol use disorder in patients who do seek care. Those seeking treatment for alcohol use disorder can find a qualified provider at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry or American Society of Addiction Medicine directories.
The future of treatment
Ongoing research could lead to more treatments, and make them more available and more appealing.
Unlike many other drugs that work on a single receptor in the body – like opioids that target opioid receptors, or nicotine, which targets choline receptors – alcohol affects many different receptors, said Robert Swift, MD, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University, Providence, R.I. It also penetrates cells at high doses.
“There are so many different effects of alcohol, which makes it very hard to treat,” he said. “But on the other hand, it gives us an advantage, and there are probably different points that we can attack.”
Other exciting developments are underway, although more research, including clinical trials in humans, is needed before they arrive.
Some of the most promising:
- Hallucinogens. In the 1950s, before they became illegal, these drugs helped people drink less. Even Bill Wilson, cofounder of Alcoholics Anonymous, used hallucinogenic treatment in his recovery; it helped him envision overcoming a challenge. Today, there is renewed interest in hallucinogens for alcohol use disorder. In a study published in , people with alcohol use disorder who were given the hallucinogen psilocybin along with therapy spent fewer days drinking heavily over the following 32 weeks than people who received a different medication. Don’t try to do this yourself, though. “It’s not just taking a hallucinogen and having a trip,” Dr. Swift said. “It’s a therapy-guided session, so it’s a combination of using the hallucinogenic substance with a skilled therapist, and sometimes two skilled therapists, helping to guide the experience.”
- Epigenetic editing. Alcohol exposure can affect the activity of a gene in the amygdala, a brain region involved in emotional processing. found that, by editing that gene in rats through an intravenous line of genetic material, they reduced the rodents’ drinking and anxiety.
- Oxytocin. The so-called love hormone could help reset the dopamine system to make alcohol less appealing. “There are oxytocin receptors on dopamine neurons, and oxytocin makes your dopamine system more effective,” Dr. Swift said. In a from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, mice injected with oxytocin didn’t drink during a stressful situation that could have otherwise led to relapse.
- Ghrelin. This stomach hormone could help curb drinking. In a study published in , mice that received drugs that increased ghrelin reduced their alcohol intake.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers from Oregon Health & Science University, Portland implanted the therapy directly into the brains of rhesus monkeys that had been conditioned to drink 8-10 alcoholic drinks a day. A harmless virus that carried a specific gene was placed in the region of the brain that regulates dopamine, which provides feelings of reward and pleasure.
“We wanted to see if we could normalize the dopamine in these motivational areas – if, indeed, motivation to overdrink or drink heavily would be mitigated,” said study author Kathleen Grant, PhD, a professor and chief of the division of neuroscience at the university’s Oregon National Primate Research Center.
The need for new alcohol use disorder treatments may be more dire than ever. Alcohol-related deaths in the United States increased dramatically between 2007 and 2020, especially in women, according to research published in the journal JAMA Network Open. The next year, they spiked again, to 108,791 alcohol-related deaths in 2021 alone, according to the National Institutes of Health. That’s slightly more than the number of drug overdoses recorded in 2021.
For the 29.5 million Americans with alcohol use disorder, also known as alcohol abuse or dependence, the road to recovery can be challenging. One reason is that the reward systems in their brains are working against them.
At the first taste of alcohol, the body releases dopamine. But if a person drinks too much for too long, the brain reduces dopamine production and even more alcohol is needed to feel good again.
The gene researchers placed in the monkeys’ brains is called glial-derived neurotrophic factor. It is a growth factor, stimulating cells to multiply. It may help improve function of brain cells that synthesize dopamine, effectively resetting the whole system and reducing the urge to drink.
The study was surprisingly successful. Compared with primates that received a placebo, those that received the growth factor gene decreased their drinking by about 90%. They basically quit drinking, while the primates that got the placebo resumed their habit.
A similar procedure is already used in patients with Parkinson’s disease. But more animal studies, and human clinical trials, would be needed before this therapy could be used in humans with alcohol use disorder. This invasive treatment involves brain surgery, which has risks, so it would likely be reserved for those with the most severe, dangerous drinking habits.
“I think it’d be appropriate for individuals where other treatment modalities just weren’t effective, and they’re worried for their lives,” Dr. Grant said.
Alcohol use disorder treatments
Today, treatment for alcohol use disorder ranges from a brief conversation with a health care provider, in mild cases, to psychiatric treatment or medication in moderate or severe cases.
There are four Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for alcohol use disorder and a few more medications that health care providers can prescribe off label.
“They’re not widely used,” said Henry Kranzler, MD, a professor of psychiatry and director of the Center for Studies of Addiction at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “They’re shockingly underutilized.”
One reason: Just 4.6% of people with alcohol use disorder seek treatment each year, according to NIH data.
“Some of the issues include the ubiquity of alcohol, and its acceptance in American culture – and the fact that that makes it difficult for people to acknowledge that they have a problem with alcohol,” said Dr. Kranzler.
But another problem is that many health care professionals don’t recognize and treat alcohol use disorder in patients who do seek care. Those seeking treatment for alcohol use disorder can find a qualified provider at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry or American Society of Addiction Medicine directories.
The future of treatment
Ongoing research could lead to more treatments, and make them more available and more appealing.
Unlike many other drugs that work on a single receptor in the body – like opioids that target opioid receptors, or nicotine, which targets choline receptors – alcohol affects many different receptors, said Robert Swift, MD, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University, Providence, R.I. It also penetrates cells at high doses.
“There are so many different effects of alcohol, which makes it very hard to treat,” he said. “But on the other hand, it gives us an advantage, and there are probably different points that we can attack.”
Other exciting developments are underway, although more research, including clinical trials in humans, is needed before they arrive.
Some of the most promising:
- Hallucinogens. In the 1950s, before they became illegal, these drugs helped people drink less. Even Bill Wilson, cofounder of Alcoholics Anonymous, used hallucinogenic treatment in his recovery; it helped him envision overcoming a challenge. Today, there is renewed interest in hallucinogens for alcohol use disorder. In a study published in , people with alcohol use disorder who were given the hallucinogen psilocybin along with therapy spent fewer days drinking heavily over the following 32 weeks than people who received a different medication. Don’t try to do this yourself, though. “It’s not just taking a hallucinogen and having a trip,” Dr. Swift said. “It’s a therapy-guided session, so it’s a combination of using the hallucinogenic substance with a skilled therapist, and sometimes two skilled therapists, helping to guide the experience.”
- Epigenetic editing. Alcohol exposure can affect the activity of a gene in the amygdala, a brain region involved in emotional processing. found that, by editing that gene in rats through an intravenous line of genetic material, they reduced the rodents’ drinking and anxiety.
- Oxytocin. The so-called love hormone could help reset the dopamine system to make alcohol less appealing. “There are oxytocin receptors on dopamine neurons, and oxytocin makes your dopamine system more effective,” Dr. Swift said. In a from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, mice injected with oxytocin didn’t drink during a stressful situation that could have otherwise led to relapse.
- Ghrelin. This stomach hormone could help curb drinking. In a study published in , mice that received drugs that increased ghrelin reduced their alcohol intake.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers from Oregon Health & Science University, Portland implanted the therapy directly into the brains of rhesus monkeys that had been conditioned to drink 8-10 alcoholic drinks a day. A harmless virus that carried a specific gene was placed in the region of the brain that regulates dopamine, which provides feelings of reward and pleasure.
“We wanted to see if we could normalize the dopamine in these motivational areas – if, indeed, motivation to overdrink or drink heavily would be mitigated,” said study author Kathleen Grant, PhD, a professor and chief of the division of neuroscience at the university’s Oregon National Primate Research Center.
The need for new alcohol use disorder treatments may be more dire than ever. Alcohol-related deaths in the United States increased dramatically between 2007 and 2020, especially in women, according to research published in the journal JAMA Network Open. The next year, they spiked again, to 108,791 alcohol-related deaths in 2021 alone, according to the National Institutes of Health. That’s slightly more than the number of drug overdoses recorded in 2021.
For the 29.5 million Americans with alcohol use disorder, also known as alcohol abuse or dependence, the road to recovery can be challenging. One reason is that the reward systems in their brains are working against them.
At the first taste of alcohol, the body releases dopamine. But if a person drinks too much for too long, the brain reduces dopamine production and even more alcohol is needed to feel good again.
The gene researchers placed in the monkeys’ brains is called glial-derived neurotrophic factor. It is a growth factor, stimulating cells to multiply. It may help improve function of brain cells that synthesize dopamine, effectively resetting the whole system and reducing the urge to drink.
The study was surprisingly successful. Compared with primates that received a placebo, those that received the growth factor gene decreased their drinking by about 90%. They basically quit drinking, while the primates that got the placebo resumed their habit.
A similar procedure is already used in patients with Parkinson’s disease. But more animal studies, and human clinical trials, would be needed before this therapy could be used in humans with alcohol use disorder. This invasive treatment involves brain surgery, which has risks, so it would likely be reserved for those with the most severe, dangerous drinking habits.
“I think it’d be appropriate for individuals where other treatment modalities just weren’t effective, and they’re worried for their lives,” Dr. Grant said.
Alcohol use disorder treatments
Today, treatment for alcohol use disorder ranges from a brief conversation with a health care provider, in mild cases, to psychiatric treatment or medication in moderate or severe cases.
There are four Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for alcohol use disorder and a few more medications that health care providers can prescribe off label.
“They’re not widely used,” said Henry Kranzler, MD, a professor of psychiatry and director of the Center for Studies of Addiction at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “They’re shockingly underutilized.”
One reason: Just 4.6% of people with alcohol use disorder seek treatment each year, according to NIH data.
“Some of the issues include the ubiquity of alcohol, and its acceptance in American culture – and the fact that that makes it difficult for people to acknowledge that they have a problem with alcohol,” said Dr. Kranzler.
But another problem is that many health care professionals don’t recognize and treat alcohol use disorder in patients who do seek care. Those seeking treatment for alcohol use disorder can find a qualified provider at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry or American Society of Addiction Medicine directories.
The future of treatment
Ongoing research could lead to more treatments, and make them more available and more appealing.
Unlike many other drugs that work on a single receptor in the body – like opioids that target opioid receptors, or nicotine, which targets choline receptors – alcohol affects many different receptors, said Robert Swift, MD, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University, Providence, R.I. It also penetrates cells at high doses.
“There are so many different effects of alcohol, which makes it very hard to treat,” he said. “But on the other hand, it gives us an advantage, and there are probably different points that we can attack.”
Other exciting developments are underway, although more research, including clinical trials in humans, is needed before they arrive.
Some of the most promising:
- Hallucinogens. In the 1950s, before they became illegal, these drugs helped people drink less. Even Bill Wilson, cofounder of Alcoholics Anonymous, used hallucinogenic treatment in his recovery; it helped him envision overcoming a challenge. Today, there is renewed interest in hallucinogens for alcohol use disorder. In a study published in , people with alcohol use disorder who were given the hallucinogen psilocybin along with therapy spent fewer days drinking heavily over the following 32 weeks than people who received a different medication. Don’t try to do this yourself, though. “It’s not just taking a hallucinogen and having a trip,” Dr. Swift said. “It’s a therapy-guided session, so it’s a combination of using the hallucinogenic substance with a skilled therapist, and sometimes two skilled therapists, helping to guide the experience.”
- Epigenetic editing. Alcohol exposure can affect the activity of a gene in the amygdala, a brain region involved in emotional processing. found that, by editing that gene in rats through an intravenous line of genetic material, they reduced the rodents’ drinking and anxiety.
- Oxytocin. The so-called love hormone could help reset the dopamine system to make alcohol less appealing. “There are oxytocin receptors on dopamine neurons, and oxytocin makes your dopamine system more effective,” Dr. Swift said. In a from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, mice injected with oxytocin didn’t drink during a stressful situation that could have otherwise led to relapse.
- Ghrelin. This stomach hormone could help curb drinking. In a study published in , mice that received drugs that increased ghrelin reduced their alcohol intake.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Dementia diagnosis a good time to reduce polypharmacy
Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.
They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.
According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.
“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”
Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.
Matched cohort study
The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.
The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).
Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.
The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.
The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.
While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.
Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.”
The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.
Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.
They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.
According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.
“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”
Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.
Matched cohort study
The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.
The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).
Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.
The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.
The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.
While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.
Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.”
The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.
Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.
They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.
According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.
“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”
Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.
Matched cohort study
The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.
The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).
Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.
The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.
The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.
While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.
Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.”
The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
Most with early AD not eligible for new antiamyloid drugs
Only a small fraction of older adults in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) meet eligibility criteria to receive treatment with newly approved antiamyloid drugs, largely because of the presence of medical conditions or neuroimaging findings, new research shows.
Applying the clinical trial criteria, only about 8%-17% of amyloid-positive individuals with early AD would be eligible for lecanemab (Leqembi), and even fewer, 5%-9%, would be eligible for aducanumab (Aduhelm), the researchers found.
This study highlights the “limited suitability” of most adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia with elevated brain amyloid for treatment with these anti–beta amyloid monoclonal antibodies, write Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, and colleagues with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
The study was published online in Neurology
The authors of an accompanying editorial write that this study “provides an important estimate of treatment eligibility for amyloid-lowering monoclonal antibodies for early AD to help health systems make realistic plans for providing these treatments.”
More real-world data needed
Dr. Vassilaki and colleagues applied eligibility criteria for lecanemab and aducanumab to 237 older adults with MCI or mild dementia and increased brain amyloid burden from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Their mean age was 80.9 years, 55% were men, and most were White.
After applying lecanemab’s inclusion criteria, less than half of the study population was eligible to receive treatment (112 of 237, or 47%).
A total of 21 people were excluded because of a body mass index less than 17 or greater than or equal to 35; 48 due to a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score other than 0.5 or 1.0; 46 because they did not meet WMS-R Logical Memory II scores for age; 8 because of a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score outside the bounds of 22-30; and two because of a CDR memory score less than 0.5.
Applying lecanemab’s exclusion criteria further narrowed the number of eligible participants from 112 to 19 (8% of 237).
Notable exclusions included cardiopulmonary contraindications, central nervous system–related exclusions such as brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy or brain injury, imaging findings, and history of cancer.
The results were similar for aducanumab, with 104 of the 237 participants (44%) meeting the trial’s inclusion criteria. Applying aducanumab’s exclusion criteria further reduced the number of eligible participants to 12 (5% of 237).
A sensitivity analysis including participants with MCI, without CDR global, MMSE, or WMS-R Logical Memory II score restrictions, resulted in a somewhat higher percentage of eligible participants (17.4% for lecanemab and 8.9% for aducanumab).
Shared decision-making
“Clinicians and health systems should be aware that by applying the clinical trial criteria, a smaller percentage might be eligible for these treatments than originally anticipated,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. To help clinicians, there are published recommendations for the appropriate use of these treatments, she noted.
Given that clinical trial participants are typically healthier than the general population, Dr. Vassilaki said that research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of antiamyloid therapies in larger, more diverse populations as well as in less healthy populations, before these therapies may be more widely available to people with AD.
“We can take advantage of the postmarketing surveillance of side effects, and also enrollment of patients receiving these treatments to registries could provide us with data useful for any necessary adjustment to drug use,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization.
‘Sharp focus’
This study “brings the issue of eligibility for amyloid-lowering antibody treatment into sharp focus,” Matthew Howe, MD, PhD, with Butler Hospital Memory & Aging Program, Providence, R.I., and colleagues note in their editorial.
“The results underscore the importance of careful patient selection to help identify patients most likely to benefit from treatment and exclude those at risk for serious outcomes,” they write.
They also write that appropriate use recommendations for lecanemab and aducanumab “will be revisited as more real-world data emerge, especially about safety.”
For now, clinicians “must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” they add.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki has consulted for F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has equity ownership in Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Only a small fraction of older adults in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) meet eligibility criteria to receive treatment with newly approved antiamyloid drugs, largely because of the presence of medical conditions or neuroimaging findings, new research shows.
Applying the clinical trial criteria, only about 8%-17% of amyloid-positive individuals with early AD would be eligible for lecanemab (Leqembi), and even fewer, 5%-9%, would be eligible for aducanumab (Aduhelm), the researchers found.
This study highlights the “limited suitability” of most adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia with elevated brain amyloid for treatment with these anti–beta amyloid monoclonal antibodies, write Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, and colleagues with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
The study was published online in Neurology
The authors of an accompanying editorial write that this study “provides an important estimate of treatment eligibility for amyloid-lowering monoclonal antibodies for early AD to help health systems make realistic plans for providing these treatments.”
More real-world data needed
Dr. Vassilaki and colleagues applied eligibility criteria for lecanemab and aducanumab to 237 older adults with MCI or mild dementia and increased brain amyloid burden from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Their mean age was 80.9 years, 55% were men, and most were White.
After applying lecanemab’s inclusion criteria, less than half of the study population was eligible to receive treatment (112 of 237, or 47%).
A total of 21 people were excluded because of a body mass index less than 17 or greater than or equal to 35; 48 due to a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score other than 0.5 or 1.0; 46 because they did not meet WMS-R Logical Memory II scores for age; 8 because of a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score outside the bounds of 22-30; and two because of a CDR memory score less than 0.5.
Applying lecanemab’s exclusion criteria further narrowed the number of eligible participants from 112 to 19 (8% of 237).
Notable exclusions included cardiopulmonary contraindications, central nervous system–related exclusions such as brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy or brain injury, imaging findings, and history of cancer.
The results were similar for aducanumab, with 104 of the 237 participants (44%) meeting the trial’s inclusion criteria. Applying aducanumab’s exclusion criteria further reduced the number of eligible participants to 12 (5% of 237).
A sensitivity analysis including participants with MCI, without CDR global, MMSE, or WMS-R Logical Memory II score restrictions, resulted in a somewhat higher percentage of eligible participants (17.4% for lecanemab and 8.9% for aducanumab).
Shared decision-making
“Clinicians and health systems should be aware that by applying the clinical trial criteria, a smaller percentage might be eligible for these treatments than originally anticipated,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. To help clinicians, there are published recommendations for the appropriate use of these treatments, she noted.
Given that clinical trial participants are typically healthier than the general population, Dr. Vassilaki said that research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of antiamyloid therapies in larger, more diverse populations as well as in less healthy populations, before these therapies may be more widely available to people with AD.
“We can take advantage of the postmarketing surveillance of side effects, and also enrollment of patients receiving these treatments to registries could provide us with data useful for any necessary adjustment to drug use,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization.
‘Sharp focus’
This study “brings the issue of eligibility for amyloid-lowering antibody treatment into sharp focus,” Matthew Howe, MD, PhD, with Butler Hospital Memory & Aging Program, Providence, R.I., and colleagues note in their editorial.
“The results underscore the importance of careful patient selection to help identify patients most likely to benefit from treatment and exclude those at risk for serious outcomes,” they write.
They also write that appropriate use recommendations for lecanemab and aducanumab “will be revisited as more real-world data emerge, especially about safety.”
For now, clinicians “must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” they add.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki has consulted for F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has equity ownership in Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Only a small fraction of older adults in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) meet eligibility criteria to receive treatment with newly approved antiamyloid drugs, largely because of the presence of medical conditions or neuroimaging findings, new research shows.
Applying the clinical trial criteria, only about 8%-17% of amyloid-positive individuals with early AD would be eligible for lecanemab (Leqembi), and even fewer, 5%-9%, would be eligible for aducanumab (Aduhelm), the researchers found.
This study highlights the “limited suitability” of most adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia with elevated brain amyloid for treatment with these anti–beta amyloid monoclonal antibodies, write Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, and colleagues with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
The study was published online in Neurology
The authors of an accompanying editorial write that this study “provides an important estimate of treatment eligibility for amyloid-lowering monoclonal antibodies for early AD to help health systems make realistic plans for providing these treatments.”
More real-world data needed
Dr. Vassilaki and colleagues applied eligibility criteria for lecanemab and aducanumab to 237 older adults with MCI or mild dementia and increased brain amyloid burden from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Their mean age was 80.9 years, 55% were men, and most were White.
After applying lecanemab’s inclusion criteria, less than half of the study population was eligible to receive treatment (112 of 237, or 47%).
A total of 21 people were excluded because of a body mass index less than 17 or greater than or equal to 35; 48 due to a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score other than 0.5 or 1.0; 46 because they did not meet WMS-R Logical Memory II scores for age; 8 because of a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score outside the bounds of 22-30; and two because of a CDR memory score less than 0.5.
Applying lecanemab’s exclusion criteria further narrowed the number of eligible participants from 112 to 19 (8% of 237).
Notable exclusions included cardiopulmonary contraindications, central nervous system–related exclusions such as brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy or brain injury, imaging findings, and history of cancer.
The results were similar for aducanumab, with 104 of the 237 participants (44%) meeting the trial’s inclusion criteria. Applying aducanumab’s exclusion criteria further reduced the number of eligible participants to 12 (5% of 237).
A sensitivity analysis including participants with MCI, without CDR global, MMSE, or WMS-R Logical Memory II score restrictions, resulted in a somewhat higher percentage of eligible participants (17.4% for lecanemab and 8.9% for aducanumab).
Shared decision-making
“Clinicians and health systems should be aware that by applying the clinical trial criteria, a smaller percentage might be eligible for these treatments than originally anticipated,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. To help clinicians, there are published recommendations for the appropriate use of these treatments, she noted.
Given that clinical trial participants are typically healthier than the general population, Dr. Vassilaki said that research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of antiamyloid therapies in larger, more diverse populations as well as in less healthy populations, before these therapies may be more widely available to people with AD.
“We can take advantage of the postmarketing surveillance of side effects, and also enrollment of patients receiving these treatments to registries could provide us with data useful for any necessary adjustment to drug use,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization.
‘Sharp focus’
This study “brings the issue of eligibility for amyloid-lowering antibody treatment into sharp focus,” Matthew Howe, MD, PhD, with Butler Hospital Memory & Aging Program, Providence, R.I., and colleagues note in their editorial.
“The results underscore the importance of careful patient selection to help identify patients most likely to benefit from treatment and exclude those at risk for serious outcomes,” they write.
They also write that appropriate use recommendations for lecanemab and aducanumab “will be revisited as more real-world data emerge, especially about safety.”
For now, clinicians “must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” they add.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki has consulted for F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has equity ownership in Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Few meet eligibility for newer Alzheimer’s drugs
, a cross sectional study has found.
Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.
“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population
The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).
The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.
For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m2 was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.
When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.
Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.
“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”
Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”
One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment
In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
, a cross sectional study has found.
Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.
“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population
The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).
The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.
For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m2 was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.
When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.
Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.
“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”
Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”
One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment
In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
, a cross sectional study has found.
Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.
“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population
The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).
The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.
For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m2 was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.
When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.
Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.
“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”
Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”
One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment
In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Playing football linked to higher Parkinson’s risk
In a cross-sectional study of older men, former tackle football players had a 61% higher likelihood of reporting a diagnosis of parkinsonism or PD, compared with men who played non-football sports.
Longer duration of football participation and higher level of play (college and professional) were associated with higher risk.
Lead researcher Michael L. Alosco, PhD, director of the Boston University Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, said it’s important to note that the findings are from a cohort of men “enriched” for having PD.
“These are people who are likely already concerned for or at risk for having this disease. We don’t yet know how our findings translate to the general population,” Dr. Alosco said in an interview.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Repetitive head impacts
Dating back to the 1920s, PD and parkinsonism an umbrella term that refers to motor symptoms associated with PD and other conditions have long been described in boxers who suffer repetitive head impacts.
Multiple studies have linked tackle football with progressive brain diseases such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Few studies, however, have investigated the association between participation in football and PD.
For their study, Dr. Alosco and colleagues leveraged data from Fox Insight, a longitudinal online study of some people with and some without PD that is sponsored by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research.
They focused their analyses on 1,875 men (mean age, 67 years) who reported playing any organized sport. As noted, the cohort was enriched for parkinsonism or PD. A total of 1,602 (85%) had received a diagnosis of parkinsonism/PD, and 273 had not.
Altogether, 729 men had a history of playing tackle football, and 1,146 men played non-football sports (control group). Among the football players, 82% played at youth sports or at the high school level; 17% played at the college level; and fewer than 1% played at the pro or semi-pro level.
Among the football players, 648 (89%) reported a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis.
A history of playing football was associated with higher odds of reporting a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.17) after accounting for age, education level, history of diabetes and heart disease, body mass index (BMI), traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness, and family history of PD.
Football players who had longer careers and who played at higher levels of competition were at increased risk of having parkinsonism or PD.
Playing one to four seasons yielded an OR of 1.39 (95% CI, 0.98-1.98). The OR was 2.18 (95% CI, 1.36-3.49) for playing five or more seasons.
Football players who competed at the college or professional level had nearly triple the odds of reporting a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.28-6.73), compared with athletes who played at the youth or high school level.
Age at first exposure to football was not associated with a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis.
The researchers cautioned that this was a convenience sample of mostly White people, and the sample was enriched for having PD – factors that limit the generalizability of the findings.
Also, diagnosis of PD was self-reported by participants through online assessments, and objective in-person evaluations were not conducted.
Unequivocal link?
“This is among the first and largest to look at the relationship between football and having a diagnosis of PD in a large cohort of people from the Fox Insight online study,” Dr. Alosco said.
He cautioned that “not all people who play football will develop later-life neurological problems. That being said, the study adds to the accumulating evidence that suggests playing football is one risk factor for the development of later-life brain diseases.
“This represents an opportunity to educate the communities on the potential risks of playing football (short and long term), including what we know and what we don’t know, so that people can make informed decisions on participating in tackle football and develop additional ways to mitigate risk,” Dr. Alosco said.
In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher from Boston, said: “The emerging body of research leaves little doubt that engaging in football raises the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease and parkinsonism.
“This progressive line of investigation serves to enhance our understanding, unequivocally demonstrating that even participation in amateur football, including at the youth and high school levels, constitutes a significant risk factor for the onset of Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.
However, he said it’s “crucial to underscore that the statistics reveal a notable distinction: individuals who have a history of college or professional football play face odds nearly three times higher of receiving a diagnosis of parkinsonism or Parkinson’s disease when compared to their counterparts who engaged in football during their youth or high-school years.
“Ultimately, determinations regarding involvement in sports should be a collaborative endeavor involving parents, young athletes, and health care providers. It is incumbent upon physicians to equip parents and youth with a comprehensive comprehension of the potential risks and rewards inherent in football participation,” Dr. Lakhan said.
He added, though, that there are multifaceted advantages to playing football. “This pursuit nurtures cardiovascular well-being, fosters invaluable social interactions, cultivates teamwork, instills discipline through regimented routines, and hones a spectrum of physical proficiencies,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“It’s worth noting that a constellation of alternative sports, including track and field, swimming, soccer, baseball, and tennis, can be cogently discussed as substitutes, all while preserving the manifold benefits of athletic engagement,” Dr. Lakhan added.
The Fox Insight Study is funded by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. The study was conducted in collaboration with the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, the sponsor of the Fox Insight study, which collected and aggregated data used in the study. It was also supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Alosco received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, an honorarium from the Michael J. Fox Foundation for work unrelated to the study, and royalties from Oxford University Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a cross-sectional study of older men, former tackle football players had a 61% higher likelihood of reporting a diagnosis of parkinsonism or PD, compared with men who played non-football sports.
Longer duration of football participation and higher level of play (college and professional) were associated with higher risk.
Lead researcher Michael L. Alosco, PhD, director of the Boston University Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, said it’s important to note that the findings are from a cohort of men “enriched” for having PD.
“These are people who are likely already concerned for or at risk for having this disease. We don’t yet know how our findings translate to the general population,” Dr. Alosco said in an interview.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Repetitive head impacts
Dating back to the 1920s, PD and parkinsonism an umbrella term that refers to motor symptoms associated with PD and other conditions have long been described in boxers who suffer repetitive head impacts.
Multiple studies have linked tackle football with progressive brain diseases such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Few studies, however, have investigated the association between participation in football and PD.
For their study, Dr. Alosco and colleagues leveraged data from Fox Insight, a longitudinal online study of some people with and some without PD that is sponsored by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research.
They focused their analyses on 1,875 men (mean age, 67 years) who reported playing any organized sport. As noted, the cohort was enriched for parkinsonism or PD. A total of 1,602 (85%) had received a diagnosis of parkinsonism/PD, and 273 had not.
Altogether, 729 men had a history of playing tackle football, and 1,146 men played non-football sports (control group). Among the football players, 82% played at youth sports or at the high school level; 17% played at the college level; and fewer than 1% played at the pro or semi-pro level.
Among the football players, 648 (89%) reported a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis.
A history of playing football was associated with higher odds of reporting a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.17) after accounting for age, education level, history of diabetes and heart disease, body mass index (BMI), traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness, and family history of PD.
Football players who had longer careers and who played at higher levels of competition were at increased risk of having parkinsonism or PD.
Playing one to four seasons yielded an OR of 1.39 (95% CI, 0.98-1.98). The OR was 2.18 (95% CI, 1.36-3.49) for playing five or more seasons.
Football players who competed at the college or professional level had nearly triple the odds of reporting a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.28-6.73), compared with athletes who played at the youth or high school level.
Age at first exposure to football was not associated with a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis.
The researchers cautioned that this was a convenience sample of mostly White people, and the sample was enriched for having PD – factors that limit the generalizability of the findings.
Also, diagnosis of PD was self-reported by participants through online assessments, and objective in-person evaluations were not conducted.
Unequivocal link?
“This is among the first and largest to look at the relationship between football and having a diagnosis of PD in a large cohort of people from the Fox Insight online study,” Dr. Alosco said.
He cautioned that “not all people who play football will develop later-life neurological problems. That being said, the study adds to the accumulating evidence that suggests playing football is one risk factor for the development of later-life brain diseases.
“This represents an opportunity to educate the communities on the potential risks of playing football (short and long term), including what we know and what we don’t know, so that people can make informed decisions on participating in tackle football and develop additional ways to mitigate risk,” Dr. Alosco said.
In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher from Boston, said: “The emerging body of research leaves little doubt that engaging in football raises the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease and parkinsonism.
“This progressive line of investigation serves to enhance our understanding, unequivocally demonstrating that even participation in amateur football, including at the youth and high school levels, constitutes a significant risk factor for the onset of Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.
However, he said it’s “crucial to underscore that the statistics reveal a notable distinction: individuals who have a history of college or professional football play face odds nearly three times higher of receiving a diagnosis of parkinsonism or Parkinson’s disease when compared to their counterparts who engaged in football during their youth or high-school years.
“Ultimately, determinations regarding involvement in sports should be a collaborative endeavor involving parents, young athletes, and health care providers. It is incumbent upon physicians to equip parents and youth with a comprehensive comprehension of the potential risks and rewards inherent in football participation,” Dr. Lakhan said.
He added, though, that there are multifaceted advantages to playing football. “This pursuit nurtures cardiovascular well-being, fosters invaluable social interactions, cultivates teamwork, instills discipline through regimented routines, and hones a spectrum of physical proficiencies,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“It’s worth noting that a constellation of alternative sports, including track and field, swimming, soccer, baseball, and tennis, can be cogently discussed as substitutes, all while preserving the manifold benefits of athletic engagement,” Dr. Lakhan added.
The Fox Insight Study is funded by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. The study was conducted in collaboration with the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, the sponsor of the Fox Insight study, which collected and aggregated data used in the study. It was also supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Alosco received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, an honorarium from the Michael J. Fox Foundation for work unrelated to the study, and royalties from Oxford University Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a cross-sectional study of older men, former tackle football players had a 61% higher likelihood of reporting a diagnosis of parkinsonism or PD, compared with men who played non-football sports.
Longer duration of football participation and higher level of play (college and professional) were associated with higher risk.
Lead researcher Michael L. Alosco, PhD, director of the Boston University Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, said it’s important to note that the findings are from a cohort of men “enriched” for having PD.
“These are people who are likely already concerned for or at risk for having this disease. We don’t yet know how our findings translate to the general population,” Dr. Alosco said in an interview.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Repetitive head impacts
Dating back to the 1920s, PD and parkinsonism an umbrella term that refers to motor symptoms associated with PD and other conditions have long been described in boxers who suffer repetitive head impacts.
Multiple studies have linked tackle football with progressive brain diseases such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Few studies, however, have investigated the association between participation in football and PD.
For their study, Dr. Alosco and colleagues leveraged data from Fox Insight, a longitudinal online study of some people with and some without PD that is sponsored by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research.
They focused their analyses on 1,875 men (mean age, 67 years) who reported playing any organized sport. As noted, the cohort was enriched for parkinsonism or PD. A total of 1,602 (85%) had received a diagnosis of parkinsonism/PD, and 273 had not.
Altogether, 729 men had a history of playing tackle football, and 1,146 men played non-football sports (control group). Among the football players, 82% played at youth sports or at the high school level; 17% played at the college level; and fewer than 1% played at the pro or semi-pro level.
Among the football players, 648 (89%) reported a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis.
A history of playing football was associated with higher odds of reporting a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.17) after accounting for age, education level, history of diabetes and heart disease, body mass index (BMI), traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness, and family history of PD.
Football players who had longer careers and who played at higher levels of competition were at increased risk of having parkinsonism or PD.
Playing one to four seasons yielded an OR of 1.39 (95% CI, 0.98-1.98). The OR was 2.18 (95% CI, 1.36-3.49) for playing five or more seasons.
Football players who competed at the college or professional level had nearly triple the odds of reporting a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.28-6.73), compared with athletes who played at the youth or high school level.
Age at first exposure to football was not associated with a parkinsonism/PD diagnosis.
The researchers cautioned that this was a convenience sample of mostly White people, and the sample was enriched for having PD – factors that limit the generalizability of the findings.
Also, diagnosis of PD was self-reported by participants through online assessments, and objective in-person evaluations were not conducted.
Unequivocal link?
“This is among the first and largest to look at the relationship between football and having a diagnosis of PD in a large cohort of people from the Fox Insight online study,” Dr. Alosco said.
He cautioned that “not all people who play football will develop later-life neurological problems. That being said, the study adds to the accumulating evidence that suggests playing football is one risk factor for the development of later-life brain diseases.
“This represents an opportunity to educate the communities on the potential risks of playing football (short and long term), including what we know and what we don’t know, so that people can make informed decisions on participating in tackle football and develop additional ways to mitigate risk,” Dr. Alosco said.
In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher from Boston, said: “The emerging body of research leaves little doubt that engaging in football raises the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease and parkinsonism.
“This progressive line of investigation serves to enhance our understanding, unequivocally demonstrating that even participation in amateur football, including at the youth and high school levels, constitutes a significant risk factor for the onset of Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.
However, he said it’s “crucial to underscore that the statistics reveal a notable distinction: individuals who have a history of college or professional football play face odds nearly three times higher of receiving a diagnosis of parkinsonism or Parkinson’s disease when compared to their counterparts who engaged in football during their youth or high-school years.
“Ultimately, determinations regarding involvement in sports should be a collaborative endeavor involving parents, young athletes, and health care providers. It is incumbent upon physicians to equip parents and youth with a comprehensive comprehension of the potential risks and rewards inherent in football participation,” Dr. Lakhan said.
He added, though, that there are multifaceted advantages to playing football. “This pursuit nurtures cardiovascular well-being, fosters invaluable social interactions, cultivates teamwork, instills discipline through regimented routines, and hones a spectrum of physical proficiencies,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“It’s worth noting that a constellation of alternative sports, including track and field, swimming, soccer, baseball, and tennis, can be cogently discussed as substitutes, all while preserving the manifold benefits of athletic engagement,” Dr. Lakhan added.
The Fox Insight Study is funded by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. The study was conducted in collaboration with the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, the sponsor of the Fox Insight study, which collected and aggregated data used in the study. It was also supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Alosco received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, an honorarium from the Michael J. Fox Foundation for work unrelated to the study, and royalties from Oxford University Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN