User login
What to know about newly approved Alzheimer’s drug
, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.
More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.
It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.
But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”
Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.
So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
What does the FDA action mean?
The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.
The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.
With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.
Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.
“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”
The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
Potential benefit?
Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.
Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
Concerns about side effects
The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.
Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.
Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.
“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.
The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.
“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.
Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”
The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
How much will it cost?
Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.
In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.
An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
Will Medicare cover it?
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.
That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.
The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.
On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.
CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”
“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
Who benefits most from this drug?
Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.
Who makes lecanemab?
Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.
What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?
The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.
It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”
“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
Are there alternatives?
The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.
Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.
More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.
It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.
But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”
Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.
So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
What does the FDA action mean?
The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.
The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.
With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.
Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.
“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”
The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
Potential benefit?
Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.
Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
Concerns about side effects
The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.
Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.
Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.
“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.
The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.
“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.
Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”
The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
How much will it cost?
Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.
In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.
An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
Will Medicare cover it?
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.
That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.
The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.
On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.
CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”
“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
Who benefits most from this drug?
Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.
Who makes lecanemab?
Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.
What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?
The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.
It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”
“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
Are there alternatives?
The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.
Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.
More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.
It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.
But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”
Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.
So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
What does the FDA action mean?
The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.
The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.
With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.
Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.
“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”
The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
Potential benefit?
Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.
Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
Concerns about side effects
The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.
Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.
Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.
“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.
The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.
“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.
Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”
The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
How much will it cost?
Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.
In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.
An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
Will Medicare cover it?
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.
That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.
The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.
On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.
CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”
“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
Who benefits most from this drug?
Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.
Who makes lecanemab?
Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.
What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?
The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.
It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”
“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
Are there alternatives?
The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.
Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA approves second antiamyloid for Alzheimer’s disease
Like its controversial cousin aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai), lecanemab was approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway, which can be used to fast-track a drug that provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage over existing treatments for a serious or life-threatening illness.
Unlike aducanumab, however, there was no formal FDA advisory committee meeting on lecanemab prior to approval.
“Alzheimer’s disease immeasurably incapacitates the lives of those who suffer from it and has devastating effects on their loved ones,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
“This treatment option is the latest therapy to target and affect the underlying disease process of Alzheimer’s, instead of only treating the symptoms of the disease,” Dr. Dunn added.
Eisai has reported that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.
Modest benefit, adverse events
The FDA noted, “The labeling states that treatment with Leqembi should be initiated in patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease, the population in which treatment was studied in clinical trials.”
The agency approved the treatment on the basis of findings from the CLARITY AD trial, which showed modest cognitive benefit for patients with early AD – but at a cost of increased risk for amyloid-related edema and effusions.
The trial enrolled 1,795 adults with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease in whom amyloid pathology in the brain had been confirmed. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.
After 18 months of treatment, lecanemab slowed cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo, as measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). This was an absolute difference of 0.45 points (change from baseline, 1.21 for lecanemab vs. 1.66 with placebo; P < .001).
While the results are “welcome news,” a 0.45-point difference on the CDR-SB might not be clinically meaningful, authors of a recent editorial in The Lancet cautioned.
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities that manifest as edema or microhemorrhages also occurred in one in five patients taking lecanemab.
In addition, a newly published case report in The New England Journal of Medicine describes a patient with Alzheimer’s disease who was taking lecanemab and who died after experiencing numerous intracerebral hemorrhages during treatment with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for acute ischemic stroke.
“The findings raise the possibility of cerebral hemorrhages and necrotizing vasculopathy associated with tPA infusion in a patient with cerebrovascular amyloid who had received lecanemab,” the authors wrote.
Alzheimer’s Association reaction
Still, in anticipation of accelerated approval of lecanemab and the antiamyloid drug donanemab (Eli Lilly), which the FDA has also fast-tracked, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request last month with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asking that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s disease treatments.
In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the association asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies.
“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and CEO for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release at the time.
“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike added.
After news of today’s approval was released, Dr. Pike noted in a new release, “The Alzheimer’s Association welcomes and celebrates this action by the FDA. We now have a second approved treatment that changes the course of Alzheimer’s disease in a meaningful way for people in the early stages of the disease.”
Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, called today’s approval “a milestone achievement.”
“The progress we’ve seen in not only this class of treatments but also in the diversification of treatment types and targets over the past few years is exciting and provides real hope to those impacted by this devastating disease,” Dr. Carrillo said.
Critical issues
Commenting on the approval, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer at Linus Health, said FDA approval of lecanemab and its adoption in the clinic represent a “very exciting development and prospect; but arguably some critical issues need to be considered.”
He noted that the health care system “is not currently prepared to cope with the challenges and demands of lecanemab,” as well as future pharmacologic agents.
“First, we need better workflows to identify suitable patients who can most benefit from this treatment,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone. He added that beyond identification of cognitive difficulties, amyloid status will need to be determined.
“Presently, this requires expensive and invasive tests,” such as positron-emission tomography scans or lumbar punctures for cerebrospinal fluid analysis. However, these are not fully covered by insurance companies and would be challenging to fully scale, he noted.
“In addition to screening, health systems will need to resolve the logistics challenges around the administration of lecanemab with twice-monthly infusions and the need for careful longitudinal evaluations for potential side effects,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone.
“While lecanemab may represent the first disease-modifying therapy widely available for early Alzheimer’s disease, the likely more promising approach is the addition of other therapies to lecanemab as part of a multi-intervention strategy combining pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions,” he added.
Dr. Pascual-Leone has served as a paid member on scientific advisory boards for Neuroelectrics, Magstim, TetraNeuron, Skin2Neuron, MedRhythms, and Hearts Radiant and is a cofounder of TI Solutions and Linus Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 1/9/23.
Like its controversial cousin aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai), lecanemab was approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway, which can be used to fast-track a drug that provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage over existing treatments for a serious or life-threatening illness.
Unlike aducanumab, however, there was no formal FDA advisory committee meeting on lecanemab prior to approval.
“Alzheimer’s disease immeasurably incapacitates the lives of those who suffer from it and has devastating effects on their loved ones,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
“This treatment option is the latest therapy to target and affect the underlying disease process of Alzheimer’s, instead of only treating the symptoms of the disease,” Dr. Dunn added.
Eisai has reported that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.
Modest benefit, adverse events
The FDA noted, “The labeling states that treatment with Leqembi should be initiated in patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease, the population in which treatment was studied in clinical trials.”
The agency approved the treatment on the basis of findings from the CLARITY AD trial, which showed modest cognitive benefit for patients with early AD – but at a cost of increased risk for amyloid-related edema and effusions.
The trial enrolled 1,795 adults with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease in whom amyloid pathology in the brain had been confirmed. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.
After 18 months of treatment, lecanemab slowed cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo, as measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). This was an absolute difference of 0.45 points (change from baseline, 1.21 for lecanemab vs. 1.66 with placebo; P < .001).
While the results are “welcome news,” a 0.45-point difference on the CDR-SB might not be clinically meaningful, authors of a recent editorial in The Lancet cautioned.
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities that manifest as edema or microhemorrhages also occurred in one in five patients taking lecanemab.
In addition, a newly published case report in The New England Journal of Medicine describes a patient with Alzheimer’s disease who was taking lecanemab and who died after experiencing numerous intracerebral hemorrhages during treatment with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for acute ischemic stroke.
“The findings raise the possibility of cerebral hemorrhages and necrotizing vasculopathy associated with tPA infusion in a patient with cerebrovascular amyloid who had received lecanemab,” the authors wrote.
Alzheimer’s Association reaction
Still, in anticipation of accelerated approval of lecanemab and the antiamyloid drug donanemab (Eli Lilly), which the FDA has also fast-tracked, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request last month with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asking that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s disease treatments.
In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the association asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies.
“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and CEO for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release at the time.
“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike added.
After news of today’s approval was released, Dr. Pike noted in a new release, “The Alzheimer’s Association welcomes and celebrates this action by the FDA. We now have a second approved treatment that changes the course of Alzheimer’s disease in a meaningful way for people in the early stages of the disease.”
Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, called today’s approval “a milestone achievement.”
“The progress we’ve seen in not only this class of treatments but also in the diversification of treatment types and targets over the past few years is exciting and provides real hope to those impacted by this devastating disease,” Dr. Carrillo said.
Critical issues
Commenting on the approval, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer at Linus Health, said FDA approval of lecanemab and its adoption in the clinic represent a “very exciting development and prospect; but arguably some critical issues need to be considered.”
He noted that the health care system “is not currently prepared to cope with the challenges and demands of lecanemab,” as well as future pharmacologic agents.
“First, we need better workflows to identify suitable patients who can most benefit from this treatment,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone. He added that beyond identification of cognitive difficulties, amyloid status will need to be determined.
“Presently, this requires expensive and invasive tests,” such as positron-emission tomography scans or lumbar punctures for cerebrospinal fluid analysis. However, these are not fully covered by insurance companies and would be challenging to fully scale, he noted.
“In addition to screening, health systems will need to resolve the logistics challenges around the administration of lecanemab with twice-monthly infusions and the need for careful longitudinal evaluations for potential side effects,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone.
“While lecanemab may represent the first disease-modifying therapy widely available for early Alzheimer’s disease, the likely more promising approach is the addition of other therapies to lecanemab as part of a multi-intervention strategy combining pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions,” he added.
Dr. Pascual-Leone has served as a paid member on scientific advisory boards for Neuroelectrics, Magstim, TetraNeuron, Skin2Neuron, MedRhythms, and Hearts Radiant and is a cofounder of TI Solutions and Linus Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 1/9/23.
Like its controversial cousin aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai), lecanemab was approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway, which can be used to fast-track a drug that provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage over existing treatments for a serious or life-threatening illness.
Unlike aducanumab, however, there was no formal FDA advisory committee meeting on lecanemab prior to approval.
“Alzheimer’s disease immeasurably incapacitates the lives of those who suffer from it and has devastating effects on their loved ones,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.
“This treatment option is the latest therapy to target and affect the underlying disease process of Alzheimer’s, instead of only treating the symptoms of the disease,” Dr. Dunn added.
Eisai has reported that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.
Modest benefit, adverse events
The FDA noted, “The labeling states that treatment with Leqembi should be initiated in patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease, the population in which treatment was studied in clinical trials.”
The agency approved the treatment on the basis of findings from the CLARITY AD trial, which showed modest cognitive benefit for patients with early AD – but at a cost of increased risk for amyloid-related edema and effusions.
The trial enrolled 1,795 adults with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease in whom amyloid pathology in the brain had been confirmed. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.
After 18 months of treatment, lecanemab slowed cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo, as measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). This was an absolute difference of 0.45 points (change from baseline, 1.21 for lecanemab vs. 1.66 with placebo; P < .001).
While the results are “welcome news,” a 0.45-point difference on the CDR-SB might not be clinically meaningful, authors of a recent editorial in The Lancet cautioned.
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities that manifest as edema or microhemorrhages also occurred in one in five patients taking lecanemab.
In addition, a newly published case report in The New England Journal of Medicine describes a patient with Alzheimer’s disease who was taking lecanemab and who died after experiencing numerous intracerebral hemorrhages during treatment with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for acute ischemic stroke.
“The findings raise the possibility of cerebral hemorrhages and necrotizing vasculopathy associated with tPA infusion in a patient with cerebrovascular amyloid who had received lecanemab,” the authors wrote.
Alzheimer’s Association reaction
Still, in anticipation of accelerated approval of lecanemab and the antiamyloid drug donanemab (Eli Lilly), which the FDA has also fast-tracked, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request last month with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asking that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s disease treatments.
In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the association asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies.
“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and CEO for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release at the time.
“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike added.
After news of today’s approval was released, Dr. Pike noted in a new release, “The Alzheimer’s Association welcomes and celebrates this action by the FDA. We now have a second approved treatment that changes the course of Alzheimer’s disease in a meaningful way for people in the early stages of the disease.”
Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, called today’s approval “a milestone achievement.”
“The progress we’ve seen in not only this class of treatments but also in the diversification of treatment types and targets over the past few years is exciting and provides real hope to those impacted by this devastating disease,” Dr. Carrillo said.
Critical issues
Commenting on the approval, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer at Linus Health, said FDA approval of lecanemab and its adoption in the clinic represent a “very exciting development and prospect; but arguably some critical issues need to be considered.”
He noted that the health care system “is not currently prepared to cope with the challenges and demands of lecanemab,” as well as future pharmacologic agents.
“First, we need better workflows to identify suitable patients who can most benefit from this treatment,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone. He added that beyond identification of cognitive difficulties, amyloid status will need to be determined.
“Presently, this requires expensive and invasive tests,” such as positron-emission tomography scans or lumbar punctures for cerebrospinal fluid analysis. However, these are not fully covered by insurance companies and would be challenging to fully scale, he noted.
“In addition to screening, health systems will need to resolve the logistics challenges around the administration of lecanemab with twice-monthly infusions and the need for careful longitudinal evaluations for potential side effects,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone.
“While lecanemab may represent the first disease-modifying therapy widely available for early Alzheimer’s disease, the likely more promising approach is the addition of other therapies to lecanemab as part of a multi-intervention strategy combining pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions,” he added.
Dr. Pascual-Leone has served as a paid member on scientific advisory boards for Neuroelectrics, Magstim, TetraNeuron, Skin2Neuron, MedRhythms, and Hearts Radiant and is a cofounder of TI Solutions and Linus Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 1/9/23.
Compulsively checking social media linked with altered brain patterns in teens
Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.
Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.
Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
Imaging shows reactions
Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.
The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.
They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”
The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.
However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.
“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
Chicken-and-egg questions
David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.
“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.
“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”
People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.
“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said, “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”
He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour
According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”
“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”
One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”
Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.
Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.
Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
Imaging shows reactions
Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.
The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.
They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”
The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.
However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.
“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
Chicken-and-egg questions
David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.
“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.
“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”
People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.
“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said, “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”
He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour
According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”
“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”
One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”
Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.
Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.
Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
Imaging shows reactions
Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.
The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.
They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”
The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.
However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.
“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
Chicken-and-egg questions
David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.
“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.
“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”
People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.
“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said, “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”
He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour
According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”
“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”
One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
FDA considers regulating CBD products
The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018.
“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal.
A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.
Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.
Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.
“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018.
“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal.
A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.
Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.
Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.
“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The products can have drug-like effects on the body and contain CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). Both CBD and THC can be derived from hemp, which was legalized by Congress in 2018.
“Given what we know about the safety of CBD so far, it raises concerns for FDA about whether these existing regulatory pathways for food and dietary supplements are appropriate for this substance,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, told The Wall Street Journal.
A 2021 FDA report valued the CBD market at $4.6 billion and projected it to quadruple by 2026. The only FDA-approved CBD product is an oil called Epidiolex, which can be prescribed for the seizure-associated disease epilepsy. Research on CBD to treat other diseases is ongoing.
Food, beverage, and beauty products containing CBD are sold in stores and online in many forms, including oils, vaporized liquids, and oil-based capsules, but “research supporting the drug’s benefits is still limited,” the Mayo Clinic said.
Recently, investigations have found that many CBD products also contain THC, which can be derived from legal hemp in a form that is referred to as Delta 8 and produces a psychoactive high. The CDC warned in 2022 that people “mistook” THC products for CBD products, which are often sold at the same stores, and experienced “adverse events.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA warn that much is unknown about CBD and delta-8 products. The CDC says known CBD risks include liver damage; interference with other drugs you are taking, which may lead to injury or serious side effects; drowsiness or sleepiness; diarrhea or changes in appetite; changes in mood, such as crankiness; potential negative effects on fetuses during pregnancy or on babies during breastfeeding; or unintentional poisoning of children when mistaking THC products for CBD products or due to containing other ingredients such as THC or pesticides.
“I don’t think that we can have the perfect be the enemy of the good when we’re looking at such a vast market that is so available and utilized,” Norman Birenbaum, a senior FDA adviser who is working on the regulatory issue, told the Journal. “You’ve got a widely unregulated market.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Strong link between muscle strength, mobility, and brain health
A new study shows a strong correlation between muscle strength, mobility, and brain volume, including in the hippocampus that underlies memory function, in adults with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
Investigators found statistically significant relationships between better handgrip strength and mobility and hippocampal and lobar brain volumes in 38 cognitively impaired adults with biomarker evidence of AD.
study investigator Cyrus Raji, MD, PhD, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Brain-body connection
The researchers measured handgrip strength in patients’ dominant and nondominant hands using a hand dynamometer and calculated handgrip asymmetry. Mobility was measured via the 2-minute walk test. Together, the test results were used to categorize patients as “frail” or “not frail.”
They measured regional brain volumes using Neuroreader (Brainreader), a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved software application that measures brain volumes on MRI scans.
The investigators found higher nondominant handgrip strength was significantly associated with larger volumes in the hippocampal volume (P = .02). In addition, higher dominant handgrip strength correlated with higher frontal lobe volume (P = .02).
Results also showed higher scores on the 2-minute walk test were associated with larger hippocampal (P = .04), frontal (P = .01), temporal (P = .03), parietal (P = .009), and occipital lobe (P = .005) volumes. Frailty was associated with reduced frontal, temporal, and parietal lobe volumes.
“In this study we combined objective evaluations of frailty with measurable determinants of brain structure on MRI to demonstrate a link between frailty and brain health in patients with both biomarker evidence of AD and cognitive impairment,” study investigator Somayeh Meysami, MD, with Pacific Brain Health Center, Pacific Neuroscience Institute Foundation (PNI), Santa Monica, Calif., told this news organization.
The researchers noted that it’s possible that interventions specifically focused on improving ambulatory mobility and handgrip strength could be beneficial in improving dementia trajectories.
‘Use it or lose it’
The chief limitation of the study is the cross-sectional design that precludes drawing firm conclusions about the causal relationships between handgrip strength and changes in brain structure.
In addition, the study used a relatively small convenience sample of outpatients from a specialty memory clinic.
The researchers say future longitudinal analyses with a larger sample size will be important to better understand the possible directions of causality between handgrip strength and progression of atrophy in AD.
However, despite these limitations, the findings emphasize the importance of “body-brain connections,” added David A. Merrill, MD, PhD, director of the Pacific Brain Health Center at PNI.
“Training our muscles helps sustain our brains and vice versa. It’s ‘use it or lose it’ for both body and mind. Exercise remains among the best strategies for maintaining a healthy body and mind with aging,” Dr. Merrill said in an interview.
“While it’s long been appreciated that aerobic training helps the brain, these findings add to the importance of strength training in supporting successful aging,” he added.
This work was supported by Providence St. Joseph Health, Seattle; Saint John’s Health Center Foundation; Pacific Neuroscience Institute Foundation; and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution. Dr. Merrill and Dr. Meysami reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study shows a strong correlation between muscle strength, mobility, and brain volume, including in the hippocampus that underlies memory function, in adults with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
Investigators found statistically significant relationships between better handgrip strength and mobility and hippocampal and lobar brain volumes in 38 cognitively impaired adults with biomarker evidence of AD.
study investigator Cyrus Raji, MD, PhD, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Brain-body connection
The researchers measured handgrip strength in patients’ dominant and nondominant hands using a hand dynamometer and calculated handgrip asymmetry. Mobility was measured via the 2-minute walk test. Together, the test results were used to categorize patients as “frail” or “not frail.”
They measured regional brain volumes using Neuroreader (Brainreader), a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved software application that measures brain volumes on MRI scans.
The investigators found higher nondominant handgrip strength was significantly associated with larger volumes in the hippocampal volume (P = .02). In addition, higher dominant handgrip strength correlated with higher frontal lobe volume (P = .02).
Results also showed higher scores on the 2-minute walk test were associated with larger hippocampal (P = .04), frontal (P = .01), temporal (P = .03), parietal (P = .009), and occipital lobe (P = .005) volumes. Frailty was associated with reduced frontal, temporal, and parietal lobe volumes.
“In this study we combined objective evaluations of frailty with measurable determinants of brain structure on MRI to demonstrate a link between frailty and brain health in patients with both biomarker evidence of AD and cognitive impairment,” study investigator Somayeh Meysami, MD, with Pacific Brain Health Center, Pacific Neuroscience Institute Foundation (PNI), Santa Monica, Calif., told this news organization.
The researchers noted that it’s possible that interventions specifically focused on improving ambulatory mobility and handgrip strength could be beneficial in improving dementia trajectories.
‘Use it or lose it’
The chief limitation of the study is the cross-sectional design that precludes drawing firm conclusions about the causal relationships between handgrip strength and changes in brain structure.
In addition, the study used a relatively small convenience sample of outpatients from a specialty memory clinic.
The researchers say future longitudinal analyses with a larger sample size will be important to better understand the possible directions of causality between handgrip strength and progression of atrophy in AD.
However, despite these limitations, the findings emphasize the importance of “body-brain connections,” added David A. Merrill, MD, PhD, director of the Pacific Brain Health Center at PNI.
“Training our muscles helps sustain our brains and vice versa. It’s ‘use it or lose it’ for both body and mind. Exercise remains among the best strategies for maintaining a healthy body and mind with aging,” Dr. Merrill said in an interview.
“While it’s long been appreciated that aerobic training helps the brain, these findings add to the importance of strength training in supporting successful aging,” he added.
This work was supported by Providence St. Joseph Health, Seattle; Saint John’s Health Center Foundation; Pacific Neuroscience Institute Foundation; and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution. Dr. Merrill and Dr. Meysami reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study shows a strong correlation between muscle strength, mobility, and brain volume, including in the hippocampus that underlies memory function, in adults with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).
Investigators found statistically significant relationships between better handgrip strength and mobility and hippocampal and lobar brain volumes in 38 cognitively impaired adults with biomarker evidence of AD.
study investigator Cyrus Raji, MD, PhD, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, told this news organization.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Brain-body connection
The researchers measured handgrip strength in patients’ dominant and nondominant hands using a hand dynamometer and calculated handgrip asymmetry. Mobility was measured via the 2-minute walk test. Together, the test results were used to categorize patients as “frail” or “not frail.”
They measured regional brain volumes using Neuroreader (Brainreader), a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved software application that measures brain volumes on MRI scans.
The investigators found higher nondominant handgrip strength was significantly associated with larger volumes in the hippocampal volume (P = .02). In addition, higher dominant handgrip strength correlated with higher frontal lobe volume (P = .02).
Results also showed higher scores on the 2-minute walk test were associated with larger hippocampal (P = .04), frontal (P = .01), temporal (P = .03), parietal (P = .009), and occipital lobe (P = .005) volumes. Frailty was associated with reduced frontal, temporal, and parietal lobe volumes.
“In this study we combined objective evaluations of frailty with measurable determinants of brain structure on MRI to demonstrate a link between frailty and brain health in patients with both biomarker evidence of AD and cognitive impairment,” study investigator Somayeh Meysami, MD, with Pacific Brain Health Center, Pacific Neuroscience Institute Foundation (PNI), Santa Monica, Calif., told this news organization.
The researchers noted that it’s possible that interventions specifically focused on improving ambulatory mobility and handgrip strength could be beneficial in improving dementia trajectories.
‘Use it or lose it’
The chief limitation of the study is the cross-sectional design that precludes drawing firm conclusions about the causal relationships between handgrip strength and changes in brain structure.
In addition, the study used a relatively small convenience sample of outpatients from a specialty memory clinic.
The researchers say future longitudinal analyses with a larger sample size will be important to better understand the possible directions of causality between handgrip strength and progression of atrophy in AD.
However, despite these limitations, the findings emphasize the importance of “body-brain connections,” added David A. Merrill, MD, PhD, director of the Pacific Brain Health Center at PNI.
“Training our muscles helps sustain our brains and vice versa. It’s ‘use it or lose it’ for both body and mind. Exercise remains among the best strategies for maintaining a healthy body and mind with aging,” Dr. Merrill said in an interview.
“While it’s long been appreciated that aerobic training helps the brain, these findings add to the importance of strength training in supporting successful aging,” he added.
This work was supported by Providence St. Joseph Health, Seattle; Saint John’s Health Center Foundation; Pacific Neuroscience Institute Foundation; and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution. Dr. Merrill and Dr. Meysami reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE
Alzheimer’s Association to CMS: Ditch restraints on amyloid drugs
In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, MPP, the association has asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies.
The CMS coverage restrictions for anti-amyloid drugs were finalized in April on the basis of data available at the time.
Since then, new data from the CLARITY AD trial “clearly demonstrate a meaningful clinical benefit” from the investigational anti-amyloid agent lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), Robert Egge, chief public policy officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, told this news organization.
The CLARITY AD results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Lecanemab is currently under accelerated review at the FDA.
The Alzheimer’s Association’s letter to the CMS includes a joint statement signed by more than 200 AD researchers and experts. All agree that the lecanemab results represent “significant new evidence” that necessitates reconsidering the restrictions on anti-amyloid agents.
“CMS has said it would look at new evidence, and now that evidence is here. We believe CMS recognizes this evidence for lecanemab is stronger than that for many treatments Medicare routinely covers,” Mr. Egge said.
‘No time to waste’
“With the timing of accelerated approvals for both lecanemab and donanemab in the next few months, the Alzheimer’s Association wants to ensure, if approved, that patients can access these treatments,” Mr. Egge noted.
“Because revisions to National Coverage Determinations can be a lengthy process, CMS needs to act quickly to minimize delays. People living with Alzheimer’s disease don’t have time to waste,” he added.
The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that every day, more than 2,000 individuals aged 65 or older may transition from mild dementia due to AD to a more advanced stage of the disease in which they may no longer be eligible for lecanemab and the other anti-amyloid agents currently being tested.
“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and incoming chief executive officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release.
“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, MPP, the association has asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies.
The CMS coverage restrictions for anti-amyloid drugs were finalized in April on the basis of data available at the time.
Since then, new data from the CLARITY AD trial “clearly demonstrate a meaningful clinical benefit” from the investigational anti-amyloid agent lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), Robert Egge, chief public policy officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, told this news organization.
The CLARITY AD results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Lecanemab is currently under accelerated review at the FDA.
The Alzheimer’s Association’s letter to the CMS includes a joint statement signed by more than 200 AD researchers and experts. All agree that the lecanemab results represent “significant new evidence” that necessitates reconsidering the restrictions on anti-amyloid agents.
“CMS has said it would look at new evidence, and now that evidence is here. We believe CMS recognizes this evidence for lecanemab is stronger than that for many treatments Medicare routinely covers,” Mr. Egge said.
‘No time to waste’
“With the timing of accelerated approvals for both lecanemab and donanemab in the next few months, the Alzheimer’s Association wants to ensure, if approved, that patients can access these treatments,” Mr. Egge noted.
“Because revisions to National Coverage Determinations can be a lengthy process, CMS needs to act quickly to minimize delays. People living with Alzheimer’s disease don’t have time to waste,” he added.
The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that every day, more than 2,000 individuals aged 65 or older may transition from mild dementia due to AD to a more advanced stage of the disease in which they may no longer be eligible for lecanemab and the other anti-amyloid agents currently being tested.
“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and incoming chief executive officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release.
“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, MPP, the association has asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies.
The CMS coverage restrictions for anti-amyloid drugs were finalized in April on the basis of data available at the time.
Since then, new data from the CLARITY AD trial “clearly demonstrate a meaningful clinical benefit” from the investigational anti-amyloid agent lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), Robert Egge, chief public policy officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, told this news organization.
The CLARITY AD results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Lecanemab is currently under accelerated review at the FDA.
The Alzheimer’s Association’s letter to the CMS includes a joint statement signed by more than 200 AD researchers and experts. All agree that the lecanemab results represent “significant new evidence” that necessitates reconsidering the restrictions on anti-amyloid agents.
“CMS has said it would look at new evidence, and now that evidence is here. We believe CMS recognizes this evidence for lecanemab is stronger than that for many treatments Medicare routinely covers,” Mr. Egge said.
‘No time to waste’
“With the timing of accelerated approvals for both lecanemab and donanemab in the next few months, the Alzheimer’s Association wants to ensure, if approved, that patients can access these treatments,” Mr. Egge noted.
“Because revisions to National Coverage Determinations can be a lengthy process, CMS needs to act quickly to minimize delays. People living with Alzheimer’s disease don’t have time to waste,” he added.
The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that every day, more than 2,000 individuals aged 65 or older may transition from mild dementia due to AD to a more advanced stage of the disease in which they may no longer be eligible for lecanemab and the other anti-amyloid agents currently being tested.
“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and incoming chief executive officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release.
“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cluster headache tied to high risk of mental and neurologic disorders
, leading to significant disability and absenteeism, new research shows.
Results from a Swedish register-based study also showed that patients with cluster headache had a sixfold increased risk for central nervous system disorders and a twofold increased risk for musculoskeletal disorders.
Although cluster headaches are often more prevalent in men, researchers found that multimorbidity rates were significantly higher in women. In addition, rates of external injuries were significantly higher among individuals with cluster headache than among persons without cluster headache.
“The findings very clearly indicate that cluster headache patients suffer from other health issues as well and that they are at risk of having longer periods of times when they cannot work,” said lead investigator Caroline Ran, PhD, a research specialist in the department of neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
“It’s really important for clinicians to look at cluster headache from a broader perspective and make sure that patients are followed up so that they don’t risk ending up in a situation where they have several comorbidities,” Dr. Ran added.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
‘Striking’ finding
Cluster headache is one of the most severe and debilitating types of headache. It causes intense pain behind the eyes, which has been described as being worse than pain associated with childbirth or kidney stones.
Attacks can occur multiple times in a single day and can last up to 3 hours. Cluster headache is rare, occurring in about 1 in 1,000 individuals, and is more common in men. Underdiagnosis is common – especially in women.
The study drew on two Swedish population-based registries and included 3,240 patients with cluster headache aged 16-64 years and 16,200 matched control persons. The analysis covered medical visits from 2001 to 2010.
Results showed that 91.9% of participants with cluster headache had some type of multimorbidity. By comparison, 77.6% of the control group had some type of multimorbidity (odds ratio, 3.26; P < .0001).
Prior studies have shown a higher incidence of mental health and behavioral disorders among patients with cluster headache. However, when the researchers removed those conditions along with external injuries from the dataset, patients with headache were still significantly more likely to have multiple co-occurring illnesses (86.7% vs. 68.8%; OR, 2.95; P < .0001).
The most common comorbid conditions in the overall cluster headache group were diseases of the nervous system (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 5.46 -6.42); 51.8% of the cluster headache group reported these disorders, compared with just 15.4% of the control group.
Diseases of the eye, the respiratory, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal systems, and connective tissue were also significantly more common among patients with cluster headache.
“For each diagnosis that we investigated, we found a higher incidence in the cluster headache group, and we thought this was a very striking finding and worth discussing in the clinical setting that these patients are at risk of general ill health,” Dr. Ran said.
Risky behavior?
Another novel finding was the higher rate of external injuries among the cluster headache group, compared with the control group. The finding seems to back up the theory that patients with cluster headache are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, the researchers noted.
In the cluster headache group, external injuries were reported by 47.1% of men and 41% of women, versus 34.9% and 26.0%, respectively, in the control group.
“Now we can also show that cluster headache patients have more injuries and that is totally unrelated to the biological health of the individuals, so that could also indicate higher risk taking,” Dr. Ran said.
Overall multimorbidity rates and diagnoses in each medical category except external injury were higher among women with cluster headache than men with headaches. In addition, the mean number of days on sick leave and disability pension was higher among women with cluster headache than among men with cluster headache (83.71 days vs. 52.56 days).
Overall, the mean number of sickness absence and disability pension net days in 2010 was nearly twice as high in the cluster headache group as in the control group (63.15 days vs. 34.08 days).
Removing mental and behavioral health disorders from the mix did not lower those numbers.
“Our numbers indicate that the mental health issues that are related to cluster headache might not impact their work situation as much as the other comorbidities,” Dr. Ran said.
Struggle is real
Commenting on the findings, Heidi Schwarz, MD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, called the study a “valuable contribution” to the field and to the treatment of cluster headache.
“It’s a good study that addresses factors that really need to be considered as you take care of these patients,” said Dr. Schwarz, who was not involved with the research.
“The most salient features of this is that cluster headache is quite disabling, and if you add a comorbidity to it, it’s even more disabling,” she said.
Dr. Schwarz noted that cluster headache is often misdiagnosed as migraine or is overlooked altogether, especially in women. These data underscore that, although cluster headache is more common in men, it affects women too and could lead to even greater disability.
“This has a direct impact on patient quality of life, and in the end, that really should be what we’re looking to enhance,” Dr. Schwarz said. “When a patient with cluster comes in and they tell you they’re really struggling, believe them because it’s quite real.”
The findings also fill a gap in the literature and offer the kind of data that could not be collected in the United States, she noted. Sweden provides paid sick time for all workers aged 16 and older and offers a disability pension to all workers whose ability to work is temporarily or permanently inhibited because of illness or injury.
“You will never get this kind of data in the United States because this kind of data comes from two datasets that are extremely inclusive and detailed in a society, Sweden, where they have a social support system,” Dr. Schwarz said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and Mellby Gård, Region Stockholm, Märta Lundkvist stiftelse and Karolinska Institutet research funds. Dr. Ran and Dr. Schwarz report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, leading to significant disability and absenteeism, new research shows.
Results from a Swedish register-based study also showed that patients with cluster headache had a sixfold increased risk for central nervous system disorders and a twofold increased risk for musculoskeletal disorders.
Although cluster headaches are often more prevalent in men, researchers found that multimorbidity rates were significantly higher in women. In addition, rates of external injuries were significantly higher among individuals with cluster headache than among persons without cluster headache.
“The findings very clearly indicate that cluster headache patients suffer from other health issues as well and that they are at risk of having longer periods of times when they cannot work,” said lead investigator Caroline Ran, PhD, a research specialist in the department of neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
“It’s really important for clinicians to look at cluster headache from a broader perspective and make sure that patients are followed up so that they don’t risk ending up in a situation where they have several comorbidities,” Dr. Ran added.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
‘Striking’ finding
Cluster headache is one of the most severe and debilitating types of headache. It causes intense pain behind the eyes, which has been described as being worse than pain associated with childbirth or kidney stones.
Attacks can occur multiple times in a single day and can last up to 3 hours. Cluster headache is rare, occurring in about 1 in 1,000 individuals, and is more common in men. Underdiagnosis is common – especially in women.
The study drew on two Swedish population-based registries and included 3,240 patients with cluster headache aged 16-64 years and 16,200 matched control persons. The analysis covered medical visits from 2001 to 2010.
Results showed that 91.9% of participants with cluster headache had some type of multimorbidity. By comparison, 77.6% of the control group had some type of multimorbidity (odds ratio, 3.26; P < .0001).
Prior studies have shown a higher incidence of mental health and behavioral disorders among patients with cluster headache. However, when the researchers removed those conditions along with external injuries from the dataset, patients with headache were still significantly more likely to have multiple co-occurring illnesses (86.7% vs. 68.8%; OR, 2.95; P < .0001).
The most common comorbid conditions in the overall cluster headache group were diseases of the nervous system (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 5.46 -6.42); 51.8% of the cluster headache group reported these disorders, compared with just 15.4% of the control group.
Diseases of the eye, the respiratory, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal systems, and connective tissue were also significantly more common among patients with cluster headache.
“For each diagnosis that we investigated, we found a higher incidence in the cluster headache group, and we thought this was a very striking finding and worth discussing in the clinical setting that these patients are at risk of general ill health,” Dr. Ran said.
Risky behavior?
Another novel finding was the higher rate of external injuries among the cluster headache group, compared with the control group. The finding seems to back up the theory that patients with cluster headache are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, the researchers noted.
In the cluster headache group, external injuries were reported by 47.1% of men and 41% of women, versus 34.9% and 26.0%, respectively, in the control group.
“Now we can also show that cluster headache patients have more injuries and that is totally unrelated to the biological health of the individuals, so that could also indicate higher risk taking,” Dr. Ran said.
Overall multimorbidity rates and diagnoses in each medical category except external injury were higher among women with cluster headache than men with headaches. In addition, the mean number of days on sick leave and disability pension was higher among women with cluster headache than among men with cluster headache (83.71 days vs. 52.56 days).
Overall, the mean number of sickness absence and disability pension net days in 2010 was nearly twice as high in the cluster headache group as in the control group (63.15 days vs. 34.08 days).
Removing mental and behavioral health disorders from the mix did not lower those numbers.
“Our numbers indicate that the mental health issues that are related to cluster headache might not impact their work situation as much as the other comorbidities,” Dr. Ran said.
Struggle is real
Commenting on the findings, Heidi Schwarz, MD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, called the study a “valuable contribution” to the field and to the treatment of cluster headache.
“It’s a good study that addresses factors that really need to be considered as you take care of these patients,” said Dr. Schwarz, who was not involved with the research.
“The most salient features of this is that cluster headache is quite disabling, and if you add a comorbidity to it, it’s even more disabling,” she said.
Dr. Schwarz noted that cluster headache is often misdiagnosed as migraine or is overlooked altogether, especially in women. These data underscore that, although cluster headache is more common in men, it affects women too and could lead to even greater disability.
“This has a direct impact on patient quality of life, and in the end, that really should be what we’re looking to enhance,” Dr. Schwarz said. “When a patient with cluster comes in and they tell you they’re really struggling, believe them because it’s quite real.”
The findings also fill a gap in the literature and offer the kind of data that could not be collected in the United States, she noted. Sweden provides paid sick time for all workers aged 16 and older and offers a disability pension to all workers whose ability to work is temporarily or permanently inhibited because of illness or injury.
“You will never get this kind of data in the United States because this kind of data comes from two datasets that are extremely inclusive and detailed in a society, Sweden, where they have a social support system,” Dr. Schwarz said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and Mellby Gård, Region Stockholm, Märta Lundkvist stiftelse and Karolinska Institutet research funds. Dr. Ran and Dr. Schwarz report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, leading to significant disability and absenteeism, new research shows.
Results from a Swedish register-based study also showed that patients with cluster headache had a sixfold increased risk for central nervous system disorders and a twofold increased risk for musculoskeletal disorders.
Although cluster headaches are often more prevalent in men, researchers found that multimorbidity rates were significantly higher in women. In addition, rates of external injuries were significantly higher among individuals with cluster headache than among persons without cluster headache.
“The findings very clearly indicate that cluster headache patients suffer from other health issues as well and that they are at risk of having longer periods of times when they cannot work,” said lead investigator Caroline Ran, PhD, a research specialist in the department of neuroscience at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
“It’s really important for clinicians to look at cluster headache from a broader perspective and make sure that patients are followed up so that they don’t risk ending up in a situation where they have several comorbidities,” Dr. Ran added.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
‘Striking’ finding
Cluster headache is one of the most severe and debilitating types of headache. It causes intense pain behind the eyes, which has been described as being worse than pain associated with childbirth or kidney stones.
Attacks can occur multiple times in a single day and can last up to 3 hours. Cluster headache is rare, occurring in about 1 in 1,000 individuals, and is more common in men. Underdiagnosis is common – especially in women.
The study drew on two Swedish population-based registries and included 3,240 patients with cluster headache aged 16-64 years and 16,200 matched control persons. The analysis covered medical visits from 2001 to 2010.
Results showed that 91.9% of participants with cluster headache had some type of multimorbidity. By comparison, 77.6% of the control group had some type of multimorbidity (odds ratio, 3.26; P < .0001).
Prior studies have shown a higher incidence of mental health and behavioral disorders among patients with cluster headache. However, when the researchers removed those conditions along with external injuries from the dataset, patients with headache were still significantly more likely to have multiple co-occurring illnesses (86.7% vs. 68.8%; OR, 2.95; P < .0001).
The most common comorbid conditions in the overall cluster headache group were diseases of the nervous system (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 5.46 -6.42); 51.8% of the cluster headache group reported these disorders, compared with just 15.4% of the control group.
Diseases of the eye, the respiratory, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal systems, and connective tissue were also significantly more common among patients with cluster headache.
“For each diagnosis that we investigated, we found a higher incidence in the cluster headache group, and we thought this was a very striking finding and worth discussing in the clinical setting that these patients are at risk of general ill health,” Dr. Ran said.
Risky behavior?
Another novel finding was the higher rate of external injuries among the cluster headache group, compared with the control group. The finding seems to back up the theory that patients with cluster headache are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, the researchers noted.
In the cluster headache group, external injuries were reported by 47.1% of men and 41% of women, versus 34.9% and 26.0%, respectively, in the control group.
“Now we can also show that cluster headache patients have more injuries and that is totally unrelated to the biological health of the individuals, so that could also indicate higher risk taking,” Dr. Ran said.
Overall multimorbidity rates and diagnoses in each medical category except external injury were higher among women with cluster headache than men with headaches. In addition, the mean number of days on sick leave and disability pension was higher among women with cluster headache than among men with cluster headache (83.71 days vs. 52.56 days).
Overall, the mean number of sickness absence and disability pension net days in 2010 was nearly twice as high in the cluster headache group as in the control group (63.15 days vs. 34.08 days).
Removing mental and behavioral health disorders from the mix did not lower those numbers.
“Our numbers indicate that the mental health issues that are related to cluster headache might not impact their work situation as much as the other comorbidities,” Dr. Ran said.
Struggle is real
Commenting on the findings, Heidi Schwarz, MD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, called the study a “valuable contribution” to the field and to the treatment of cluster headache.
“It’s a good study that addresses factors that really need to be considered as you take care of these patients,” said Dr. Schwarz, who was not involved with the research.
“The most salient features of this is that cluster headache is quite disabling, and if you add a comorbidity to it, it’s even more disabling,” she said.
Dr. Schwarz noted that cluster headache is often misdiagnosed as migraine or is overlooked altogether, especially in women. These data underscore that, although cluster headache is more common in men, it affects women too and could lead to even greater disability.
“This has a direct impact on patient quality of life, and in the end, that really should be what we’re looking to enhance,” Dr. Schwarz said. “When a patient with cluster comes in and they tell you they’re really struggling, believe them because it’s quite real.”
The findings also fill a gap in the literature and offer the kind of data that could not be collected in the United States, she noted. Sweden provides paid sick time for all workers aged 16 and older and offers a disability pension to all workers whose ability to work is temporarily or permanently inhibited because of illness or injury.
“You will never get this kind of data in the United States because this kind of data comes from two datasets that are extremely inclusive and detailed in a society, Sweden, where they have a social support system,” Dr. Schwarz said.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and Mellby Gård, Region Stockholm, Märta Lundkvist stiftelse and Karolinska Institutet research funds. Dr. Ran and Dr. Schwarz report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Annual U.S. Parkinson’s disease incidence 50% higher than earlier estimates
according to new research that investigators say highlights the growing strain on clinical services and the need for more research funding.
In an analysis of five databases and more than 15 million people, about 60,000-90,000 individuals older than 45 years are estimated to be diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease each year – which is far more than the previous estimate of around 40,000-60,000 new cases annually.
This is the latest study to update decades-old epidemiologic data on Parkinson’s disease incidence and prevalence. Previous incidence rates came from small, single-population studies that are now more than 25 years old.
“In the advocacy community, we’ve been earnest about the impact of people living with Parkinson’s disease, and what we really lacked was sufficient data to be able to demonstrate the urgency of our need,” said study coinvestigator James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, New York.
“We wanted to revise these numbers, highlight that they are larger than people anticipated, and use it as a call to action to change the approach we have toward Parkinson’s,” Dr. Beck said.
The findings were published online in NPJ Parkinson’s Disease.
Updating an outdated model
The study builds on the Parkinson’s Prevalence Project, a 2018 initiative that used a new model to calculate Parkinson’s disease prevalence. Before then, federal prevalence data was based on a 40-year-old study of just 26 Parkinson’s disease cases in one small county in rural Mississippi.
Dr. Beck and others used a more sophisticated model, using data from five separate cohort studies. They estimated the total number of patients living with Parkinson’s disease in the United States to be 930,000, which is far higher than the 650,000 the old model predicted.
Researchers then moved on to the current project, developing a new method to estimate Parkinson’s disease incidence.
The project included 2012 data on more than 15 million individuals in the United States and Canada. The investigators drew from three large insurance databases (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Ontario Health Care, and Medicare) and two long-term epidemiologic studies (the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study and the Rochester Epidemiology Project).
On the basis of their analysis, the investigators proposed a working Parkinson’s disease incident rate estimate of 47-77 cases per 100,000 people aged 45 years or older. Limiting the analysis to those aged 65 or older raised the incidence to 108-212 per 100,000 people.
That translates to 60,000-95,000 new cases each year among adults aged 45 years or older. Using the Medicare administrative database alone for this same time period suggests an annual incidence of nearly 90,000 for individuals aged 65 or older.
“The numbers we’re proposing are conservative,” Dr. Beck said. “The true numbers are probably north of 90,000.”
Incidence rates increased with age and were higher in men. The researchers also identified clusters of counties with higher incidence rates in parts of the country called the “Parkinson’s belt.”
That geographic area mirrors the Rust Belt and includes parts of the Northeastern and Midwestern United States with a long history of industrial manufacturing that used heavy metals and industrial solvents, which are environmental factors linked to risk for Parkinson’s disease.
Cases were also higher in southern California, southeastern Texas, and Florida – agricultural regions with high pesticide use, which is also a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease. Central Pennsylvania also had higher incidence rates.
Why the increase?
The increase in cases could be the result of the more comprehensive estimation model used, the researchers noted. Or it could be improved detection, the aging population, a rise in sedentary lifestyles, increased exposure to environmental risk factors, or even the sharp decline in smoking in the United States, as some studies have shown that smokers have a lower Parkinson’s disease risk.
“The short answer is, we don’t know; and the long answer is, it’s all the above,” Dr. Beck said.
Although about 15% of Parkinson’s disease cases have a genetic basis, the cause is unknown in the majority of cases. In addition, diagnosis is difficult because there is no blood test or scan that detects the disease.
“Diagnosis requires a skilled clinician with real familiarity with Parkinson’s. And we have a real shortage of neurologists in this country to not only be able to diagnose but also to treat the condition,” Dr. Beck said.
That was one motivation for doing the study: to highlight what experts say is a pending clinical crisis for patients with Parkinson’s disease, he added.
The investigators also wanted to raise awareness about the scope of the disorder – not just about prevalence and incidence but also what those data mean for the health care industry, research aims, drug development and health care coverage, and policies.
In a 2020 study, the same researchers calculated a cost of $52 billion per year for medical and nonmedical costs related to Parkinson’s disease, which works out to about $26,000 per year per patient. That figure is expected to surpass $79 billion by 2030.
“This is an urgent condition for many people who live with the disease. And to the extent we can get our country to recognize that and really make the investment now, this is an area where a stitch in time saves nine,” Dr. Beck said.
“If we can invest some money now, we have a chance to really make a difference in the future,” he added.
‘Groundbreaking’ findings
Commenting on the findings, Jori Fleisher, MD, MSCE, associate professor of neurological sciences at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, called the results “groundbreaking” and said that they validate what clinicians have been seeing in real-world practice.
“The findings reflect what a lot of us in practice have been appreciating anecdotally, which is that it seems that Parkinson’s is being diagnosed more frequently and that the incidence has been rising,” said Dr. Fleisher, who was not involved with the study.
She noted that the use of multiple datasets is one element of the methodology that makes the data so significant.
“There has been great work out of individual centers; but no matter how good your study methods are within that one population, you’re drawing conclusions based on that one population,” Dr. Fleisher said.
This research, together with the previous work by the group on prevalence data, could go a long way toward raising awareness about the scope of Parkinson’s disease in the United States – which could lead to earlier diagnosis, more research funding, and increased attention on the need for more clinicians who specialize in movement disorders, she added.
“This should increase research funding across the spectrum, including everything from the basic science to translational research, clinical research and implementation, and health services research,” Dr. Fleisher said.
The study was supported by the Parkinson’s Foundation, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Beck and Dr. Fleisher reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to new research that investigators say highlights the growing strain on clinical services and the need for more research funding.
In an analysis of five databases and more than 15 million people, about 60,000-90,000 individuals older than 45 years are estimated to be diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease each year – which is far more than the previous estimate of around 40,000-60,000 new cases annually.
This is the latest study to update decades-old epidemiologic data on Parkinson’s disease incidence and prevalence. Previous incidence rates came from small, single-population studies that are now more than 25 years old.
“In the advocacy community, we’ve been earnest about the impact of people living with Parkinson’s disease, and what we really lacked was sufficient data to be able to demonstrate the urgency of our need,” said study coinvestigator James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, New York.
“We wanted to revise these numbers, highlight that they are larger than people anticipated, and use it as a call to action to change the approach we have toward Parkinson’s,” Dr. Beck said.
The findings were published online in NPJ Parkinson’s Disease.
Updating an outdated model
The study builds on the Parkinson’s Prevalence Project, a 2018 initiative that used a new model to calculate Parkinson’s disease prevalence. Before then, federal prevalence data was based on a 40-year-old study of just 26 Parkinson’s disease cases in one small county in rural Mississippi.
Dr. Beck and others used a more sophisticated model, using data from five separate cohort studies. They estimated the total number of patients living with Parkinson’s disease in the United States to be 930,000, which is far higher than the 650,000 the old model predicted.
Researchers then moved on to the current project, developing a new method to estimate Parkinson’s disease incidence.
The project included 2012 data on more than 15 million individuals in the United States and Canada. The investigators drew from three large insurance databases (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Ontario Health Care, and Medicare) and two long-term epidemiologic studies (the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study and the Rochester Epidemiology Project).
On the basis of their analysis, the investigators proposed a working Parkinson’s disease incident rate estimate of 47-77 cases per 100,000 people aged 45 years or older. Limiting the analysis to those aged 65 or older raised the incidence to 108-212 per 100,000 people.
That translates to 60,000-95,000 new cases each year among adults aged 45 years or older. Using the Medicare administrative database alone for this same time period suggests an annual incidence of nearly 90,000 for individuals aged 65 or older.
“The numbers we’re proposing are conservative,” Dr. Beck said. “The true numbers are probably north of 90,000.”
Incidence rates increased with age and were higher in men. The researchers also identified clusters of counties with higher incidence rates in parts of the country called the “Parkinson’s belt.”
That geographic area mirrors the Rust Belt and includes parts of the Northeastern and Midwestern United States with a long history of industrial manufacturing that used heavy metals and industrial solvents, which are environmental factors linked to risk for Parkinson’s disease.
Cases were also higher in southern California, southeastern Texas, and Florida – agricultural regions with high pesticide use, which is also a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease. Central Pennsylvania also had higher incidence rates.
Why the increase?
The increase in cases could be the result of the more comprehensive estimation model used, the researchers noted. Or it could be improved detection, the aging population, a rise in sedentary lifestyles, increased exposure to environmental risk factors, or even the sharp decline in smoking in the United States, as some studies have shown that smokers have a lower Parkinson’s disease risk.
“The short answer is, we don’t know; and the long answer is, it’s all the above,” Dr. Beck said.
Although about 15% of Parkinson’s disease cases have a genetic basis, the cause is unknown in the majority of cases. In addition, diagnosis is difficult because there is no blood test or scan that detects the disease.
“Diagnosis requires a skilled clinician with real familiarity with Parkinson’s. And we have a real shortage of neurologists in this country to not only be able to diagnose but also to treat the condition,” Dr. Beck said.
That was one motivation for doing the study: to highlight what experts say is a pending clinical crisis for patients with Parkinson’s disease, he added.
The investigators also wanted to raise awareness about the scope of the disorder – not just about prevalence and incidence but also what those data mean for the health care industry, research aims, drug development and health care coverage, and policies.
In a 2020 study, the same researchers calculated a cost of $52 billion per year for medical and nonmedical costs related to Parkinson’s disease, which works out to about $26,000 per year per patient. That figure is expected to surpass $79 billion by 2030.
“This is an urgent condition for many people who live with the disease. And to the extent we can get our country to recognize that and really make the investment now, this is an area where a stitch in time saves nine,” Dr. Beck said.
“If we can invest some money now, we have a chance to really make a difference in the future,” he added.
‘Groundbreaking’ findings
Commenting on the findings, Jori Fleisher, MD, MSCE, associate professor of neurological sciences at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, called the results “groundbreaking” and said that they validate what clinicians have been seeing in real-world practice.
“The findings reflect what a lot of us in practice have been appreciating anecdotally, which is that it seems that Parkinson’s is being diagnosed more frequently and that the incidence has been rising,” said Dr. Fleisher, who was not involved with the study.
She noted that the use of multiple datasets is one element of the methodology that makes the data so significant.
“There has been great work out of individual centers; but no matter how good your study methods are within that one population, you’re drawing conclusions based on that one population,” Dr. Fleisher said.
This research, together with the previous work by the group on prevalence data, could go a long way toward raising awareness about the scope of Parkinson’s disease in the United States – which could lead to earlier diagnosis, more research funding, and increased attention on the need for more clinicians who specialize in movement disorders, she added.
“This should increase research funding across the spectrum, including everything from the basic science to translational research, clinical research and implementation, and health services research,” Dr. Fleisher said.
The study was supported by the Parkinson’s Foundation, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Beck and Dr. Fleisher reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to new research that investigators say highlights the growing strain on clinical services and the need for more research funding.
In an analysis of five databases and more than 15 million people, about 60,000-90,000 individuals older than 45 years are estimated to be diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease each year – which is far more than the previous estimate of around 40,000-60,000 new cases annually.
This is the latest study to update decades-old epidemiologic data on Parkinson’s disease incidence and prevalence. Previous incidence rates came from small, single-population studies that are now more than 25 years old.
“In the advocacy community, we’ve been earnest about the impact of people living with Parkinson’s disease, and what we really lacked was sufficient data to be able to demonstrate the urgency of our need,” said study coinvestigator James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, New York.
“We wanted to revise these numbers, highlight that they are larger than people anticipated, and use it as a call to action to change the approach we have toward Parkinson’s,” Dr. Beck said.
The findings were published online in NPJ Parkinson’s Disease.
Updating an outdated model
The study builds on the Parkinson’s Prevalence Project, a 2018 initiative that used a new model to calculate Parkinson’s disease prevalence. Before then, federal prevalence data was based on a 40-year-old study of just 26 Parkinson’s disease cases in one small county in rural Mississippi.
Dr. Beck and others used a more sophisticated model, using data from five separate cohort studies. They estimated the total number of patients living with Parkinson’s disease in the United States to be 930,000, which is far higher than the 650,000 the old model predicted.
Researchers then moved on to the current project, developing a new method to estimate Parkinson’s disease incidence.
The project included 2012 data on more than 15 million individuals in the United States and Canada. The investigators drew from three large insurance databases (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Ontario Health Care, and Medicare) and two long-term epidemiologic studies (the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study and the Rochester Epidemiology Project).
On the basis of their analysis, the investigators proposed a working Parkinson’s disease incident rate estimate of 47-77 cases per 100,000 people aged 45 years or older. Limiting the analysis to those aged 65 or older raised the incidence to 108-212 per 100,000 people.
That translates to 60,000-95,000 new cases each year among adults aged 45 years or older. Using the Medicare administrative database alone for this same time period suggests an annual incidence of nearly 90,000 for individuals aged 65 or older.
“The numbers we’re proposing are conservative,” Dr. Beck said. “The true numbers are probably north of 90,000.”
Incidence rates increased with age and were higher in men. The researchers also identified clusters of counties with higher incidence rates in parts of the country called the “Parkinson’s belt.”
That geographic area mirrors the Rust Belt and includes parts of the Northeastern and Midwestern United States with a long history of industrial manufacturing that used heavy metals and industrial solvents, which are environmental factors linked to risk for Parkinson’s disease.
Cases were also higher in southern California, southeastern Texas, and Florida – agricultural regions with high pesticide use, which is also a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease. Central Pennsylvania also had higher incidence rates.
Why the increase?
The increase in cases could be the result of the more comprehensive estimation model used, the researchers noted. Or it could be improved detection, the aging population, a rise in sedentary lifestyles, increased exposure to environmental risk factors, or even the sharp decline in smoking in the United States, as some studies have shown that smokers have a lower Parkinson’s disease risk.
“The short answer is, we don’t know; and the long answer is, it’s all the above,” Dr. Beck said.
Although about 15% of Parkinson’s disease cases have a genetic basis, the cause is unknown in the majority of cases. In addition, diagnosis is difficult because there is no blood test or scan that detects the disease.
“Diagnosis requires a skilled clinician with real familiarity with Parkinson’s. And we have a real shortage of neurologists in this country to not only be able to diagnose but also to treat the condition,” Dr. Beck said.
That was one motivation for doing the study: to highlight what experts say is a pending clinical crisis for patients with Parkinson’s disease, he added.
The investigators also wanted to raise awareness about the scope of the disorder – not just about prevalence and incidence but also what those data mean for the health care industry, research aims, drug development and health care coverage, and policies.
In a 2020 study, the same researchers calculated a cost of $52 billion per year for medical and nonmedical costs related to Parkinson’s disease, which works out to about $26,000 per year per patient. That figure is expected to surpass $79 billion by 2030.
“This is an urgent condition for many people who live with the disease. And to the extent we can get our country to recognize that and really make the investment now, this is an area where a stitch in time saves nine,” Dr. Beck said.
“If we can invest some money now, we have a chance to really make a difference in the future,” he added.
‘Groundbreaking’ findings
Commenting on the findings, Jori Fleisher, MD, MSCE, associate professor of neurological sciences at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, called the results “groundbreaking” and said that they validate what clinicians have been seeing in real-world practice.
“The findings reflect what a lot of us in practice have been appreciating anecdotally, which is that it seems that Parkinson’s is being diagnosed more frequently and that the incidence has been rising,” said Dr. Fleisher, who was not involved with the study.
She noted that the use of multiple datasets is one element of the methodology that makes the data so significant.
“There has been great work out of individual centers; but no matter how good your study methods are within that one population, you’re drawing conclusions based on that one population,” Dr. Fleisher said.
This research, together with the previous work by the group on prevalence data, could go a long way toward raising awareness about the scope of Parkinson’s disease in the United States – which could lead to earlier diagnosis, more research funding, and increased attention on the need for more clinicians who specialize in movement disorders, she added.
“This should increase research funding across the spectrum, including everything from the basic science to translational research, clinical research and implementation, and health services research,” Dr. Fleisher said.
The study was supported by the Parkinson’s Foundation, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Beck and Dr. Fleisher reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NPJ PARKINSON’S DISEASE
Antipsychotic shows benefit for Alzheimer’s agitation
SAN FRANCISCO – In a widely anticipated report,
Members of a panel of dementia specialists here at the 15th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference said that the results were encouraging. But they also noted that the available data make it difficult to understand the impact of the drug on the day-to-day life on patients.
“I’d like to be able to translate that into something else to understand the risk benefit calculus,” said neurologist and neuroscientist Alireza Atri, MD, PhD, of Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Phoenix. “How does it affect the patients themselves, their quality of life, and the family members and their burden?”
Currently, there’s no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for agitation in AD.
In 2015, the FDA approved brexpiprazole, an oral medication, as a treatment for schizophrenia and an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). It is an expensive drug with an average retail price per GoodRx of $1,582 per month, and no generic is available.
Researchers released the results of a trio of phase 3 clinical trials at CTAD that examined various doses of brexpiprazole. The results of the first two trials had been released earlier in 2018.
Three trials
All trials were multicenter, 12-week, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled.
Study participants were aged 55-90 years, had probable AD diagnoses, and had agitation per various scales. The average age in the groups was 74 years, 56.0%-61.7% were women, and 94.3%-98.1% were White.
The first trial examined two fixed doses (1 mg/d, n = 137; and 2 mg/d, n = 140) or placebo (n = 136). “The study initially included a 0.5 mg/day arm,” the researchers reported, “which was removed in a protocol amendment, and patients randomized to that arm were not included in efficacy analyses.”
The second trial looked at a flexible dose (0.5-2 mg/d, n = 133) or placebo (n = 137).
In a CTAD presentation, Nanco Hefting of Lundbeck, a codeveloper of the drug, said that the researchers learned from the first two trials that 2 mg/d might be an appropriate dose, and the FDA recommended they also examine 3 mg/day. As a result, the third trial examined two fixed doses (2 mg/d, n = 75; 3 mg/d, n = 153; or placebo, n = 117).
In the third trial, both the placebo and drug groups improved per a measurement of agitation; those in the drug group improved somewhat more.
The mean change in baseline on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory scale – the primary endpoint – was –5.32 for the 2-mg/d and 3-mg/d groups vs. placebo (P = .0026); the score in the placebo group fell by about 18 and by about 22 in the drug group.
The key secondary endpoint was an improvement from baseline to week 12 in the Clinical Global Impression–Severity (CGI-S) score related to agitation. Compared with the placebo group, this score was –0.27 in the drug group (P = .0078). Both scores hovered around –1.0.
Safety data show the percentage of treatment-emergent events ranged from 45.9% in the placebo group to 49.0%-56.8% for brexpiprazole in the three trials. The percentage of these events leading to discontinuation was 6.3% among those receiving the drug and 3.4% in the placebo group.
University of Exeter dementia researcher Clive Ballard, MD, MB ChB, one of the panelists who discussed the research after the CTAD presentation, praised the trials as “well-conducted” and said that he was pleased that subjects in institutions were included. “It’s not an easy environment to do trials in. They should be really commended for doing for doing that.”
But he echoed fellow panelist Dr. Atri by noting that more data are needed to understand how well the drug works. “I would like to see the effect sizes and a little bit more detail to understand the clinical meaningfulness of that level of benefit.”
What’s next? A spokeswoman for Otsuka, a codeveloper of brexpiprazole, said that it hopes to hear in 2023 about a supplemental new drug application that was filed in November 2022.
Otsuka and Lundbeck funded the research. Mr. Hefting is an employee of Lundbeck, and several other authors work for Lundbeck or Otsuka. The single non-employee author reports various disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Atri and Dr. Ballard were not provided.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN FRANCISCO – In a widely anticipated report,
Members of a panel of dementia specialists here at the 15th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference said that the results were encouraging. But they also noted that the available data make it difficult to understand the impact of the drug on the day-to-day life on patients.
“I’d like to be able to translate that into something else to understand the risk benefit calculus,” said neurologist and neuroscientist Alireza Atri, MD, PhD, of Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Phoenix. “How does it affect the patients themselves, their quality of life, and the family members and their burden?”
Currently, there’s no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for agitation in AD.
In 2015, the FDA approved brexpiprazole, an oral medication, as a treatment for schizophrenia and an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). It is an expensive drug with an average retail price per GoodRx of $1,582 per month, and no generic is available.
Researchers released the results of a trio of phase 3 clinical trials at CTAD that examined various doses of brexpiprazole. The results of the first two trials had been released earlier in 2018.
Three trials
All trials were multicenter, 12-week, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled.
Study participants were aged 55-90 years, had probable AD diagnoses, and had agitation per various scales. The average age in the groups was 74 years, 56.0%-61.7% were women, and 94.3%-98.1% were White.
The first trial examined two fixed doses (1 mg/d, n = 137; and 2 mg/d, n = 140) or placebo (n = 136). “The study initially included a 0.5 mg/day arm,” the researchers reported, “which was removed in a protocol amendment, and patients randomized to that arm were not included in efficacy analyses.”
The second trial looked at a flexible dose (0.5-2 mg/d, n = 133) or placebo (n = 137).
In a CTAD presentation, Nanco Hefting of Lundbeck, a codeveloper of the drug, said that the researchers learned from the first two trials that 2 mg/d might be an appropriate dose, and the FDA recommended they also examine 3 mg/day. As a result, the third trial examined two fixed doses (2 mg/d, n = 75; 3 mg/d, n = 153; or placebo, n = 117).
In the third trial, both the placebo and drug groups improved per a measurement of agitation; those in the drug group improved somewhat more.
The mean change in baseline on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory scale – the primary endpoint – was –5.32 for the 2-mg/d and 3-mg/d groups vs. placebo (P = .0026); the score in the placebo group fell by about 18 and by about 22 in the drug group.
The key secondary endpoint was an improvement from baseline to week 12 in the Clinical Global Impression–Severity (CGI-S) score related to agitation. Compared with the placebo group, this score was –0.27 in the drug group (P = .0078). Both scores hovered around –1.0.
Safety data show the percentage of treatment-emergent events ranged from 45.9% in the placebo group to 49.0%-56.8% for brexpiprazole in the three trials. The percentage of these events leading to discontinuation was 6.3% among those receiving the drug and 3.4% in the placebo group.
University of Exeter dementia researcher Clive Ballard, MD, MB ChB, one of the panelists who discussed the research after the CTAD presentation, praised the trials as “well-conducted” and said that he was pleased that subjects in institutions were included. “It’s not an easy environment to do trials in. They should be really commended for doing for doing that.”
But he echoed fellow panelist Dr. Atri by noting that more data are needed to understand how well the drug works. “I would like to see the effect sizes and a little bit more detail to understand the clinical meaningfulness of that level of benefit.”
What’s next? A spokeswoman for Otsuka, a codeveloper of brexpiprazole, said that it hopes to hear in 2023 about a supplemental new drug application that was filed in November 2022.
Otsuka and Lundbeck funded the research. Mr. Hefting is an employee of Lundbeck, and several other authors work for Lundbeck or Otsuka. The single non-employee author reports various disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Atri and Dr. Ballard were not provided.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN FRANCISCO – In a widely anticipated report,
Members of a panel of dementia specialists here at the 15th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference said that the results were encouraging. But they also noted that the available data make it difficult to understand the impact of the drug on the day-to-day life on patients.
“I’d like to be able to translate that into something else to understand the risk benefit calculus,” said neurologist and neuroscientist Alireza Atri, MD, PhD, of Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Phoenix. “How does it affect the patients themselves, their quality of life, and the family members and their burden?”
Currently, there’s no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for agitation in AD.
In 2015, the FDA approved brexpiprazole, an oral medication, as a treatment for schizophrenia and an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). It is an expensive drug with an average retail price per GoodRx of $1,582 per month, and no generic is available.
Researchers released the results of a trio of phase 3 clinical trials at CTAD that examined various doses of brexpiprazole. The results of the first two trials had been released earlier in 2018.
Three trials
All trials were multicenter, 12-week, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled.
Study participants were aged 55-90 years, had probable AD diagnoses, and had agitation per various scales. The average age in the groups was 74 years, 56.0%-61.7% were women, and 94.3%-98.1% were White.
The first trial examined two fixed doses (1 mg/d, n = 137; and 2 mg/d, n = 140) or placebo (n = 136). “The study initially included a 0.5 mg/day arm,” the researchers reported, “which was removed in a protocol amendment, and patients randomized to that arm were not included in efficacy analyses.”
The second trial looked at a flexible dose (0.5-2 mg/d, n = 133) or placebo (n = 137).
In a CTAD presentation, Nanco Hefting of Lundbeck, a codeveloper of the drug, said that the researchers learned from the first two trials that 2 mg/d might be an appropriate dose, and the FDA recommended they also examine 3 mg/day. As a result, the third trial examined two fixed doses (2 mg/d, n = 75; 3 mg/d, n = 153; or placebo, n = 117).
In the third trial, both the placebo and drug groups improved per a measurement of agitation; those in the drug group improved somewhat more.
The mean change in baseline on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory scale – the primary endpoint – was –5.32 for the 2-mg/d and 3-mg/d groups vs. placebo (P = .0026); the score in the placebo group fell by about 18 and by about 22 in the drug group.
The key secondary endpoint was an improvement from baseline to week 12 in the Clinical Global Impression–Severity (CGI-S) score related to agitation. Compared with the placebo group, this score was –0.27 in the drug group (P = .0078). Both scores hovered around –1.0.
Safety data show the percentage of treatment-emergent events ranged from 45.9% in the placebo group to 49.0%-56.8% for brexpiprazole in the three trials. The percentage of these events leading to discontinuation was 6.3% among those receiving the drug and 3.4% in the placebo group.
University of Exeter dementia researcher Clive Ballard, MD, MB ChB, one of the panelists who discussed the research after the CTAD presentation, praised the trials as “well-conducted” and said that he was pleased that subjects in institutions were included. “It’s not an easy environment to do trials in. They should be really commended for doing for doing that.”
But he echoed fellow panelist Dr. Atri by noting that more data are needed to understand how well the drug works. “I would like to see the effect sizes and a little bit more detail to understand the clinical meaningfulness of that level of benefit.”
What’s next? A spokeswoman for Otsuka, a codeveloper of brexpiprazole, said that it hopes to hear in 2023 about a supplemental new drug application that was filed in November 2022.
Otsuka and Lundbeck funded the research. Mr. Hefting is an employee of Lundbeck, and several other authors work for Lundbeck or Otsuka. The single non-employee author reports various disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Atri and Dr. Ballard were not provided.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT CTAD 2022
Patient With Severe Headache After IV Immunoglobulin
A 35-year-old woman with a history of hypothyroidism and idiopathic small fiber autonomic and sensory neuropathy presented to the emergency department (ED) 48 hours after IV immunoglobulin (IG) infusion with a severe headache, nausea, neck stiffness, photophobia, and episodes of intense positional eye pressure. The patient reported previous episodes of headaches post-IVIG infusion but not nearly as severe. On ED arrival, the patient was afebrile with vital signs within normal limits. Initial laboratory results were notable for levels within reference range parameters: 5.9 × 109/L white blood cell (WBC) count, 13.3 g/dL hemoglobin, 38.7% hematocrit, and 279 × 109/L platelet count; there were no abnormal urinalysis findings, and she was negative for human chorionic gonadotropin.
Due to the patient’s symptoms concerning for an acute intracranial process, a brain computed tomography (CT) without contrast was ordered. The CT demonstrated no intracranial abnormalities, but the patient’s symptoms continued to worsen. The patient was started on IV fluids and 1 g IV acetaminophen and underwent a lumbar puncture (LP). Her opening pressure was elevated at 29 cm H2O (reference range, 6-20 cm), and the fluid was notably clear. During the LP, 25 mL of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was collected for laboratory analysis to include a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel and cultures, and a closing pressure of 12 cm H2O was recorded at the end of the procedure with the patient reporting some relief of pressure. The patient was admitted to the medicine ward for further workup and observations.The patient’s meningitis/encephalitis PCR panel detected no pathogens in the CSF, but her WBC count was 84 × 109/L (reference range, 4-11) with 30 segmented neutrophils (reference range, 0-6) and red blood cell count of 24 (reference range, 0-1); her normal glucose at 60 mg/dL (reference range, 40-70) and protein of 33 mg/dL (reference range, 15-45) were within normal parameters. Brain magnetic resonance images with and without contrast was inconsistent with any acute intracranial pathology to include subarachnoid hemorrhage or central nervous system neoplasm (Figure 1). Bacterial and fungal cultures were negative.
- What is your diagnosis?
- How would you treat this patient?
Discussion
Aseptic meningitis presents with a typical clinical picture of meningitis to include headache, stiffened neck, and photophobia. In the event of negative CSF bacterial and fungal cultures and negative viral PCR, a diagnosis of aseptic meningitis is considered.1 Though the differential for aseptic meningitis is broad, in the immunocompetent patient, the most common etiology of aseptic meningitis in the United States is by far viral, and specifically, enterovirus (50.9%). It is less commonly caused by herpes simplex virus (8.3%), varicella zoster virus, and finally, the mosquito-borne St. Louis encephalitis and West Nile viruses typically acquired in the summer or early fall months. Other infectious agents that can present with aseptic meningitis are spirochetes (Lyme disease and syphilis), tuberculous meningitis, fungal infections (cryptococcal meningitis), and other bacterial infections that have a negative culture.
The patient’s history, physical examination, vital signs, imaging, and lumbar puncture findings were most concerning for drug-induced aseptic meningitis (DIAM) secondary to her recent IVIG infusion. An algorithm can be used to work through the diagnostic approach (Figure 2).3,4 
Immediate and delayed adverse reactions to IVIG are known risks for IVIG therapy. About 1% to 15% of patients who receive IVIG will experience mild immediate reactions to the infusion.6 These immediate reactions include fever (78.6%), acrocyanosis (71.4%), rash (64.3%), headache (57.1%), shortness of breath (42.8%), hypotension (35.7%), and chest pain (21.4%).
IVIG is an increasingly used biologic pharmacologic agent used for a variety of medical conditions. This can be attributed to its multifaceted properties and ability to fight infection when given as replacement therapy and provide immunomodulation in conjunction with its more well-known anti-inflammatory properties.8 The number of conditions that can potentially benefit from IVIG is so vast that the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology had to divide the indication for IVIG therapy into definitely beneficial, probably beneficial, may provide benefit, and unlikely to provide benefit categories.8
Conclusions
We encourage heightened clinical suspicion of DIAM in patients who have recently undergone IVIG infusion and present with meningeal signs (stiff neck, headache, photophobia, and ear/eye pressure) without any evidence of infection on physical examination or laboratory results. With such, we hope to improve clinician suspicion, detection, as well as patient education and outcomes in cases of DIAM.
1. Kareva L, Mironska K, Stavric K, Hasani A. Adverse reactions to intravenous immunoglobulins—our experience. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6(12):2359-2362. doi:10.3889/oamjms.2018.513
2. Mount HR, Boyle SD. Aseptic and bacterial meningitis: evaluation, treatment, and prevention. Am Fam Physician. 2017;96(5):314-322.
3. Seehusen DA, Reeves MM, Fomin DA. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(6):1103-1108.
4. Connolly KJ, Hammer SM. The acute aseptic meningitis syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1990;4(4):599-622.
5. Jolles S, Sewell WA, Leighton C. Drug-induced aseptic meningitis: diagnosis and management. Drug Saf. 2000;22(3):215-226. doi:10.2165/00002018-200022030-00005
6. Yelehe-Okouma M, Czmil-Garon J, Pape E, Petitpain N, Gillet P. Drug-induced aseptic meningitis: a mini-review. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2018;32(3):252-260. doi:10.1111/fcp.12349
7. Kepa L, Oczko-Grzesik B, Stolarz W, Sobala-Szczygiel B. Drug-induced aseptic meningitis in suspected central nervous system infections. J Clin Neurosci. 2005;12(5):562-564. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2004.08.024
8. Perez EE, Orange JS, Bonilla F, et al. Update on the use of immunoglobulin in human disease: a review of evidence. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(3S):S1-S46. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2016.09.023
9. Kaarthigeyan K, Burli VV. Aseptic meningitis following intravenous immunoglobulin therapy of common variable immunodeficiency. J Pediatr Neurosci. 2011;6(2):160-161. doi:10.4103/1817-1745.92858
A 35-year-old woman with a history of hypothyroidism and idiopathic small fiber autonomic and sensory neuropathy presented to the emergency department (ED) 48 hours after IV immunoglobulin (IG) infusion with a severe headache, nausea, neck stiffness, photophobia, and episodes of intense positional eye pressure. The patient reported previous episodes of headaches post-IVIG infusion but not nearly as severe. On ED arrival, the patient was afebrile with vital signs within normal limits. Initial laboratory results were notable for levels within reference range parameters: 5.9 × 109/L white blood cell (WBC) count, 13.3 g/dL hemoglobin, 38.7% hematocrit, and 279 × 109/L platelet count; there were no abnormal urinalysis findings, and she was negative for human chorionic gonadotropin.
Due to the patient’s symptoms concerning for an acute intracranial process, a brain computed tomography (CT) without contrast was ordered. The CT demonstrated no intracranial abnormalities, but the patient’s symptoms continued to worsen. The patient was started on IV fluids and 1 g IV acetaminophen and underwent a lumbar puncture (LP). Her opening pressure was elevated at 29 cm H2O (reference range, 6-20 cm), and the fluid was notably clear. During the LP, 25 mL of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was collected for laboratory analysis to include a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel and cultures, and a closing pressure of 12 cm H2O was recorded at the end of the procedure with the patient reporting some relief of pressure. The patient was admitted to the medicine ward for further workup and observations.The patient’s meningitis/encephalitis PCR panel detected no pathogens in the CSF, but her WBC count was 84 × 109/L (reference range, 4-11) with 30 segmented neutrophils (reference range, 0-6) and red blood cell count of 24 (reference range, 0-1); her normal glucose at 60 mg/dL (reference range, 40-70) and protein of 33 mg/dL (reference range, 15-45) were within normal parameters. Brain magnetic resonance images with and without contrast was inconsistent with any acute intracranial pathology to include subarachnoid hemorrhage or central nervous system neoplasm (Figure 1). Bacterial and fungal cultures were negative.
- What is your diagnosis?
- How would you treat this patient?
Discussion
Aseptic meningitis presents with a typical clinical picture of meningitis to include headache, stiffened neck, and photophobia. In the event of negative CSF bacterial and fungal cultures and negative viral PCR, a diagnosis of aseptic meningitis is considered.1 Though the differential for aseptic meningitis is broad, in the immunocompetent patient, the most common etiology of aseptic meningitis in the United States is by far viral, and specifically, enterovirus (50.9%). It is less commonly caused by herpes simplex virus (8.3%), varicella zoster virus, and finally, the mosquito-borne St. Louis encephalitis and West Nile viruses typically acquired in the summer or early fall months. Other infectious agents that can present with aseptic meningitis are spirochetes (Lyme disease and syphilis), tuberculous meningitis, fungal infections (cryptococcal meningitis), and other bacterial infections that have a negative culture.
The patient’s history, physical examination, vital signs, imaging, and lumbar puncture findings were most concerning for drug-induced aseptic meningitis (DIAM) secondary to her recent IVIG infusion. An algorithm can be used to work through the diagnostic approach (Figure 2).3,4
Immediate and delayed adverse reactions to IVIG are known risks for IVIG therapy. About 1% to 15% of patients who receive IVIG will experience mild immediate reactions to the infusion.6 These immediate reactions include fever (78.6%), acrocyanosis (71.4%), rash (64.3%), headache (57.1%), shortness of breath (42.8%), hypotension (35.7%), and chest pain (21.4%).
IVIG is an increasingly used biologic pharmacologic agent used for a variety of medical conditions. This can be attributed to its multifaceted properties and ability to fight infection when given as replacement therapy and provide immunomodulation in conjunction with its more well-known anti-inflammatory properties.8 The number of conditions that can potentially benefit from IVIG is so vast that the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology had to divide the indication for IVIG therapy into definitely beneficial, probably beneficial, may provide benefit, and unlikely to provide benefit categories.8
Conclusions
We encourage heightened clinical suspicion of DIAM in patients who have recently undergone IVIG infusion and present with meningeal signs (stiff neck, headache, photophobia, and ear/eye pressure) without any evidence of infection on physical examination or laboratory results. With such, we hope to improve clinician suspicion, detection, as well as patient education and outcomes in cases of DIAM.
A 35-year-old woman with a history of hypothyroidism and idiopathic small fiber autonomic and sensory neuropathy presented to the emergency department (ED) 48 hours after IV immunoglobulin (IG) infusion with a severe headache, nausea, neck stiffness, photophobia, and episodes of intense positional eye pressure. The patient reported previous episodes of headaches post-IVIG infusion but not nearly as severe. On ED arrival, the patient was afebrile with vital signs within normal limits. Initial laboratory results were notable for levels within reference range parameters: 5.9 × 109/L white blood cell (WBC) count, 13.3 g/dL hemoglobin, 38.7% hematocrit, and 279 × 109/L platelet count; there were no abnormal urinalysis findings, and she was negative for human chorionic gonadotropin.
Due to the patient’s symptoms concerning for an acute intracranial process, a brain computed tomography (CT) without contrast was ordered. The CT demonstrated no intracranial abnormalities, but the patient’s symptoms continued to worsen. The patient was started on IV fluids and 1 g IV acetaminophen and underwent a lumbar puncture (LP). Her opening pressure was elevated at 29 cm H2O (reference range, 6-20 cm), and the fluid was notably clear. During the LP, 25 mL of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was collected for laboratory analysis to include a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel and cultures, and a closing pressure of 12 cm H2O was recorded at the end of the procedure with the patient reporting some relief of pressure. The patient was admitted to the medicine ward for further workup and observations.The patient’s meningitis/encephalitis PCR panel detected no pathogens in the CSF, but her WBC count was 84 × 109/L (reference range, 4-11) with 30 segmented neutrophils (reference range, 0-6) and red blood cell count of 24 (reference range, 0-1); her normal glucose at 60 mg/dL (reference range, 40-70) and protein of 33 mg/dL (reference range, 15-45) were within normal parameters. Brain magnetic resonance images with and without contrast was inconsistent with any acute intracranial pathology to include subarachnoid hemorrhage or central nervous system neoplasm (Figure 1). Bacterial and fungal cultures were negative.
- What is your diagnosis?
- How would you treat this patient?
Discussion
Aseptic meningitis presents with a typical clinical picture of meningitis to include headache, stiffened neck, and photophobia. In the event of negative CSF bacterial and fungal cultures and negative viral PCR, a diagnosis of aseptic meningitis is considered.1 Though the differential for aseptic meningitis is broad, in the immunocompetent patient, the most common etiology of aseptic meningitis in the United States is by far viral, and specifically, enterovirus (50.9%). It is less commonly caused by herpes simplex virus (8.3%), varicella zoster virus, and finally, the mosquito-borne St. Louis encephalitis and West Nile viruses typically acquired in the summer or early fall months. Other infectious agents that can present with aseptic meningitis are spirochetes (Lyme disease and syphilis), tuberculous meningitis, fungal infections (cryptococcal meningitis), and other bacterial infections that have a negative culture.
The patient’s history, physical examination, vital signs, imaging, and lumbar puncture findings were most concerning for drug-induced aseptic meningitis (DIAM) secondary to her recent IVIG infusion. An algorithm can be used to work through the diagnostic approach (Figure 2).3,4
Immediate and delayed adverse reactions to IVIG are known risks for IVIG therapy. About 1% to 15% of patients who receive IVIG will experience mild immediate reactions to the infusion.6 These immediate reactions include fever (78.6%), acrocyanosis (71.4%), rash (64.3%), headache (57.1%), shortness of breath (42.8%), hypotension (35.7%), and chest pain (21.4%).
IVIG is an increasingly used biologic pharmacologic agent used for a variety of medical conditions. This can be attributed to its multifaceted properties and ability to fight infection when given as replacement therapy and provide immunomodulation in conjunction with its more well-known anti-inflammatory properties.8 The number of conditions that can potentially benefit from IVIG is so vast that the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology had to divide the indication for IVIG therapy into definitely beneficial, probably beneficial, may provide benefit, and unlikely to provide benefit categories.8
Conclusions
We encourage heightened clinical suspicion of DIAM in patients who have recently undergone IVIG infusion and present with meningeal signs (stiff neck, headache, photophobia, and ear/eye pressure) without any evidence of infection on physical examination or laboratory results. With such, we hope to improve clinician suspicion, detection, as well as patient education and outcomes in cases of DIAM.
1. Kareva L, Mironska K, Stavric K, Hasani A. Adverse reactions to intravenous immunoglobulins—our experience. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6(12):2359-2362. doi:10.3889/oamjms.2018.513
2. Mount HR, Boyle SD. Aseptic and bacterial meningitis: evaluation, treatment, and prevention. Am Fam Physician. 2017;96(5):314-322.
3. Seehusen DA, Reeves MM, Fomin DA. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(6):1103-1108.
4. Connolly KJ, Hammer SM. The acute aseptic meningitis syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1990;4(4):599-622.
5. Jolles S, Sewell WA, Leighton C. Drug-induced aseptic meningitis: diagnosis and management. Drug Saf. 2000;22(3):215-226. doi:10.2165/00002018-200022030-00005
6. Yelehe-Okouma M, Czmil-Garon J, Pape E, Petitpain N, Gillet P. Drug-induced aseptic meningitis: a mini-review. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2018;32(3):252-260. doi:10.1111/fcp.12349
7. Kepa L, Oczko-Grzesik B, Stolarz W, Sobala-Szczygiel B. Drug-induced aseptic meningitis in suspected central nervous system infections. J Clin Neurosci. 2005;12(5):562-564. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2004.08.024
8. Perez EE, Orange JS, Bonilla F, et al. Update on the use of immunoglobulin in human disease: a review of evidence. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(3S):S1-S46. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2016.09.023
9. Kaarthigeyan K, Burli VV. Aseptic meningitis following intravenous immunoglobulin therapy of common variable immunodeficiency. J Pediatr Neurosci. 2011;6(2):160-161. doi:10.4103/1817-1745.92858
1. Kareva L, Mironska K, Stavric K, Hasani A. Adverse reactions to intravenous immunoglobulins—our experience. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6(12):2359-2362. doi:10.3889/oamjms.2018.513
2. Mount HR, Boyle SD. Aseptic and bacterial meningitis: evaluation, treatment, and prevention. Am Fam Physician. 2017;96(5):314-322.
3. Seehusen DA, Reeves MM, Fomin DA. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(6):1103-1108.
4. Connolly KJ, Hammer SM. The acute aseptic meningitis syndrome. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1990;4(4):599-622.
5. Jolles S, Sewell WA, Leighton C. Drug-induced aseptic meningitis: diagnosis and management. Drug Saf. 2000;22(3):215-226. doi:10.2165/00002018-200022030-00005
6. Yelehe-Okouma M, Czmil-Garon J, Pape E, Petitpain N, Gillet P. Drug-induced aseptic meningitis: a mini-review. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2018;32(3):252-260. doi:10.1111/fcp.12349
7. Kepa L, Oczko-Grzesik B, Stolarz W, Sobala-Szczygiel B. Drug-induced aseptic meningitis in suspected central nervous system infections. J Clin Neurosci. 2005;12(5):562-564. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2004.08.024
8. Perez EE, Orange JS, Bonilla F, et al. Update on the use of immunoglobulin in human disease: a review of evidence. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(3S):S1-S46. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2016.09.023
9. Kaarthigeyan K, Burli VV. Aseptic meningitis following intravenous immunoglobulin therapy of common variable immunodeficiency. J Pediatr Neurosci. 2011;6(2):160-161. doi:10.4103/1817-1745.92858