Batya Swift Yasgur, MA, LSW

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was not associated with an increased stroke risk in the first 6 weeks after vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The analysis included 5.4 million people age ≥ 65 years who received either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or the Moderna bivalent vaccine, or the Pfizer vaccine and a high-dose or adjuvanted concomitant influenza vaccine (ie, administered on the same day).
• A total of 11,001 of the cohort experienced a stroke in the first 90 days after vaccination.
• The main outcome was stroke risk (nonhemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or hemorrhagic stroke) during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day window after vaccination vs the 43- to 90-day control window.
• The mean age of participants was 74 years, and 56% were female.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no statistically significant association with either brand of the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine or any of the stroke outcomes during the 1- to 21-day or 22- to 42-day risk window compared with the 43- to 90-day control window (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range, 0.72-1.12).
• Vaccination with COVID-19 bivalent vaccine plus a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 4596) was associated with a significantly greater risk for nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech (IRR, 1.20; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.13) and an increase in TIA risk 1-21 days after vaccination with Moderna (IRR, 1.35; risk difference/100,000 doses, 3.33).
• There was a significant association between vaccination with a high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccine (n = 21,345) and nonhemorrhagic stroke 22-42 days after vaccination (IRR, 1.09; risk difference/100,000 doses, 1.65).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical significance of the risk of stroke after vaccination must be carefully considered together with the significant benefits of receiving an influenza vaccination,” the authors wrote. “Because the framework of the current self-controlled case series study does not compare the populations who were vaccinated vs those who were unvaccinated, it does not account for the reduced rate of severe influenza after vaccination. More studies are needed to better understand the association between high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination and stroke.”

SOURCE:

Yun Lu, PhD, of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 19 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

Some stroke cases may have been missed or misclassified. The study included only vaccinated individuals — a population considered to have health-seeking behaviors — which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted using COVID-19 bivalent vaccines, which are no longer available.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the US Food and Drug Administration through an interagency agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dr. Lu reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized stroke rates decreased in the United States between 1990 and 2019, while absolute stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates increased, a new study showed. Investigators noted the findings, which also show a significant increase in hemorrhagic stroke and an uptick in stroke among adults under 50 years in the South and Midwest, suggesting a significant shift in the US stroke burden.

METHODOLOGY:

• This in-depth, cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study included data on all-cause and ischemic strokes, intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs), and subarachnoid hemorrhages (SAHs) between 1990 and 2019 in the United States.
• Researchers focused on both overall and age-standardized estimates, stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and DALYs per 100,000 people.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 2019, the United States recorded 7.09 million prevalent strokes, 83% of which were ischemic and 57% of which occurred in women.
• The absolute numbers of stroke cases, mortality, and DALYs increased from 1990 to 2019, but the age-standardized rates either declined or remained steady.
• Overall incidence increased by 40% for ICH, 51% for SAH, and 13% for , and stroke mortality increased by 56% for ICH, 72% for SAH, and 5.4% for ischemic stroke.
• Age-adjusted analyses showed the results were not uniform across all geographical areas, with older adults (ages, 50-74 years) experiencing decreased incidence in coastal areas and younger individuals (ages, 15-49 years) experiencing an uptick in the South and Midwest United States.

IN PRACTICE:

“As the country prepares for an imminent swell in the aging population, coupled with a noticeable plateau in advancements against stroke mortality, it becomes evident that future directions must focus on a multipronged strategy,” the authors wrote. “This involves both embracing precision medicine’s potential and fortifying widespread public health campaigns.”

SOURCE:

Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of the Yale Center for Brain and Mind Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The accuracy of stroke ascertainment was limited by the data source, which may be prone to misclassification. The data lacked detailed information on race, ethnicity, and stroke characteristics other than stroke type.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Heart Association Medical Student Research Fellowship, grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the Yale Pepper Scholar Award, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research fellowship. Sheth reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and Hyperfine; personal fees/monitoring board fees/equity from Astrocyte, CSL Behring, Zoll, Sense, Bexorg, Rhaeos, and Alva and having a patent for Alva licensed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized stroke rates decreased in the United States between 1990 and 2019, while absolute stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates increased, a new study showed. Investigators noted the findings, which also show a significant increase in hemorrhagic stroke and an uptick in stroke among adults under 50 years in the South and Midwest, suggesting a significant shift in the US stroke burden.

METHODOLOGY:

• This in-depth, cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study included data on all-cause and ischemic strokes, intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs), and subarachnoid hemorrhages (SAHs) between 1990 and 2019 in the United States.
• Researchers focused on both overall and age-standardized estimates, stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and DALYs per 100,000 people.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 2019, the United States recorded 7.09 million prevalent strokes, 83% of which were ischemic and 57% of which occurred in women.
• The absolute numbers of stroke cases, mortality, and DALYs increased from 1990 to 2019, but the age-standardized rates either declined or remained steady.
• Overall incidence increased by 40% for ICH, 51% for SAH, and 13% for , and stroke mortality increased by 56% for ICH, 72% for SAH, and 5.4% for ischemic stroke.
• Age-adjusted analyses showed the results were not uniform across all geographical areas, with older adults (ages, 50-74 years) experiencing decreased incidence in coastal areas and younger individuals (ages, 15-49 years) experiencing an uptick in the South and Midwest United States.

IN PRACTICE:

“As the country prepares for an imminent swell in the aging population, coupled with a noticeable plateau in advancements against stroke mortality, it becomes evident that future directions must focus on a multipronged strategy,” the authors wrote. “This involves both embracing precision medicine’s potential and fortifying widespread public health campaigns.”

SOURCE:

Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of the Yale Center for Brain and Mind Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The accuracy of stroke ascertainment was limited by the data source, which may be prone to misclassification. The data lacked detailed information on race, ethnicity, and stroke characteristics other than stroke type.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Heart Association Medical Student Research Fellowship, grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the Yale Pepper Scholar Award, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research fellowship. Sheth reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and Hyperfine; personal fees/monitoring board fees/equity from Astrocyte, CSL Behring, Zoll, Sense, Bexorg, Rhaeos, and Alva and having a patent for Alva licensed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized stroke rates decreased in the United States between 1990 and 2019, while absolute stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates increased, a new study showed. Investigators noted the findings, which also show a significant increase in hemorrhagic stroke and an uptick in stroke among adults under 50 years in the South and Midwest, suggesting a significant shift in the US stroke burden.

METHODOLOGY:

• This in-depth, cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study included data on all-cause and ischemic strokes, intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs), and subarachnoid hemorrhages (SAHs) between 1990 and 2019 in the United States.
• Researchers focused on both overall and age-standardized estimates, stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and DALYs per 100,000 people.

TAKEAWAY:

• In 2019, the United States recorded 7.09 million prevalent strokes, 83% of which were ischemic and 57% of which occurred in women.
• The absolute numbers of stroke cases, mortality, and DALYs increased from 1990 to 2019, but the age-standardized rates either declined or remained steady.
• Overall incidence increased by 40% for ICH, 51% for SAH, and 13% for , and stroke mortality increased by 56% for ICH, 72% for SAH, and 5.4% for ischemic stroke.
• Age-adjusted analyses showed the results were not uniform across all geographical areas, with older adults (ages, 50-74 years) experiencing decreased incidence in coastal areas and younger individuals (ages, 15-49 years) experiencing an uptick in the South and Midwest United States.

IN PRACTICE:

“As the country prepares for an imminent swell in the aging population, coupled with a noticeable plateau in advancements against stroke mortality, it becomes evident that future directions must focus on a multipronged strategy,” the authors wrote. “This involves both embracing precision medicine’s potential and fortifying widespread public health campaigns.”

SOURCE:

Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of the Yale Center for Brain and Mind Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The accuracy of stroke ascertainment was limited by the data source, which may be prone to misclassification. The data lacked detailed information on race, ethnicity, and stroke characteristics other than stroke type.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Heart Association Medical Student Research Fellowship, grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, the Yale Pepper Scholar Award, and the Neurocritical Care Society Research fellowship. Sheth reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and Hyperfine; personal fees/monitoring board fees/equity from Astrocyte, CSL Behring, Zoll, Sense, Bexorg, Rhaeos, and Alva and having a patent for Alva licensed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of statin drugs was associated with improved mortality in older nursing home residents, regardless of dementia status, a new study showed.

The study is among the first to explore whether statin use in older nursing home residents offers a mortality benefit, especially among individuals with dementia, a group largely excluded from earlier statin trials.

Investigators’ analysis of 4 years of data on nearly 300,000 nursing home residents revealed that statin use was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than statin nonuse in those without dementia and a 20% lower risk in those with dementia.

“These findings may provide evidence that supports the continued use of statins in older nursing home patients with multiple medical conditions,” wrote lead author Julie Lorraine O’Sullivan, PhD, of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, German Center for Mental Health, Berlin, and colleagues.

The study was published online on February 27 in Neurology.
 

Understudied Population

Statins are the first-line treatment for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but they are also known to carry risks to patients who are frail or care-dependent. Many prior clinical trials excluded older participants with multiple comorbidities, especially those with dementia. So, evidence regarding the drugs’ efficacy in this population was lacking.

Investigators retrospectively examined 5 years of claims data from a German health and long-term care insurance provider on 282,693 nursing home residents (mean age, 83 years) who had used statins consecutively for ≥ 6 months.

Researchers used propensity score matching in 96,162 individuals to adjust for potential imbalances in the distribution of covariates (eg, age, sex, atrial fibrillation, ASCVD, and other conditions, as well as medications) and to reduce bias. Cox regression models were similarly adjusted for these factors, as well as care level. Residents were followed for an average of 2 years.

There were 54,269 recorded deaths during the study period, with most patients requiring a high level of care and 65% with dementia.

Statin use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in residents with dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80, P < .001) and those without dementia (HR, 0.73; P < .001) compared with nonusers. The benefits remained consistent even after excluding participants with a history of ASCVD and across subgroups stratified by age sex, care level, and dementia type.

Limitations included the potential for unknown confounders and a lack of information about previous statin use, smoking and sedentary behavior, and the cause of mortality.

“Although our findings suggest the benefits of statins ... it is vital to acknowledge the need for further research to understand the underlying mechanism and the need for replication of our results to understand the potential risks before making recommendations to clinicians and families regarding statin therapy,” investigators wrote.
 

‘First Step’

In an accompanying editorial, Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the study a “first step” to a better understanding of statin use in an understudied population.

“These findings build on a limited body of observational evidence for statin use in high-risk older adults, which has generally demonstrated protective associations for statins and mortality, including those with dementia and frailty, although nursing home status has not been specifically explored,” Dr. Orkaby wrote.

Perhaps more important than gaining information about statins’ effect on mortality risk in older people with dementia may be a better understanding of how the drugs might improve quality of life by reducing the risk for stroke or other cardiovascular events.

“It may be time to reconsider the broad recommendations to avoid or deprescribe statins in nursing home residents and rather invest in high-quality evidence to guide the care of this vulnerable population. After all, a lack of evidence does not imply benefit or harm, rather a need for more data,” Dr. Orkaby added.

The research was funded by Stiftung Charité; Dr. O’Sullivan and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Orkaby received funding from a VA CSR&D CDA-2 award.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Naturally occurring glucose fluctuations affect cognitive function in people with type 1 diabetes, according to a new study. It matters less whether glucose is considerably higher or lower than the patient’s usual glucose level. Rather, cognition is slower when the glucose was atypical for that particular individual, with variations between different individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) digital sensors and smartphone-based cognitive tests (cognitive ecological momentary assessment [EMA]) to collect repeated, high-frequency glucose and cognitive data. Glucose data were collected every 5 minutes; cognitive data were collected three times daily for 15 days as participants went about their daily lives.
• The study included 200 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 47.5 [15.6] years; 53.5% female; 86% White; mean A1c, 7.5 mmol/mol [1.3]).
• Using CGM and EMA, the researchers obtained “intensive” longitudinal measurements of glucose as well as cognition (processing speed and sustained attention).
• Hierarchical Bayesian modeling estimated dynamic, within-person associations between glucose and cognition, and data-driven lasso regression identified identify clinical characteristics that predicted differences from person to person in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cognitive performance was reduced both at low and high glucose levels, “reflecting vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.”
• Large glucose fluctuations were associated with slower as well as less accurate processing speed, although slight glucose elevations (relative to the individual’s own means) were associated with faster processing speed, regardless of the absolute level (eg, euglycemic vs hyperglycemic) of those means.
• By contrast, glucose fluctuations were unrelated to sustained attention.
• The researchers identified seven clinical characteristics that predicted individual differences in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations: Older age, time in hypoglycemia, lifetime severe hypoglycemic events, microvascular complications, glucose variability, fatigue, and larger neck circumference.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate that people can differ a lot from one another in how their brains are impacted by glucose,” co-senior author Laura Germine, PhD, director of the Laboratory for Brain and Cognitive Health Technology, McLean Hospital, Boston, said in a news release. “We found that minimizing glucose fluctuations in daily life is important for optimizing processing speed, and this is especially true for people who are older or have other diabetes-related health conditions.”

SOURCE:

Zoë Hawks, PhD, research investigator, McLean Hospital, Boston, was the lead and corresponding author on the study. It was published online on March 18 in Digital Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers required 24-hour access to a smartphone with reliable Internet access, which might have biased sampling toward people of higher economic status. Moreover, the present sample was predominantly White and non-Hispanic, so findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Hawks received consulting fees from Blueprint Health. The other authors’ disclosures were listed in the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Naturally occurring glucose fluctuations affect cognitive function in people with type 1 diabetes, according to a new study. It matters less whether glucose is considerably higher or lower than the patient’s usual glucose level. Rather, cognition is slower when the glucose was atypical for that particular individual, with variations between different individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) digital sensors and smartphone-based cognitive tests (cognitive ecological momentary assessment [EMA]) to collect repeated, high-frequency glucose and cognitive data. Glucose data were collected every 5 minutes; cognitive data were collected three times daily for 15 days as participants went about their daily lives.
• The study included 200 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 47.5 [15.6] years; 53.5% female; 86% White; mean A1c, 7.5 mmol/mol [1.3]).
• Using CGM and EMA, the researchers obtained “intensive” longitudinal measurements of glucose as well as cognition (processing speed and sustained attention).
• Hierarchical Bayesian modeling estimated dynamic, within-person associations between glucose and cognition, and data-driven lasso regression identified identify clinical characteristics that predicted differences from person to person in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cognitive performance was reduced both at low and high glucose levels, “reflecting vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.”
• Large glucose fluctuations were associated with slower as well as less accurate processing speed, although slight glucose elevations (relative to the individual’s own means) were associated with faster processing speed, regardless of the absolute level (eg, euglycemic vs hyperglycemic) of those means.
• By contrast, glucose fluctuations were unrelated to sustained attention.
• The researchers identified seven clinical characteristics that predicted individual differences in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations: Older age, time in hypoglycemia, lifetime severe hypoglycemic events, microvascular complications, glucose variability, fatigue, and larger neck circumference.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate that people can differ a lot from one another in how their brains are impacted by glucose,” co-senior author Laura Germine, PhD, director of the Laboratory for Brain and Cognitive Health Technology, McLean Hospital, Boston, said in a news release. “We found that minimizing glucose fluctuations in daily life is important for optimizing processing speed, and this is especially true for people who are older or have other diabetes-related health conditions.”

SOURCE:

Zoë Hawks, PhD, research investigator, McLean Hospital, Boston, was the lead and corresponding author on the study. It was published online on March 18 in Digital Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers required 24-hour access to a smartphone with reliable Internet access, which might have biased sampling toward people of higher economic status. Moreover, the present sample was predominantly White and non-Hispanic, so findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Hawks received consulting fees from Blueprint Health. The other authors’ disclosures were listed in the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Naturally occurring glucose fluctuations affect cognitive function in people with type 1 diabetes, according to a new study. It matters less whether glucose is considerably higher or lower than the patient’s usual glucose level. Rather, cognition is slower when the glucose was atypical for that particular individual, with variations between different individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators used continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) digital sensors and smartphone-based cognitive tests (cognitive ecological momentary assessment [EMA]) to collect repeated, high-frequency glucose and cognitive data. Glucose data were collected every 5 minutes; cognitive data were collected three times daily for 15 days as participants went about their daily lives.
• The study included 200 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 47.5 [15.6] years; 53.5% female; 86% White; mean A1c, 7.5 mmol/mol [1.3]).
• Using CGM and EMA, the researchers obtained “intensive” longitudinal measurements of glucose as well as cognition (processing speed and sustained attention).
• Hierarchical Bayesian modeling estimated dynamic, within-person associations between glucose and cognition, and data-driven lasso regression identified identify clinical characteristics that predicted differences from person to person in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Cognitive performance was reduced both at low and high glucose levels, “reflecting vulnerability to glucose fluctuations.”
• Large glucose fluctuations were associated with slower as well as less accurate processing speed, although slight glucose elevations (relative to the individual’s own means) were associated with faster processing speed, regardless of the absolute level (eg, euglycemic vs hyperglycemic) of those means.
• By contrast, glucose fluctuations were unrelated to sustained attention.
• The researchers identified seven clinical characteristics that predicted individual differences in cognitive vulnerability to glucose fluctuations: Older age, time in hypoglycemia, lifetime severe hypoglycemic events, microvascular complications, glucose variability, fatigue, and larger neck circumference.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate that people can differ a lot from one another in how their brains are impacted by glucose,” co-senior author Laura Germine, PhD, director of the Laboratory for Brain and Cognitive Health Technology, McLean Hospital, Boston, said in a news release. “We found that minimizing glucose fluctuations in daily life is important for optimizing processing speed, and this is especially true for people who are older or have other diabetes-related health conditions.”

SOURCE:

Zoë Hawks, PhD, research investigator, McLean Hospital, Boston, was the lead and corresponding author on the study. It was published online on March 18 in Digital Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers required 24-hour access to a smartphone with reliable Internet access, which might have biased sampling toward people of higher economic status. Moreover, the present sample was predominantly White and non-Hispanic, so findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Hawks received consulting fees from Blueprint Health. The other authors’ disclosures were listed in the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Calls to US poison centers related to psilocybin more than tripled among teens and more than doubled in young adults between 2019 and 2022, new research suggests. Investigators say the increase may be linked to decriminalization efforts in US cities and states.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data from the National Poison Data System (NPDS) to identify calls involving psilocybin between January 2013 and December 2022.
• Researchers focused on calls about individuals between the ages of 13 and 25 years.
• Exposures to psilocybin were examined based on demographics, clinical effects, level of care, and medical outcome.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the entire 10-year study period, 4055 psilocybin-involved exposures were reported in the age groups studied, with 66% being single-substance exposures and close to three quarters receiving medical attention.
• Psilocybin’s most common effects were hallucinations or delusions (37% of calls), agitation (28%), tachycardia (20%), and confusion (16%).
• The number of psilocybin-related calls to poison control centers for youth were largely unchanged from 2013 to 2018 but more than tripled among adolescents (aged 13-19 years) from 2019 and 2022 and more than doubled among young adults (aged 20-25 years) between 2018 and 2022 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

The increase in poison center calls coincides with psilocybin decriminalization efforts in several states in 2019, the authors noted. However, because those efforts only legalized use in adults aged 21 years and older, the rise among younger people is concerning, they added. “As psilocybin may become more widely available, it is important for parents to be aware that psilocybin is also available in edible forms such as chocolate and gummies. And we learned from our experience with edible cannabis that young children can mistake edibles for candy,” lead author Rita Farah, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Blue Ridge Poison Center epidemiologist, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

Christopher Holstege, MD, director of UVA Health’s Blue Ridge Poison Center and chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology at the UVA School of Medicine was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 26 in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

NPDS data are not designed to assess potential risk factors leading to increases in psilocybin-related cases. Moreover, because reports to poison control centers are voluntary and don’t capture all exposures, NPDS data likely under-represent cases of hallucinogenic mushroom poisonings. Lastly, NPDS data are susceptible to reporting and misclassification biases.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding source was not disclosed. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Calls to US poison centers related to psilocybin more than tripled among teens and more than doubled in young adults between 2019 and 2022, new research suggests. Investigators say the increase may be linked to decriminalization efforts in US cities and states.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data from the National Poison Data System (NPDS) to identify calls involving psilocybin between January 2013 and December 2022.
• Researchers focused on calls about individuals between the ages of 13 and 25 years.
• Exposures to psilocybin were examined based on demographics, clinical effects, level of care, and medical outcome.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the entire 10-year study period, 4055 psilocybin-involved exposures were reported in the age groups studied, with 66% being single-substance exposures and close to three quarters receiving medical attention.
• Psilocybin’s most common effects were hallucinations or delusions (37% of calls), agitation (28%), tachycardia (20%), and confusion (16%).
• The number of psilocybin-related calls to poison control centers for youth were largely unchanged from 2013 to 2018 but more than tripled among adolescents (aged 13-19 years) from 2019 and 2022 and more than doubled among young adults (aged 20-25 years) between 2018 and 2022 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

The increase in poison center calls coincides with psilocybin decriminalization efforts in several states in 2019, the authors noted. However, because those efforts only legalized use in adults aged 21 years and older, the rise among younger people is concerning, they added. “As psilocybin may become more widely available, it is important for parents to be aware that psilocybin is also available in edible forms such as chocolate and gummies. And we learned from our experience with edible cannabis that young children can mistake edibles for candy,” lead author Rita Farah, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Blue Ridge Poison Center epidemiologist, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

Christopher Holstege, MD, director of UVA Health’s Blue Ridge Poison Center and chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology at the UVA School of Medicine was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 26 in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

NPDS data are not designed to assess potential risk factors leading to increases in psilocybin-related cases. Moreover, because reports to poison control centers are voluntary and don’t capture all exposures, NPDS data likely under-represent cases of hallucinogenic mushroom poisonings. Lastly, NPDS data are susceptible to reporting and misclassification biases.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding source was not disclosed. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Calls to US poison centers related to psilocybin more than tripled among teens and more than doubled in young adults between 2019 and 2022, new research suggests. Investigators say the increase may be linked to decriminalization efforts in US cities and states.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data from the National Poison Data System (NPDS) to identify calls involving psilocybin between January 2013 and December 2022.
• Researchers focused on calls about individuals between the ages of 13 and 25 years.
• Exposures to psilocybin were examined based on demographics, clinical effects, level of care, and medical outcome.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the entire 10-year study period, 4055 psilocybin-involved exposures were reported in the age groups studied, with 66% being single-substance exposures and close to three quarters receiving medical attention.
• Psilocybin’s most common effects were hallucinations or delusions (37% of calls), agitation (28%), tachycardia (20%), and confusion (16%).
• The number of psilocybin-related calls to poison control centers for youth were largely unchanged from 2013 to 2018 but more than tripled among adolescents (aged 13-19 years) from 2019 and 2022 and more than doubled among young adults (aged 20-25 years) between 2018 and 2022 (P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

The increase in poison center calls coincides with psilocybin decriminalization efforts in several states in 2019, the authors noted. However, because those efforts only legalized use in adults aged 21 years and older, the rise among younger people is concerning, they added. “As psilocybin may become more widely available, it is important for parents to be aware that psilocybin is also available in edible forms such as chocolate and gummies. And we learned from our experience with edible cannabis that young children can mistake edibles for candy,” lead author Rita Farah, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Blue Ridge Poison Center epidemiologist, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

Christopher Holstege, MD, director of UVA Health’s Blue Ridge Poison Center and chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology at the UVA School of Medicine was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 26 in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

NPDS data are not designed to assess potential risk factors leading to increases in psilocybin-related cases. Moreover, because reports to poison control centers are voluntary and don’t capture all exposures, NPDS data likely under-represent cases of hallucinogenic mushroom poisonings. Lastly, NPDS data are susceptible to reporting and misclassification biases.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding source was not disclosed. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Taking a prescription opioid for pain management during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for spontaneous preterm birth, data from a new case-control study of over 25,000 Medicaid patients showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers retrospectively reviewed data on pregnant patients enrolled in Tennessee Medicaid who experienced birth of a single baby at ≥ 24 weeks gestation (25,391 with opioid use disorder and 225,696 without).
• Median age of participants was 23 years; 58.1% were non-Hispanic White, 38.7% Black, 2.6% Hispanic, and 0.5% Asian.
• Controls were matched based on pregnancy start date, race, ethnicity, age at delivery (within 2 years), and history of prior preterm birth.
• Sensitivity analysis included the exclusion of opioid prescriptions dispensed within 3 days of the index date to account for potential opioid prescribing associated with labor pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 18,702 patients (7.4%) filled an opioid prescription during the 60 days prior to the index date.
• Each doubling of opioid morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed during the 60 days was associated with a 4% increase in the odds of spontaneous preterm birth compared with no opioid exposure in the matched controls (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08).
• Overall, 1573 pregnancies filled prescriptions for 900 MMEs or greater, which was associated with at least a 21% increased risk for spontaneous preterm birth compared with no opioid exposure (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33).
• Researchers found no significant difference in odds of spontaneous preterm birth among included opioid types after adjusting for confounders and opioid MMD.

IN PRACTICE:

“This association may appear modest, especially considering that common, one-time prescriptions often fall in the 150-225 MME range, but these findings may provide more caution when prescribing multiple, higher strength opioids,” the authors wrote. “We also caution against the conclusion that lower doses, especially those below 100 MME, are safe; the confidence bands over the low dose range still include odds ratios that are consistent with meaningful harm.”

SOURCE:

Sarah S. Osmundson, MD, MS, of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, was the senior and corresponding author on the study. The study was published online on February 14 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data are based on opioids prescribed and lack detail on actual use of opioids and nonprescription analgesics. Findings may not be generalizable to other populations or settings outside Medicaid.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding listed. Dr. Osmundson reported receiving grant support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse during the conduct of the study. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Taking a prescription opioid for pain management during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for spontaneous preterm birth, data from a new case-control study of over 25,000 Medicaid patients showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers retrospectively reviewed data on pregnant patients enrolled in Tennessee Medicaid who experienced birth of a single baby at ≥ 24 weeks gestation (25,391 with opioid use disorder and 225,696 without).
• Median age of participants was 23 years; 58.1% were non-Hispanic White, 38.7% Black, 2.6% Hispanic, and 0.5% Asian.
• Controls were matched based on pregnancy start date, race, ethnicity, age at delivery (within 2 years), and history of prior preterm birth.
• Sensitivity analysis included the exclusion of opioid prescriptions dispensed within 3 days of the index date to account for potential opioid prescribing associated with labor pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 18,702 patients (7.4%) filled an opioid prescription during the 60 days prior to the index date.
• Each doubling of opioid morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed during the 60 days was associated with a 4% increase in the odds of spontaneous preterm birth compared with no opioid exposure in the matched controls (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08).
• Overall, 1573 pregnancies filled prescriptions for 900 MMEs or greater, which was associated with at least a 21% increased risk for spontaneous preterm birth compared with no opioid exposure (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33).
• Researchers found no significant difference in odds of spontaneous preterm birth among included opioid types after adjusting for confounders and opioid MMD.

IN PRACTICE:

“This association may appear modest, especially considering that common, one-time prescriptions often fall in the 150-225 MME range, but these findings may provide more caution when prescribing multiple, higher strength opioids,” the authors wrote. “We also caution against the conclusion that lower doses, especially those below 100 MME, are safe; the confidence bands over the low dose range still include odds ratios that are consistent with meaningful harm.”

SOURCE:

Sarah S. Osmundson, MD, MS, of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, was the senior and corresponding author on the study. The study was published online on February 14 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data are based on opioids prescribed and lack detail on actual use of opioids and nonprescription analgesics. Findings may not be generalizable to other populations or settings outside Medicaid.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding listed. Dr. Osmundson reported receiving grant support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse during the conduct of the study. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Taking a prescription opioid for pain management during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for spontaneous preterm birth, data from a new case-control study of over 25,000 Medicaid patients showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers retrospectively reviewed data on pregnant patients enrolled in Tennessee Medicaid who experienced birth of a single baby at ≥ 24 weeks gestation (25,391 with opioid use disorder and 225,696 without).
• Median age of participants was 23 years; 58.1% were non-Hispanic White, 38.7% Black, 2.6% Hispanic, and 0.5% Asian.
• Controls were matched based on pregnancy start date, race, ethnicity, age at delivery (within 2 years), and history of prior preterm birth.
• Sensitivity analysis included the exclusion of opioid prescriptions dispensed within 3 days of the index date to account for potential opioid prescribing associated with labor pain.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 18,702 patients (7.4%) filled an opioid prescription during the 60 days prior to the index date.
• Each doubling of opioid morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed during the 60 days was associated with a 4% increase in the odds of spontaneous preterm birth compared with no opioid exposure in the matched controls (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08).
• Overall, 1573 pregnancies filled prescriptions for 900 MMEs or greater, which was associated with at least a 21% increased risk for spontaneous preterm birth compared with no opioid exposure (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33).
• Researchers found no significant difference in odds of spontaneous preterm birth among included opioid types after adjusting for confounders and opioid MMD.

IN PRACTICE:

“This association may appear modest, especially considering that common, one-time prescriptions often fall in the 150-225 MME range, but these findings may provide more caution when prescribing multiple, higher strength opioids,” the authors wrote. “We also caution against the conclusion that lower doses, especially those below 100 MME, are safe; the confidence bands over the low dose range still include odds ratios that are consistent with meaningful harm.”

SOURCE:

Sarah S. Osmundson, MD, MS, of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, was the senior and corresponding author on the study. The study was published online on February 14 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data are based on opioids prescribed and lack detail on actual use of opioids and nonprescription analgesics. Findings may not be generalizable to other populations or settings outside Medicaid.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding listed. Dr. Osmundson reported receiving grant support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse during the conduct of the study. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Habitual consumption of caffeine is not associated with frequency, duration, or intensity of episodic migraines, a new study showed. Investigators said the findings suggest caffeine restrictions in migraineurs may not be necessary.

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on sleep in adults with episodic migraine (with or without aura) included a group of 97 people (median age, 31 years; 82% White) with an average of 5.0 ± 3.6  days per month at baseline.
• Participants provided sociodemographic information, medical history, habitual caffeinated beverage consumption, alcohol intake, and lifestyle and psychosocial factors and completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies- scale, the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
• Additionally, they completed twice-daily electronic diaries for the subsequent 6 weeks, reporting headache activity and the use of medications to treat the headache.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 67% of participants reported one to two servings of caffeinated beverages per day, 12% reported three to four servings per day, and 21% reported no habitual caffeine consumption.
• After adjusting for age, sex, oral  use, and other confounders, mean headache frequency was similar among groups (7.1 days for no caffeine, 7.4 days for one to two servings, and 5.9 days for three to four servings).
• Similarly, adjusted mean headache duration did not differ across levels of caffeinated beverage intake (8.6 hours for no caffeine, 8.5 hours for one to two servings, and 8.8 hours for three to four servings).
• Adjusted mean headache intensity also did not differ among groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not support a recommendation for people with episodic migraine to avoid habitual caffeinated beverage intake,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that habitual caffeine intake may affect systems involved in pain modulation via adenosine signaling. «Therefore, it is possible that habitual caffeine use in those with migraine does not significantly alter adenosine signaling, but significant changes above or below usual consumption may serve as a trigger or contribute to lowering the threshold for an attack to occur along with other triggers,» they added.

SOURCE:

Suzanne M. Bertisch, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Headache.

LIMITATIONS:

Serving size was not standardized, and there was no information on the type of caffeinated beverage consumed or about other sources of caffeine. Moreover, the population consisted of relatively healthy participants with episodic migraine and generally low levels of habitual caffeinated beverage intake, which limited the statistical power to detect an association between migraine frequency, duration, and intensity with higher levels of caffeine intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, and the Harvard Catalyst/Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center. Dr. Bertisch has done consulting work with Idorsia and ResMed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Habitual consumption of caffeine is not associated with frequency, duration, or intensity of episodic migraines, a new study showed. Investigators said the findings suggest caffeine restrictions in migraineurs may not be necessary.

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on sleep in adults with episodic migraine (with or without aura) included a group of 97 people (median age, 31 years; 82% White) with an average of 5.0 ± 3.6  days per month at baseline.
• Participants provided sociodemographic information, medical history, habitual caffeinated beverage consumption, alcohol intake, and lifestyle and psychosocial factors and completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies- scale, the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
• Additionally, they completed twice-daily electronic diaries for the subsequent 6 weeks, reporting headache activity and the use of medications to treat the headache.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 67% of participants reported one to two servings of caffeinated beverages per day, 12% reported three to four servings per day, and 21% reported no habitual caffeine consumption.
• After adjusting for age, sex, oral  use, and other confounders, mean headache frequency was similar among groups (7.1 days for no caffeine, 7.4 days for one to two servings, and 5.9 days for three to four servings).
• Similarly, adjusted mean headache duration did not differ across levels of caffeinated beverage intake (8.6 hours for no caffeine, 8.5 hours for one to two servings, and 8.8 hours for three to four servings).
• Adjusted mean headache intensity also did not differ among groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not support a recommendation for people with episodic migraine to avoid habitual caffeinated beverage intake,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that habitual caffeine intake may affect systems involved in pain modulation via adenosine signaling. «Therefore, it is possible that habitual caffeine use in those with migraine does not significantly alter adenosine signaling, but significant changes above or below usual consumption may serve as a trigger or contribute to lowering the threshold for an attack to occur along with other triggers,» they added.

SOURCE:

Suzanne M. Bertisch, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Headache.

LIMITATIONS:

Serving size was not standardized, and there was no information on the type of caffeinated beverage consumed or about other sources of caffeine. Moreover, the population consisted of relatively healthy participants with episodic migraine and generally low levels of habitual caffeinated beverage intake, which limited the statistical power to detect an association between migraine frequency, duration, and intensity with higher levels of caffeine intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, and the Harvard Catalyst/Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center. Dr. Bertisch has done consulting work with Idorsia and ResMed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Habitual consumption of caffeine is not associated with frequency, duration, or intensity of episodic migraines, a new study showed. Investigators said the findings suggest caffeine restrictions in migraineurs may not be necessary.

METHODOLOGY:

• The secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study on sleep in adults with episodic migraine (with or without aura) included a group of 97 people (median age, 31 years; 82% White) with an average of 5.0 ± 3.6  days per month at baseline.
• Participants provided sociodemographic information, medical history, habitual caffeinated beverage consumption, alcohol intake, and lifestyle and psychosocial factors and completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies- scale, the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
• Additionally, they completed twice-daily electronic diaries for the subsequent 6 weeks, reporting headache activity and the use of medications to treat the headache.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 67% of participants reported one to two servings of caffeinated beverages per day, 12% reported three to four servings per day, and 21% reported no habitual caffeine consumption.
• After adjusting for age, sex, oral  use, and other confounders, mean headache frequency was similar among groups (7.1 days for no caffeine, 7.4 days for one to two servings, and 5.9 days for three to four servings).
• Similarly, adjusted mean headache duration did not differ across levels of caffeinated beverage intake (8.6 hours for no caffeine, 8.5 hours for one to two servings, and 8.8 hours for three to four servings).
• Adjusted mean headache intensity also did not differ among groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings do not support a recommendation for people with episodic migraine to avoid habitual caffeinated beverage intake,” the authors wrote. However, they noted that habitual caffeine intake may affect systems involved in pain modulation via adenosine signaling. «Therefore, it is possible that habitual caffeine use in those with migraine does not significantly alter adenosine signaling, but significant changes above or below usual consumption may serve as a trigger or contribute to lowering the threshold for an attack to occur along with other triggers,» they added.

SOURCE:

Suzanne M. Bertisch, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Headache.

LIMITATIONS:

Serving size was not standardized, and there was no information on the type of caffeinated beverage consumed or about other sources of caffeine. Moreover, the population consisted of relatively healthy participants with episodic migraine and generally low levels of habitual caffeinated beverage intake, which limited the statistical power to detect an association between migraine frequency, duration, and intensity with higher levels of caffeine intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, and the Harvard Catalyst/Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center. Dr. Bertisch has done consulting work with Idorsia and ResMed. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to even moderate concentrations of radon is associated with a significant increase in stroke risk, new research suggests.

An analysis of radon exposures in more than 150,000 postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative revealed a 14% higher stroke risk in those exposed to the highest concentrations compared with those exposed to the lowest concentrations. Even moderate concentrations of radon were associated with a 6% higher stroke risk.

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, but little was known about how exposure to the gas might affect stroke risk in women. 

“Our research found an increased risk of stroke among participants exposed to radon above — and as many as 2 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) below — concentrations that usually trigger Environmental Protection Agency recommendations to install a home radon mitigation system,” senior author Eric A. Whitsel, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology and medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

The study was published online on January 31, 2024, in Neurology.

Women Particularly Affected

Radon is a naturally occurring odorless radioactive gas produced when uranium or radium break down in rocks and soil. Its presence is increasing as a result of climate change, and it is increasingly being found in people’s homes. When inhaled, this air pollutant releases ionizing radiation in the lungs and is seen as second only to smoking as an established cause of lung cancer.

The National Radon Action Plan of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lays out testing and mitigation guidelines based on the known role of radon in lung carcinogenesis. But radon testing and mitigation are less common than recommended, and the EPA’s action plan doesn’t cover diseases other than lung cancer.

Compared with men, women have a higher rate of stroke and, in the US, typically spend about 11% more hours per day indoors at home, which investigators note highlights a “potential role of the residential environment among other risk factors specific to women.”

Researchers examined longitudinal associations between home radon exposure and incident stroke in 158,910 women at baseline (mean age 63.2 years; 83% White) over a mean follow-up of 13.4 years. During this time, participants experienced a total of 6979 strokes.

Participants’ home addresses were linked to radon concentration data drawn from the US Geological Survey and the EPA, which recommends that average indoor radon concentrations not exceed 4 pCi/L. 

The highest radon exposure group resided in areas where average radon concentrations were < 4 pCi/L; the middle exposure group lived in regions with average concentrations of 2-4 pCi/L; and the lowest exposure group lived in areas with average concentrations < 2 pCi/L. 

The researchers adjusted for demographic, social, behavioral, and clinical characteristics.

Public Health Implications

The incidence rates of stroke per 100,000 women in the lowest, middle, and highest radon concentration areas were 333, 343, and 349, respectively.

Stroke risk was 6% higher among those in the middle exposure group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13) and 14% higher in the highest exposure group (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.22) compared with the lowest exposure group.

Notably, stroke risk was significant even at concentrations ranging from 2 to 4 pCi/L (P = .0004) vs < 2 pCi/L, which is below the EPA›s Radon Action Level for mitigation. 

The findings remained robust in sensitivity analyses, although the associations were slightly stronger for ischemic stroke (especially cardioembolic, small-vessel occlusive, and very large artery atherosclerotic) compared with hemorrhagic stroke.

“Radon is an indoor air pollutant that can only be detected through testing that measures concentrations of the gas in homes,” Dr. Whitsel said in the release. “More studies are needed to confirm our findings. Confirmation would present an opportunity to improve public health by addressing an emerging risk factor for stroke.”

The study lacked gender and racial/ethnic diversity, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. 

“Replication studies of individual-level radon exposures are needed to confirm this positive radon-stroke association,” the authors write. “Confirmation would present a potential opportunity to affect public health by addressing a pervasive environmental risk factor for stroke and thereby merit reconsideration of extant radon policy.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Whitsel and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to even moderate concentrations of radon is associated with a significant increase in stroke risk, new research suggests.

An analysis of radon exposures in more than 150,000 postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative revealed a 14% higher stroke risk in those exposed to the highest concentrations compared with those exposed to the lowest concentrations. Even moderate concentrations of radon were associated with a 6% higher stroke risk.

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, but little was known about how exposure to the gas might affect stroke risk in women. 

“Our research found an increased risk of stroke among participants exposed to radon above — and as many as 2 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) below — concentrations that usually trigger Environmental Protection Agency recommendations to install a home radon mitigation system,” senior author Eric A. Whitsel, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology and medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

The study was published online on January 31, 2024, in Neurology.

Women Particularly Affected

Radon is a naturally occurring odorless radioactive gas produced when uranium or radium break down in rocks and soil. Its presence is increasing as a result of climate change, and it is increasingly being found in people’s homes. When inhaled, this air pollutant releases ionizing radiation in the lungs and is seen as second only to smoking as an established cause of lung cancer.

The National Radon Action Plan of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lays out testing and mitigation guidelines based on the known role of radon in lung carcinogenesis. But radon testing and mitigation are less common than recommended, and the EPA’s action plan doesn’t cover diseases other than lung cancer.

Compared with men, women have a higher rate of stroke and, in the US, typically spend about 11% more hours per day indoors at home, which investigators note highlights a “potential role of the residential environment among other risk factors specific to women.”

Researchers examined longitudinal associations between home radon exposure and incident stroke in 158,910 women at baseline (mean age 63.2 years; 83% White) over a mean follow-up of 13.4 years. During this time, participants experienced a total of 6979 strokes.

Participants’ home addresses were linked to radon concentration data drawn from the US Geological Survey and the EPA, which recommends that average indoor radon concentrations not exceed 4 pCi/L. 

The highest radon exposure group resided in areas where average radon concentrations were < 4 pCi/L; the middle exposure group lived in regions with average concentrations of 2-4 pCi/L; and the lowest exposure group lived in areas with average concentrations < 2 pCi/L. 

The researchers adjusted for demographic, social, behavioral, and clinical characteristics.

Public Health Implications

The incidence rates of stroke per 100,000 women in the lowest, middle, and highest radon concentration areas were 333, 343, and 349, respectively.

Stroke risk was 6% higher among those in the middle exposure group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13) and 14% higher in the highest exposure group (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.22) compared with the lowest exposure group.

Notably, stroke risk was significant even at concentrations ranging from 2 to 4 pCi/L (P = .0004) vs < 2 pCi/L, which is below the EPA›s Radon Action Level for mitigation. 

The findings remained robust in sensitivity analyses, although the associations were slightly stronger for ischemic stroke (especially cardioembolic, small-vessel occlusive, and very large artery atherosclerotic) compared with hemorrhagic stroke.

“Radon is an indoor air pollutant that can only be detected through testing that measures concentrations of the gas in homes,” Dr. Whitsel said in the release. “More studies are needed to confirm our findings. Confirmation would present an opportunity to improve public health by addressing an emerging risk factor for stroke.”

The study lacked gender and racial/ethnic diversity, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. 

“Replication studies of individual-level radon exposures are needed to confirm this positive radon-stroke association,” the authors write. “Confirmation would present a potential opportunity to affect public health by addressing a pervasive environmental risk factor for stroke and thereby merit reconsideration of extant radon policy.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Whitsel and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to even moderate concentrations of radon is associated with a significant increase in stroke risk, new research suggests.

An analysis of radon exposures in more than 150,000 postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative revealed a 14% higher stroke risk in those exposed to the highest concentrations compared with those exposed to the lowest concentrations. Even moderate concentrations of radon were associated with a 6% higher stroke risk.

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, but little was known about how exposure to the gas might affect stroke risk in women. 

“Our research found an increased risk of stroke among participants exposed to radon above — and as many as 2 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) below — concentrations that usually trigger Environmental Protection Agency recommendations to install a home radon mitigation system,” senior author Eric A. Whitsel, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology and medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

The study was published online on January 31, 2024, in Neurology.

Women Particularly Affected

Radon is a naturally occurring odorless radioactive gas produced when uranium or radium break down in rocks and soil. Its presence is increasing as a result of climate change, and it is increasingly being found in people’s homes. When inhaled, this air pollutant releases ionizing radiation in the lungs and is seen as second only to smoking as an established cause of lung cancer.

The National Radon Action Plan of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lays out testing and mitigation guidelines based on the known role of radon in lung carcinogenesis. But radon testing and mitigation are less common than recommended, and the EPA’s action plan doesn’t cover diseases other than lung cancer.

Compared with men, women have a higher rate of stroke and, in the US, typically spend about 11% more hours per day indoors at home, which investigators note highlights a “potential role of the residential environment among other risk factors specific to women.”

Researchers examined longitudinal associations between home radon exposure and incident stroke in 158,910 women at baseline (mean age 63.2 years; 83% White) over a mean follow-up of 13.4 years. During this time, participants experienced a total of 6979 strokes.

Participants’ home addresses were linked to radon concentration data drawn from the US Geological Survey and the EPA, which recommends that average indoor radon concentrations not exceed 4 pCi/L. 

The highest radon exposure group resided in areas where average radon concentrations were < 4 pCi/L; the middle exposure group lived in regions with average concentrations of 2-4 pCi/L; and the lowest exposure group lived in areas with average concentrations < 2 pCi/L. 

The researchers adjusted for demographic, social, behavioral, and clinical characteristics.

Public Health Implications

The incidence rates of stroke per 100,000 women in the lowest, middle, and highest radon concentration areas were 333, 343, and 349, respectively.

Stroke risk was 6% higher among those in the middle exposure group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13) and 14% higher in the highest exposure group (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.22) compared with the lowest exposure group.

Notably, stroke risk was significant even at concentrations ranging from 2 to 4 pCi/L (P = .0004) vs < 2 pCi/L, which is below the EPA›s Radon Action Level for mitigation. 

The findings remained robust in sensitivity analyses, although the associations were slightly stronger for ischemic stroke (especially cardioembolic, small-vessel occlusive, and very large artery atherosclerotic) compared with hemorrhagic stroke.

“Radon is an indoor air pollutant that can only be detected through testing that measures concentrations of the gas in homes,” Dr. Whitsel said in the release. “More studies are needed to confirm our findings. Confirmation would present an opportunity to improve public health by addressing an emerging risk factor for stroke.”

The study lacked gender and racial/ethnic diversity, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. 

“Replication studies of individual-level radon exposures are needed to confirm this positive radon-stroke association,” the authors write. “Confirmation would present a potential opportunity to affect public health by addressing a pervasive environmental risk factor for stroke and thereby merit reconsideration of extant radon policy.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Whitsel and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.