John Jesitus

In a recent study of 6 monthly injections of 140 mg erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), most patients with chronic migraine and nonopioid medication overuse headache (MOH) achieved remission. Published online in JAMA Neurology, the study is the first prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled attempt to investigate patients with chronic migraine and MOH related to nonopioid medications, according to lead author Stewart J. Tepper, MD, and his coauthors.

Prior Studies Did Not Focus on MOH

Several prior phase 2 and 3 trials of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor inhibitors that have been FDA-approved for migraine prevention have been performed. These drugs include erenumab, fremanezumab (Ajovy, Teva), galcanezumab (Emgality, Lilly), and eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck), for patients with and without medication overuse, said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was not involved with the new study. Dr. Rapoport is a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine of the University of California, in Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and founder and director emeritus of The New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.

“But we could not call them patients with MOH because they weren’t studied prospectively, so that they had medication overuse according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) criteria,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Phase 4, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

In the present clinical trial, investigators enrolled 584 patients with nonopioid MOH and history of failing at least one preventive treatment. After a 4-week baseline phase, researchers randomized patients 1:1:1 to 6 months’ treatment with erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, or placebo.

Investigators defined remission as either of the following through months 4-6:

• < 10 mean monthly acute headache medication days per month (AHMD)
• < 14 mean monthly headache days (MHD)

In the primary analysis, 69.1% of patients in the 140 mg cohort achieved remission (P < .001) versus placebo. Remission rates in the 70 mg and the placebo cohorts were 60.3% (P < .13) and 52.6%, respectively. AHMD for the 140-mg, 70-mg, and placebo groups fell by 9.4, 7.8, and 6.6 days per month, respectively. Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (non-EU sites) and Headache Impact Test-6 (EU sites) scores also showed greater improvement for patients treated with erenumab.

No new safety signals emerged, although erenumab-treated participants experienced 2-2.5 times as much COVID-19 disease.

Regarding the primary endpoint, said Dr. Rapoport, the 70-mg dose might also have yielded statistically significant improvement over placebo with a larger sample size. “I have seen that the higher dose of erenumab can be superior for efficacy than the lower in some of the double-blind trials,” he said. The 52.6% placebo response rate was rather high, he added, but not necessarily higher than in other migraine prevention trials.

“Placebo is a type of treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s not as strong as the actual medication, which is specific for prevention, but it does work on the brain to some extent.”

He was more concerned, however, that authors did not counsel study patients about reducing or discontinuing their overused medications in a unified manner. Rather, it was left to individual investigators’ discretion, in different countries, as to whether to educate patients about the harms of medication overuse. “The fascinating aspect of this paper was that no patient was asked to detoxify from the overused medication,” said Dr. Rapoport, “and yet so many patients no longer had MOH at 6 months.”
 

Detox Versus No Detox

In a pioneering study of migraine medication overuse headache (then called rebound headache) published by Lee Kudrow, MD, in Advances in Neurology in 1982, patients who discontinued the overused medication fared much better than those who did not. Adding amitriptyline for migraine prevention further improved results, mostly in those who discontinued their overused medication.

Anticipating possible concerns, the authors wrote that their approach “may also be seen as a strength, as it represents a scenario closer to real life and avoids undue interference with the physician-patient relationship.” Indeed, said Dr. Rapoport, study results are perhaps more impressive because they were achieved through treatment with erenumab alone, without detoxification.
 

Managing Chronic Migraine and MOH

Until erenumab’s 2018 approval, migraine prevention options were limited to tricyclic antidepressants, beta blockers, and antiseizure medicines – though these medicines never seemed to work very well without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport. Neurologists still use these categories for migraine prevention, he added, “because insurance companies insist that before we give the more expensive, newer medications like those that block CGRP, patients must fail 2 of those 3 categories of older medications which are not approved for chronic migraine.” Only onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) is FDA-approved for chronic migraine. “There has been no head-to-head comparison of it and any of the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP,” he said.

In a March 2024 publication in Headache, the American Headache Society stated that requiring patients to fail older drugs is inappropriate, and that CGRP inhibitors, though costly, should be first-line for headache prevention. The key advantage of any drug that blocks CGRP in treating MOH is that unlike older drugs, CGRP inhibitors appear to work well even without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport.

Additional study limitations included the possibility that the 24-week treatment period might not have allowed complete evaluation of long-term efficacy, the authors wrote. “These are usually pretty sick patients,” said Dr. Rapoport, who acknowledged the difficulty of keeping placebo patients off preventive medication altogether for 6 months. The study was extended to 12 months, and the results of an opiate overusers cohort also will be published.

Authors noted that according to a study published in Headache in 2022, most Americans with chronic migraine commonly go without preventive medications. Moreover, such medications do not always work. Accordingly, Dr. Rapoport said, the study duration was reasonable provided patients understood that they had a 33% chance of receiving no effective preventive medication over 6 months.

Extending the study’s month-long baseline period to 3 months before starting erenumab might have been helpful, he added, as that is the timeframe required to confirm MOH diagnosis according to ICHD-3. “However,” said Dr. Rapoport, “3 months with only usual medications, and then 1/3 of patients going 6-12 months with only placebo, would be tough for some patients.”

Dr. Rapoport reports no relevant financial conflicts.

In a recent study of 6 monthly injections of 140 mg erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), most patients with chronic migraine and nonopioid medication overuse headache (MOH) achieved remission. Published online in JAMA Neurology, the study is the first prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled attempt to investigate patients with chronic migraine and MOH related to nonopioid medications, according to lead author Stewart J. Tepper, MD, and his coauthors.

Prior Studies Did Not Focus on MOH

Several prior phase 2 and 3 trials of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor inhibitors that have been FDA-approved for migraine prevention have been performed. These drugs include erenumab, fremanezumab (Ajovy, Teva), galcanezumab (Emgality, Lilly), and eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck), for patients with and without medication overuse, said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was not involved with the new study. Dr. Rapoport is a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine of the University of California, in Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and founder and director emeritus of The New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.

“But we could not call them patients with MOH because they weren’t studied prospectively, so that they had medication overuse according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) criteria,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Phase 4, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

In the present clinical trial, investigators enrolled 584 patients with nonopioid MOH and history of failing at least one preventive treatment. After a 4-week baseline phase, researchers randomized patients 1:1:1 to 6 months’ treatment with erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, or placebo.

Investigators defined remission as either of the following through months 4-6:

• < 10 mean monthly acute headache medication days per month (AHMD)
• < 14 mean monthly headache days (MHD)

In the primary analysis, 69.1% of patients in the 140 mg cohort achieved remission (P < .001) versus placebo. Remission rates in the 70 mg and the placebo cohorts were 60.3% (P < .13) and 52.6%, respectively. AHMD for the 140-mg, 70-mg, and placebo groups fell by 9.4, 7.8, and 6.6 days per month, respectively. Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (non-EU sites) and Headache Impact Test-6 (EU sites) scores also showed greater improvement for patients treated with erenumab.

No new safety signals emerged, although erenumab-treated participants experienced 2-2.5 times as much COVID-19 disease.

Regarding the primary endpoint, said Dr. Rapoport, the 70-mg dose might also have yielded statistically significant improvement over placebo with a larger sample size. “I have seen that the higher dose of erenumab can be superior for efficacy than the lower in some of the double-blind trials,” he said. The 52.6% placebo response rate was rather high, he added, but not necessarily higher than in other migraine prevention trials.

“Placebo is a type of treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s not as strong as the actual medication, which is specific for prevention, but it does work on the brain to some extent.”

He was more concerned, however, that authors did not counsel study patients about reducing or discontinuing their overused medications in a unified manner. Rather, it was left to individual investigators’ discretion, in different countries, as to whether to educate patients about the harms of medication overuse. “The fascinating aspect of this paper was that no patient was asked to detoxify from the overused medication,” said Dr. Rapoport, “and yet so many patients no longer had MOH at 6 months.”
 

Detox Versus No Detox

In a pioneering study of migraine medication overuse headache (then called rebound headache) published by Lee Kudrow, MD, in Advances in Neurology in 1982, patients who discontinued the overused medication fared much better than those who did not. Adding amitriptyline for migraine prevention further improved results, mostly in those who discontinued their overused medication.

Anticipating possible concerns, the authors wrote that their approach “may also be seen as a strength, as it represents a scenario closer to real life and avoids undue interference with the physician-patient relationship.” Indeed, said Dr. Rapoport, study results are perhaps more impressive because they were achieved through treatment with erenumab alone, without detoxification.
 

Managing Chronic Migraine and MOH

Until erenumab’s 2018 approval, migraine prevention options were limited to tricyclic antidepressants, beta blockers, and antiseizure medicines – though these medicines never seemed to work very well without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport. Neurologists still use these categories for migraine prevention, he added, “because insurance companies insist that before we give the more expensive, newer medications like those that block CGRP, patients must fail 2 of those 3 categories of older medications which are not approved for chronic migraine.” Only onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) is FDA-approved for chronic migraine. “There has been no head-to-head comparison of it and any of the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP,” he said.

In a March 2024 publication in Headache, the American Headache Society stated that requiring patients to fail older drugs is inappropriate, and that CGRP inhibitors, though costly, should be first-line for headache prevention. The key advantage of any drug that blocks CGRP in treating MOH is that unlike older drugs, CGRP inhibitors appear to work well even without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport.

Additional study limitations included the possibility that the 24-week treatment period might not have allowed complete evaluation of long-term efficacy, the authors wrote. “These are usually pretty sick patients,” said Dr. Rapoport, who acknowledged the difficulty of keeping placebo patients off preventive medication altogether for 6 months. The study was extended to 12 months, and the results of an opiate overusers cohort also will be published.

Authors noted that according to a study published in Headache in 2022, most Americans with chronic migraine commonly go without preventive medications. Moreover, such medications do not always work. Accordingly, Dr. Rapoport said, the study duration was reasonable provided patients understood that they had a 33% chance of receiving no effective preventive medication over 6 months.

Extending the study’s month-long baseline period to 3 months before starting erenumab might have been helpful, he added, as that is the timeframe required to confirm MOH diagnosis according to ICHD-3. “However,” said Dr. Rapoport, “3 months with only usual medications, and then 1/3 of patients going 6-12 months with only placebo, would be tough for some patients.”

Dr. Rapoport reports no relevant financial conflicts.

In a recent study of 6 monthly injections of 140 mg erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), most patients with chronic migraine and nonopioid medication overuse headache (MOH) achieved remission. Published online in JAMA Neurology, the study is the first prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled attempt to investigate patients with chronic migraine and MOH related to nonopioid medications, according to lead author Stewart J. Tepper, MD, and his coauthors.

Prior Studies Did Not Focus on MOH

Several prior phase 2 and 3 trials of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor inhibitors that have been FDA-approved for migraine prevention have been performed. These drugs include erenumab, fremanezumab (Ajovy, Teva), galcanezumab (Emgality, Lilly), and eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck), for patients with and without medication overuse, said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was not involved with the new study. Dr. Rapoport is a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine of the University of California, in Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and founder and director emeritus of The New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.

“But we could not call them patients with MOH because they weren’t studied prospectively, so that they had medication overuse according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) criteria,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Phase 4, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

In the present clinical trial, investigators enrolled 584 patients with nonopioid MOH and history of failing at least one preventive treatment. After a 4-week baseline phase, researchers randomized patients 1:1:1 to 6 months’ treatment with erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, or placebo.

Investigators defined remission as either of the following through months 4-6:

• < 10 mean monthly acute headache medication days per month (AHMD)
• < 14 mean monthly headache days (MHD)

In the primary analysis, 69.1% of patients in the 140 mg cohort achieved remission (P < .001) versus placebo. Remission rates in the 70 mg and the placebo cohorts were 60.3% (P < .13) and 52.6%, respectively. AHMD for the 140-mg, 70-mg, and placebo groups fell by 9.4, 7.8, and 6.6 days per month, respectively. Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (non-EU sites) and Headache Impact Test-6 (EU sites) scores also showed greater improvement for patients treated with erenumab.

No new safety signals emerged, although erenumab-treated participants experienced 2-2.5 times as much COVID-19 disease.

Regarding the primary endpoint, said Dr. Rapoport, the 70-mg dose might also have yielded statistically significant improvement over placebo with a larger sample size. “I have seen that the higher dose of erenumab can be superior for efficacy than the lower in some of the double-blind trials,” he said. The 52.6% placebo response rate was rather high, he added, but not necessarily higher than in other migraine prevention trials.

“Placebo is a type of treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s not as strong as the actual medication, which is specific for prevention, but it does work on the brain to some extent.”

He was more concerned, however, that authors did not counsel study patients about reducing or discontinuing their overused medications in a unified manner. Rather, it was left to individual investigators’ discretion, in different countries, as to whether to educate patients about the harms of medication overuse. “The fascinating aspect of this paper was that no patient was asked to detoxify from the overused medication,” said Dr. Rapoport, “and yet so many patients no longer had MOH at 6 months.”
 

Detox Versus No Detox

In a pioneering study of migraine medication overuse headache (then called rebound headache) published by Lee Kudrow, MD, in Advances in Neurology in 1982, patients who discontinued the overused medication fared much better than those who did not. Adding amitriptyline for migraine prevention further improved results, mostly in those who discontinued their overused medication.

Anticipating possible concerns, the authors wrote that their approach “may also be seen as a strength, as it represents a scenario closer to real life and avoids undue interference with the physician-patient relationship.” Indeed, said Dr. Rapoport, study results are perhaps more impressive because they were achieved through treatment with erenumab alone, without detoxification.
 

Managing Chronic Migraine and MOH

Until erenumab’s 2018 approval, migraine prevention options were limited to tricyclic antidepressants, beta blockers, and antiseizure medicines – though these medicines never seemed to work very well without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport. Neurologists still use these categories for migraine prevention, he added, “because insurance companies insist that before we give the more expensive, newer medications like those that block CGRP, patients must fail 2 of those 3 categories of older medications which are not approved for chronic migraine.” Only onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) is FDA-approved for chronic migraine. “There has been no head-to-head comparison of it and any of the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP,” he said.

In a March 2024 publication in Headache, the American Headache Society stated that requiring patients to fail older drugs is inappropriate, and that CGRP inhibitors, though costly, should be first-line for headache prevention. The key advantage of any drug that blocks CGRP in treating MOH is that unlike older drugs, CGRP inhibitors appear to work well even without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport.

Additional study limitations included the possibility that the 24-week treatment period might not have allowed complete evaluation of long-term efficacy, the authors wrote. “These are usually pretty sick patients,” said Dr. Rapoport, who acknowledged the difficulty of keeping placebo patients off preventive medication altogether for 6 months. The study was extended to 12 months, and the results of an opiate overusers cohort also will be published.

Authors noted that according to a study published in Headache in 2022, most Americans with chronic migraine commonly go without preventive medications. Moreover, such medications do not always work. Accordingly, Dr. Rapoport said, the study duration was reasonable provided patients understood that they had a 33% chance of receiving no effective preventive medication over 6 months.

Extending the study’s month-long baseline period to 3 months before starting erenumab might have been helpful, he added, as that is the timeframe required to confirm MOH diagnosis according to ICHD-3. “However,” said Dr. Rapoport, “3 months with only usual medications, and then 1/3 of patients going 6-12 months with only placebo, would be tough for some patients.”

Dr. Rapoport reports no relevant financial conflicts.

Unlike conventional immunosuppression, treatments approved since 2017 are giving patients with myasthenia gravis targeted options to better match their needs, desires, and tolerance. Used appropriately, newer treatments can provide dramatic results faster and more safely than broad immunosuppressants. However, according to experts, payers’ willingness to cover costly new therapies remains a work in progress.

The availability of more effective treatments with fewer side effects has brought about a cultural shift, said James F. Howard, Jr, MD. “The physician’s goal now is for the patient to be symptom free with grade 1 or less adverse events. And patients are demanding freedom from all the side effects that our usual course of immune therapy produces.” Dr. Howard is professor of neurology, medicine and allied health and director of the Myasthenia Gravis Clinical Trials and Translational Research Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

courtesy University of North Carolina

The shift has been long in coming. Although myasthenia gravis was identified in the mid-1600s, it took more than 340 years to get the first drug approved specifically for the disorder.

Worldwide prevalence estimates vary widely, from less than 200,000 to 700,000 cases.^1,2 Pathophysiologically, myasthenia gravis stems from autoimmune destruction of neuromuscular junctions (NMJs), which transmit motor neuron impulses to muscle fibers.¹ Symptoms include variable skeletal muscle weakness that can range from mild and transient to life-threatening.

In approximately 80% of cases, autoimmune antibodies target the postsynaptic acetylcholine receptor (AChR). Additional autoimmune targets mainly include muscle-specific kinase (MuSK) and lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 (LRP4). However, around 10% of patients are seronegative, lacking autoantibodies detectable through conventional radioimmunoassays. Clinical disease does not always correspond with circulating antibody levels, and pathogenesis may require cooperation between multiple autoantibodies attacking the same target.³ Around 10% of MG cases are associated with thymomas.

Among myasthenia gravis treatments, immunosuppressants typically take 4-10 months to begin working and 18-36 months for maximum benefit. “Our new targeted therapies work within 1-2 weeks, with maximum improvement occurring somewhere between 8 and 12 weeks,” Dr. Howard said. Quick onset makes these drugs well suited for primary therapy in recalcitrant myasthenia gravis or as bridges to standard immunotherapy. Targeted drugs also appear to provide effective rescue therapy, although head-to-head studies are needed.
 

Complement Inhibition

In AChR antibody–positive myasthenia gravis, autoantibody binding with the postsynaptic AChR receptor activates complement to attack postsynaptic neuronal membrane. Complement inhibitors approved to date block activation of the terminal complement protein C5.

courtesy George Washington University

For many patients, complement inhibitors deliver dramatic results. Henry J. Kaminski, MD, said that the first patient for whom he prescribed a complement inhibitor outside a clinical trial went from being miserable to traveling internationally within a month. Dr. Kaminski is Meta A. Neumann Professor of Neurology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. 

Eculizumab (Soliris, Alexion), earned Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for myasthenia gravis in 2017. Week 26 results in the phase 3 REGAIN trial showed no significant difference in Myasthenia Gravis–Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scores between treatment and placebo. However, said Dr. Howard, primary investigator on the study, the negative result was a statistical aberration stemming from the FDA’s requirement to use worst-rank analysis rather than absolute change scores. What got eculizumab approved were highly positive results in the overwhelming majority of secondary endpoints.⁴ Subsequently, the FDA had the manufacturer rewrite the package insert using common statistical methods, which yielded positive primary results.

Ravulizumab (Ultomiris, Alexion), approved for myasthenia gravis in 2022, reduces eculizumab’s twice-monthly intravenous dosing to every 2 months (after loading doses), with very similar efficacy. The newest complement inhibitor, zilucoplan (Zilbrysq, UCB), administered once daily subcutaneously, earned FDA approval in 2023. Daily subcutaneous dosing provides patient convenience, said Dr. Howard. Because the body does not clear this small molecule as it would a full-size antibody, it is the only complement inhibitor that can be combined with a fragment crystallizable neonatal receptor (FcRn) inhibitor.
 

FcRn Inhibition

The FcRn exists on the surface and intracellular vesicles of many cells, including B cells, but not T cells.⁵FcRn inhibitors block binding of circulating IgG antibodies to the FcRn, preventing their normal recycling, significantly reducing circulating antibodies within days of treatment.

Efgartigimod (Vyvgart, Argenx), earned FDA approval in intravenous form in 2021, followed by a subcutaneous formulation that includes hyaluronidase (Vyvgart Hytrulo) in 2023. Rozanolixizumab (Rystiggo, UCB) earned FDA approval for both AChR antibody–positive and MuSK antibody–positive myasthenia gravis in 2023.

Along with rapid response, said Dr. Howard, complement inhibitors and FcRn inhibitors offer a “hugely improved” side-effect profile. In phase 3 research, the most common side effects for both classes included headache, nausea, and diarrhea.^4,6,7 Because complement inhibitors increase the risk of Neisseria infection, users require immunization against meningococcal infection (or concurrent antibiotic prophylaxis) while on complement inhibitors.
 

Insurance Issues

With many clinicians wondering which targeted therapy to choose for a particular patient, said Dr. Howard and Dr. Kaminski, the main obstacle to wider use of these treatments is payer attitudes and practices. “While many of us would like to see these drugs used earlier in the course of disease,” Dr. Howard explained, “there are numerous restrictions placed on the physician and the patient by whatever insurance the individual has.”

Dr. Kaminski said: “There’s a lot of variability among insurance companies regarding what is expected in terms of getting approval for a certain medication. It frustrates me, thinking this patient may do well with a complement inhibitor or an FcRn inhibitor, but it takes weeks to get them approved.”

Some of his patients have been approved for, and flourished on, complement inhibitors and FcRn inhibitors, he added, and then denied a second round of treatment. Dr. Kaminski said he does not know why these patients were denied, and every time he requests reevaluation, the decision is reversed. “That’s a significant time frame for me and my staff to manage.”

When asked what can be done to address high drug prices, Dr. Howard replied, “I have no idea. I’m not an advocate of high drug prices. But I don’t think people realize the cost of doing clinical trials, which is hundreds of millions of dollars, particularly in rare diseases.”

Presently, Dr. Howard said, FcRn inhibitors are used more frequently than complement inhibitors solely because of cost. Zilucoplan will be priced below existing complement inhibitors, although it is too soon to compare its price with those of FcRn inhibitors.

When eculizumab debuted, said Dr. Howard, it cost nearly $750,000 annually. “But if you look at the number of patients treated, the cost of the drug over this population is probably less than the cost for using a cholesterol-lowering agent to treat hyperlipidemia.”

An Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) report stated that eculizumab and efgartigimod should both cost less than $20,000 annually to meet commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.⁸ However, Dr. Howard said ICER used models based on common diseases and ignored the economic impact of patients’ losing fewer workdays and avoiding long-term immunosuppressant side effects such as diabetes and osteoporosis and related treatment costs. “We’ve got to start looking at total societal cost,” he said.

Leapfrogging Ahead

Not all the new drugs work in every indicated patient, Dr. Howard said. For example, up to 30% of patients do not respond to complement inhibitors. “We don’t understand why. It’s as if we have leapfrogged way ahead in terms of therapeutics, and now we have to go back and answer all the questions – the who, what, where, and why of an individual drug and its response in folks.”

In this climate, said Dr. Kaminski, heavy direct-to-consumer advertising of newer myasthenia gravis therapies creates complications. “My patients are highly excited to see, ‘that’s my disease being advertised on Jeopardy.’ ” Many patients are frustrated with the general lack of awareness regarding myasthenia gravis, he added. “But then I’ve had patients who clearly would never qualify for a certain medication getting mailings to their homes.”

Dr. Howard countered that broader awareness of myasthenia gravis can only help. “There’s increasing recognition of the disease, not only by patients, but to some extent, by the treating clinician. Patients are coming to our offices and saying, ‘am I a candidate for this new drug?’ It’s the responsibility of the clinician to decide.”

Individual physicians’ practice patterns vary greatly, said Dr. Kaminski, and very little quantitative data exist here. But based on personal communications, academic-center neurologists tend to use targeted treatments on patients who have failed conventional treatments.

Conversely, Dr. Howard said that, because community physicians rarely see myasthenia gravis, and targeted treatments remain relatively new, many of these providers rely on prednisone, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil.
 

B-Cell Blockers in Development

Overall, said Dr. Howard, the field of myasthenia gravis treatment development is “very rich. And pharma’s interest in myasthenia has taken off like a rocket. It’s exceptionally gratifying to those of us who take care of these patients whose life is miserable” because of adverse effects and/or nonresponse to current drugs.

“In myasthenia,” added Dr. Kaminski, “we know that T cells are promoting the activity of these auto-reactive B cells.” Many drugs currently in phase 2 or 3 development aim to eliminate B cells or signaling between T and B cells, he said. “That’s where most of the drug development is.”

Leading candidates include telitacicept (Tai’ai, RemeGen), which is both a B-lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferation-inducing ligand. A phase 3 trial (NCT05737160) is ongoing, with primary completion expected in late 2026. A second phase 3 trial (NCT06456580) recently began enrolling. Dr. Howard said that, although early results warranted phase 3 analysis, telitacicept’s phase 2 trial was open label and lacked a placebo group.⁹ The latter is a critical concern because placebo response rates in myasthenia gravis trials average 35%-40%.

Combined with standard care, the FcRn inhibitor nipocalimab (Johnson & Johnson) enabled patients with AChR, MuSK, and/or LRP4 autoantibodies to improve by 4.70 points on the MG-ADL vs 3.25 points for placebo (P = .002) over 24 weeks in phase ^3.10All FcRn inhibitors in development can broadly reduce autoantibody levels, said Dr. Howard. “But what role they will play in myasthenia gravis when they’re several years behind leaders in the field in terms of capturing market remains to be seen.”

Additionally, batoclimab (Immunovant/Harbour BioMed) showed positive topline results in phase 3, and an elevated rate of hypercholesterolemia in treated patients that was transient and consistent with previous research.¹¹ Subsequent to efgartigimod, Dr. Howard said, FcRn inhibitors are full-size antibodies. “I believe that contributes to the adverse events that we see. Efgartigimod is a small FcRn fragment. That’s why it’s a cleaner drug, if you will.”

FcRn inhibitors require periodic retreatment. For example, said Dr. Howard, the ADAPT phase 3 trial of efgartigimod, on which he was lead investigator, employed a cyclic dosing schedule – 4 weeks’ treatment, then observation until patients needed retreatment — because patients demanded it.¹² In clinical practice, some patients have gone more than 25 weeks before needing retreatment. One of his patients went beyond 40 weeks. “Others only get around 6-9 weeks. So patient choice again enters the decision-making process.”

Rituximab targets the CD20 protein on B cells nonspecifically, producing general immunosuppression. “That’s problematic in producing significant immunosuppression,” said Dr. Kaminski. Nevertheless, he said, rituximab is very effective for most patients with MuSK-specific MG, and its application to this indication has revealed differences between the MuSK subtype and AChR antibody–positive myasthenia. Specifically, MuSK antibody–positive patients have short-lived plasmablasts, which rituximab eliminates.¹³

Conversely, said Dr. Kaminski, patients with AChR antibody-positive myasthenia, especially long-term, likely have long-lived plasmablasts producing antibodies. This fact, and these patients’ lack of CD20, likely explain their poor response to rituximab.

A phase 3 trial (NCT04524273) of the CD19 blocker inebilizumab (Uplinza, Amgen) reached primary completion in May. Dr. Howard said that if topline results (unreleased at press time) prove positive, inebilizumab could replace rituximab in MG — provided payers do not reject inebilizumab because of cost.

Packed Early-Development Pipeline

Regarding early-stage projects, said Dr. Howard, the pipeline is packed with compounds that target various aspects of the immune system. “The real question with those is, what’s going to be the side effect profile? All of the trials are very early. We need bigger trials with much longer observation for safety, durability, and degree of efficacy.”

The next potential B cell–targeting game changer, he said, is chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell–based therapy. In a phase 2b trial of Descartes-08 (Cartesian Therapeutics), 71% of treated patients experienced clinically meaningful improvement in MG Composite score at 3 months vs 25% for placebo.¹⁴

In early clinical trials, said Dr. Howard, patients treated with Descartes-08 — which uses autologous mRNA to target B-cell maturation antigen — have shown “exceptional improvement” lasting 20 or more months. Because the drug is not ingrained permanently into the genome, Descartes-08 avoids potentially severe side effects of DNA-targeting CAR T candidates. Dr. Howard hopes a phase 3 trial will commence around January 2025.

The tolerance approach exemplified by CNP-106 (COUR Pharmaceuticals) and a myasthenia gravis tolerogen (Toleranzia) seeks to prevent the immune system from recognizing and reacting to the NMJ abnormalities that produce myasthenia gravis, potentially providing a cure. “We look forward to those trials as they come online in the next 1-2 years,” said Dr. Howard.
 

Unmet Needs

Historically, neurologists believed that all myasthenia gravis symptoms stemmed from muscle fatigue — the more active the muscle, the weaker it gets. However, said Dr. Kaminski, some patients might lack measurable weakness but still complain of fatigue.

Elevated levels of cytokines such as interleukin (IL)–6 or IL-17 also can produce fatigue, he noted. “With the drugs we’re using, certainly the new ones, we’re not specifically targeting this fatigue phenomenon, which has been studied in a very limited fashion.”

In the RAISE-XT zilucoplan trial, participants experienced significant improvement in fatigue scores for up to 60 weeks.¹⁵ Although zilucoplan does not address fatigue directly, said Dr. Howard, improving myasthenia gravis overall helps reduce fatigue.

The Myasthenia Gravis Symptoms Patient Reported Outcome (MG Symptoms PRO), which Dr. Kaminski helped develop, includes questions designed to distinguish muscular fatigue from overall physical fatigue.¹⁶ “I’m very interested in some of the information that’s coming out on long COVID and its effect on muscle,” Dr. Kaminski added. “We might be able to learn from there that there’s still some pathology going on beyond the neuromuscular junction.”

What the field desperately needs, said Dr. Howard, are biomarkers to identify which patients will and will not respond to certain therapeutics. “We’re not there yet.” Such biomarkers are at least 3-7 years from becoming clinical reality.

Promising antibody-independent serum markers include circulating microRNAs. For example, miRNA-150-5p and miRNA-21-5p are elevated in generalized AChR-positive myasthenia gravis and early-onset myasthenia gravis (occurring before age 50) and decline after immunosuppression and thymectomy.¹⁷

Among diagnostic modalities for patients with seronegative myasthenia gravis, said Dr. Kaminski, single-fiber EMG is the most sensitive, at approximately 95%. “It’s not perfect.” Moreover, he said, performing this test accurately requires a highly experienced expert, which many treatment centers lack.

Presently, added Dr. Kaminski, orbital MRI is neither specific nor sensitive enough to be clinically useful. “One needs to be careful with these specialized tests that are published from the best laboratory in the world that does the test, and does it repetitively.” As the search for effective myasthenia gravis biomarkers continues, avoiding false-positive results is as important as avoiding false negatives.

References

1. Bubuioc AM et al. J Med Life. 2021 Jan-Mar;14(1):7-16. doi: 10.25122/jml-2020-0145.

2. Deenen JC et al. J Neuromuscul Dis. 2015;2(1):73-85. doi: 10.3233/JND-140045.

3. Kaminski HJ et al. J Clin Invest. 2024 Jun 17;134(12):e179742. doi: 10.1172/JCI179742.

4. Howard JF Jr et al. Lancet Neurol. 2017 Dec;16(12):976-986. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30369-1.

5. Huda R. Front Immunol. 2020 Feb 21:11:240. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00240.

6. Howard JF Jr et al. Lancet Neurol. 2023 May;22(5):395-406. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00080-7.

7. Vu T et al. NEJM Evid. 2022 May;1(5):EVIDoa2100066. doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2100066.

8. Tice JA et al. October 20, 2021. https://icer.org/assessment/myasthenia-gravis/.

9. Yin J et al. Eur J Neurol. 2024 Aug;31(8):e16322. doi: 10.1111/ene.16322.

10. Antozzi C et al. EAN 2024, Abstract EPR-116. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000203660.

11. Yan C et al. JAMA Neurol. 2024 Mar 4;81(4):336-345. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0044.

12. Howard JF Jr et al. Lancet Neurol. 2021 Jul;20(7):526-536. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00159-9.

13. Stathopoulos P et al. JCI Insight. 2017 Sep 7;2(17):e94263. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.94263.

14. Cartesian Therapeutics. Cartesian Therapeutics announces positive topline results from phase 2b trial of Descartes-08 in patients with myasthenia gravis. 2024 Jul 2. https://ir.cartesiantherapeutics.com/news-releases/news-release-details/cartesian-therapeutics-announces-positive-topline-results-phase.

15. Howard JF Jr et al. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2024 Apr 17:17:17562864241243186. doi: 10.1177/17562864241243186.

16. Cleanthous S et al. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2021 Oct 30;16(1):457. doi: 10.1186/s13023-021-02064-0.

17. Sabre L et al. Front Immunol. 2020 Mar 4:11:213. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00213.

Unlike conventional immunosuppression, treatments approved since 2017 are giving patients with myasthenia gravis targeted options to better match their needs, desires, and tolerance. Used appropriately, newer treatments can provide dramatic results faster and more safely than broad immunosuppressants. However, according to experts, payers’ willingness to cover costly new therapies remains a work in progress.

The availability of more effective treatments with fewer side effects has brought about a cultural shift, said James F. Howard, Jr, MD. “The physician’s goal now is for the patient to be symptom free with grade 1 or less adverse events. And patients are demanding freedom from all the side effects that our usual course of immune therapy produces.” Dr. Howard is professor of neurology, medicine and allied health and director of the Myasthenia Gravis Clinical Trials and Translational Research Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

courtesy University of North Carolina

The shift has been long in coming. Although myasthenia gravis was identified in the mid-1600s, it took more than 340 years to get the first drug approved specifically for the disorder.

Worldwide prevalence estimates vary widely, from less than 200,000 to 700,000 cases.^1,2 Pathophysiologically, myasthenia gravis stems from autoimmune destruction of neuromuscular junctions (NMJs), which transmit motor neuron impulses to muscle fibers.¹ Symptoms include variable skeletal muscle weakness that can range from mild and transient to life-threatening.

In approximately 80% of cases, autoimmune antibodies target the postsynaptic acetylcholine receptor (AChR). Additional autoimmune targets mainly include muscle-specific kinase (MuSK) and lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 (LRP4). However, around 10% of patients are seronegative, lacking autoantibodies detectable through conventional radioimmunoassays. Clinical disease does not always correspond with circulating antibody levels, and pathogenesis may require cooperation between multiple autoantibodies attacking the same target.³ Around 10% of MG cases are associated with thymomas.

Among myasthenia gravis treatments, immunosuppressants typically take 4-10 months to begin working and 18-36 months for maximum benefit. “Our new targeted therapies work within 1-2 weeks, with maximum improvement occurring somewhere between 8 and 12 weeks,” Dr. Howard said. Quick onset makes these drugs well suited for primary therapy in recalcitrant myasthenia gravis or as bridges to standard immunotherapy. Targeted drugs also appear to provide effective rescue therapy, although head-to-head studies are needed.
 

Complement Inhibition

In AChR antibody–positive myasthenia gravis, autoantibody binding with the postsynaptic AChR receptor activates complement to attack postsynaptic neuronal membrane. Complement inhibitors approved to date block activation of the terminal complement protein C5.

courtesy George Washington University

For many patients, complement inhibitors deliver dramatic results. Henry J. Kaminski, MD, said that the first patient for whom he prescribed a complement inhibitor outside a clinical trial went from being miserable to traveling internationally within a month. Dr. Kaminski is Meta A. Neumann Professor of Neurology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. 

Eculizumab (Soliris, Alexion), earned Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for myasthenia gravis in 2017. Week 26 results in the phase 3 REGAIN trial showed no significant difference in Myasthenia Gravis–Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scores between treatment and placebo. However, said Dr. Howard, primary investigator on the study, the negative result was a statistical aberration stemming from the FDA’s requirement to use worst-rank analysis rather than absolute change scores. What got eculizumab approved were highly positive results in the overwhelming majority of secondary endpoints.⁴ Subsequently, the FDA had the manufacturer rewrite the package insert using common statistical methods, which yielded positive primary results.

Ravulizumab (Ultomiris, Alexion), approved for myasthenia gravis in 2022, reduces eculizumab’s twice-monthly intravenous dosing to every 2 months (after loading doses), with very similar efficacy. The newest complement inhibitor, zilucoplan (Zilbrysq, UCB), administered once daily subcutaneously, earned FDA approval in 2023. Daily subcutaneous dosing provides patient convenience, said Dr. Howard. Because the body does not clear this small molecule as it would a full-size antibody, it is the only complement inhibitor that can be combined with a fragment crystallizable neonatal receptor (FcRn) inhibitor.
 

FcRn Inhibition

The FcRn exists on the surface and intracellular vesicles of many cells, including B cells, but not T cells.⁵FcRn inhibitors block binding of circulating IgG antibodies to the FcRn, preventing their normal recycling, significantly reducing circulating antibodies within days of treatment.

Efgartigimod (Vyvgart, Argenx), earned FDA approval in intravenous form in 2021, followed by a subcutaneous formulation that includes hyaluronidase (Vyvgart Hytrulo) in 2023. Rozanolixizumab (Rystiggo, UCB) earned FDA approval for both AChR antibody–positive and MuSK antibody–positive myasthenia gravis in 2023.

Along with rapid response, said Dr. Howard, complement inhibitors and FcRn inhibitors offer a “hugely improved” side-effect profile. In phase 3 research, the most common side effects for both classes included headache, nausea, and diarrhea.^4,6,7 Because complement inhibitors increase the risk of Neisseria infection, users require immunization against meningococcal infection (or concurrent antibiotic prophylaxis) while on complement inhibitors.
 

Insurance Issues

With many clinicians wondering which targeted therapy to choose for a particular patient, said Dr. Howard and Dr. Kaminski, the main obstacle to wider use of these treatments is payer attitudes and practices. “While many of us would like to see these drugs used earlier in the course of disease,” Dr. Howard explained, “there are numerous restrictions placed on the physician and the patient by whatever insurance the individual has.”

Dr. Kaminski said: “There’s a lot of variability among insurance companies regarding what is expected in terms of getting approval for a certain medication. It frustrates me, thinking this patient may do well with a complement inhibitor or an FcRn inhibitor, but it takes weeks to get them approved.”

Some of his patients have been approved for, and flourished on, complement inhibitors and FcRn inhibitors, he added, and then denied a second round of treatment. Dr. Kaminski said he does not know why these patients were denied, and every time he requests reevaluation, the decision is reversed. “That’s a significant time frame for me and my staff to manage.”

When asked what can be done to address high drug prices, Dr. Howard replied, “I have no idea. I’m not an advocate of high drug prices. But I don’t think people realize the cost of doing clinical trials, which is hundreds of millions of dollars, particularly in rare diseases.”

Presently, Dr. Howard said, FcRn inhibitors are used more frequently than complement inhibitors solely because of cost. Zilucoplan will be priced below existing complement inhibitors, although it is too soon to compare its price with those of FcRn inhibitors.

When eculizumab debuted, said Dr. Howard, it cost nearly $750,000 annually. “But if you look at the number of patients treated, the cost of the drug over this population is probably less than the cost for using a cholesterol-lowering agent to treat hyperlipidemia.”

An Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) report stated that eculizumab and efgartigimod should both cost less than $20,000 annually to meet commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.⁸ However, Dr. Howard said ICER used models based on common diseases and ignored the economic impact of patients’ losing fewer workdays and avoiding long-term immunosuppressant side effects such as diabetes and osteoporosis and related treatment costs. “We’ve got to start looking at total societal cost,” he said.

Leapfrogging Ahead

Not all the new drugs work in every indicated patient, Dr. Howard said. For example, up to 30% of patients do not respond to complement inhibitors. “We don’t understand why. It’s as if we have leapfrogged way ahead in terms of therapeutics, and now we have to go back and answer all the questions – the who, what, where, and why of an individual drug and its response in folks.”

In this climate, said Dr. Kaminski, heavy direct-to-consumer advertising of newer myasthenia gravis therapies creates complications. “My patients are highly excited to see, ‘that’s my disease being advertised on Jeopardy.’ ” Many patients are frustrated with the general lack of awareness regarding myasthenia gravis, he added. “But then I’ve had patients who clearly would never qualify for a certain medication getting mailings to their homes.”

Dr. Howard countered that broader awareness of myasthenia gravis can only help. “There’s increasing recognition of the disease, not only by patients, but to some extent, by the treating clinician. Patients are coming to our offices and saying, ‘am I a candidate for this new drug?’ It’s the responsibility of the clinician to decide.”

Individual physicians’ practice patterns vary greatly, said Dr. Kaminski, and very little quantitative data exist here. But based on personal communications, academic-center neurologists tend to use targeted treatments on patients who have failed conventional treatments.

Conversely, Dr. Howard said that, because community physicians rarely see myasthenia gravis, and targeted treatments remain relatively new, many of these providers rely on prednisone, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil.
 

B-Cell Blockers in Development

Overall, said Dr. Howard, the field of myasthenia gravis treatment development is “very rich. And pharma’s interest in myasthenia has taken off like a rocket. It’s exceptionally gratifying to those of us who take care of these patients whose life is miserable” because of adverse effects and/or nonresponse to current drugs.

“In myasthenia,” added Dr. Kaminski, “we know that T cells are promoting the activity of these auto-reactive B cells.” Many drugs currently in phase 2 or 3 development aim to eliminate B cells or signaling between T and B cells, he said. “That’s where most of the drug development is.”

Leading candidates include telitacicept (Tai’ai, RemeGen), which is both a B-lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferation-inducing ligand. A phase 3 trial (NCT05737160) is ongoing, with primary completion expected in late 2026. A second phase 3 trial (NCT06456580) recently began enrolling. Dr. Howard said that, although early results warranted phase 3 analysis, telitacicept’s phase 2 trial was open label and lacked a placebo group.⁹ The latter is a critical concern because placebo response rates in myasthenia gravis trials average 35%-40%.

Combined with standard care, the FcRn inhibitor nipocalimab (Johnson & Johnson) enabled patients with AChR, MuSK, and/or LRP4 autoantibodies to improve by 4.70 points on the MG-ADL vs 3.25 points for placebo (P = .002) over 24 weeks in phase ^3.10All FcRn inhibitors in development can broadly reduce autoantibody levels, said Dr. Howard. “But what role they will play in myasthenia gravis when they’re several years behind leaders in the field in terms of capturing market remains to be seen.”

Additionally, batoclimab (Immunovant/Harbour BioMed) showed positive topline results in phase 3, and an elevated rate of hypercholesterolemia in treated patients that was transient and consistent with previous research.¹¹ Subsequent to efgartigimod, Dr. Howard said, FcRn inhibitors are full-size antibodies. “I believe that contributes to the adverse events that we see. Efgartigimod is a small FcRn fragment. That’s why it’s a cleaner drug, if you will.”

FcRn inhibitors require periodic retreatment. For example, said Dr. Howard, the ADAPT phase 3 trial of efgartigimod, on which he was lead investigator, employed a cyclic dosing schedule – 4 weeks’ treatment, then observation until patients needed retreatment — because patients demanded it.¹² In clinical practice, some patients have gone more than 25 weeks before needing retreatment. One of his patients went beyond 40 weeks. “Others only get around 6-9 weeks. So patient choice again enters the decision-making process.”

Rituximab targets the CD20 protein on B cells nonspecifically, producing general immunosuppression. “That’s problematic in producing significant immunosuppression,” said Dr. Kaminski. Nevertheless, he said, rituximab is very effective for most patients with MuSK-specific MG, and its application to this indication has revealed differences between the MuSK subtype and AChR antibody–positive myasthenia. Specifically, MuSK antibody–positive patients have short-lived plasmablasts, which rituximab eliminates.¹³

Conversely, said Dr. Kaminski, patients with AChR antibody-positive myasthenia, especially long-term, likely have long-lived plasmablasts producing antibodies. This fact, and these patients’ lack of CD20, likely explain their poor response to rituximab.

A phase 3 trial (NCT04524273) of the CD19 blocker inebilizumab (Uplinza, Amgen) reached primary completion in May. Dr. Howard said that if topline results (unreleased at press time) prove positive, inebilizumab could replace rituximab in MG — provided payers do not reject inebilizumab because of cost.

Packed Early-Development Pipeline

Regarding early-stage projects, said Dr. Howard, the pipeline is packed with compounds that target various aspects of the immune system. “The real question with those is, what’s going to be the side effect profile? All of the trials are very early. We need bigger trials with much longer observation for safety, durability, and degree of efficacy.”

The next potential B cell–targeting game changer, he said, is chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell–based therapy. In a phase 2b trial of Descartes-08 (Cartesian Therapeutics), 71% of treated patients experienced clinically meaningful improvement in MG Composite score at 3 months vs 25% for placebo.¹⁴

In early clinical trials, said Dr. Howard, patients treated with Descartes-08 — which uses autologous mRNA to target B-cell maturation antigen — have shown “exceptional improvement” lasting 20 or more months. Because the drug is not ingrained permanently into the genome, Descartes-08 avoids potentially severe side effects of DNA-targeting CAR T candidates. Dr. Howard hopes a phase 3 trial will commence around January 2025.

The tolerance approach exemplified by CNP-106 (COUR Pharmaceuticals) and a myasthenia gravis tolerogen (Toleranzia) seeks to prevent the immune system from recognizing and reacting to the NMJ abnormalities that produce myasthenia gravis, potentially providing a cure. “We look forward to those trials as they come online in the next 1-2 years,” said Dr. Howard.
 

Unmet Needs

Historically, neurologists believed that all myasthenia gravis symptoms stemmed from muscle fatigue — the more active the muscle, the weaker it gets. However, said Dr. Kaminski, some patients might lack measurable weakness but still complain of fatigue.

Elevated levels of cytokines such as interleukin (IL)–6 or IL-17 also can produce fatigue, he noted. “With the drugs we’re using, certainly the new ones, we’re not specifically targeting this fatigue phenomenon, which has been studied in a very limited fashion.”

In the RAISE-XT zilucoplan trial, participants experienced significant improvement in fatigue scores for up to 60 weeks.¹⁵ Although zilucoplan does not address fatigue directly, said Dr. Howard, improving myasthenia gravis overall helps reduce fatigue.

The Myasthenia Gravis Symptoms Patient Reported Outcome (MG Symptoms PRO), which Dr. Kaminski helped develop, includes questions designed to distinguish muscular fatigue from overall physical fatigue.¹⁶ “I’m very interested in some of the information that’s coming out on long COVID and its effect on muscle,” Dr. Kaminski added. “We might be able to learn from there that there’s still some pathology going on beyond the neuromuscular junction.”

What the field desperately needs, said Dr. Howard, are biomarkers to identify which patients will and will not respond to certain therapeutics. “We’re not there yet.” Such biomarkers are at least 3-7 years from becoming clinical reality.

Promising antibody-independent serum markers include circulating microRNAs. For example, miRNA-150-5p and miRNA-21-5p are elevated in generalized AChR-positive myasthenia gravis and early-onset myasthenia gravis (occurring before age 50) and decline after immunosuppression and thymectomy.¹⁷

Among diagnostic modalities for patients with seronegative myasthenia gravis, said Dr. Kaminski, single-fiber EMG is the most sensitive, at approximately 95%. “It’s not perfect.” Moreover, he said, performing this test accurately requires a highly experienced expert, which many treatment centers lack.

Presently, added Dr. Kaminski, orbital MRI is neither specific nor sensitive enough to be clinically useful. “One needs to be careful with these specialized tests that are published from the best laboratory in the world that does the test, and does it repetitively.” As the search for effective myasthenia gravis biomarkers continues, avoiding false-positive results is as important as avoiding false negatives.

References

1. Bubuioc AM et al. J Med Life. 2021 Jan-Mar;14(1):7-16. doi: 10.25122/jml-2020-0145.

2. Deenen JC et al. J Neuromuscul Dis. 2015;2(1):73-85. doi: 10.3233/JND-140045.

3. Kaminski HJ et al. J Clin Invest. 2024 Jun 17;134(12):e179742. doi: 10.1172/JCI179742.

4. Howard JF Jr et al. Lancet Neurol. 2017 Dec;16(12):976-986. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30369-1.

5. Huda R. Front Immunol. 2020 Feb 21:11:240. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00240.

6. Howard JF Jr et al. Lancet Neurol. 2023 May;22(5):395-406. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00080-7.

7. Vu T et al. NEJM Evid. 2022 May;1(5):EVIDoa2100066. doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2100066.

8. Tice JA et al. October 20, 2021. https://icer.org/assessment/myasthenia-gravis/.

9. Yin J et al. Eur J Neurol. 2024 Aug;31(8):e16322. doi: 10.1111/ene.16322.

10. Antozzi C et al. EAN 2024, Abstract EPR-116. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000203660.

11. Yan C et al. JAMA Neurol. 2024 Mar 4;81(4):336-345. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0044.

12. Howard JF Jr et al. Lancet Neurol. 2021 Jul;20(7):526-536. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00159-9.

13. Stathopoulos P et al. JCI Insight. 2017 Sep 7;2(17):e94263. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.94263.

14. Cartesian Therapeutics. Cartesian Therapeutics announces positive topline results from phase 2b trial of Descartes-08 in patients with myasthenia gravis. 2024 Jul 2. https://ir.cartesiantherapeutics.com/news-releases/news-release-details/cartesian-therapeutics-announces-positive-topline-results-phase.

15. Howard JF Jr et al. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2024 Apr 17:17:17562864241243186. doi: 10.1177/17562864241243186.

16. Cleanthous S et al. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2021 Oct 30;16(1):457. doi: 10.1186/s13023-021-02064-0.

17. Sabre L et al. Front Immunol. 2020 Mar 4:11:213. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00213.

Unlike conventional immunosuppression, treatments approved since 2017 are giving patients with myasthenia gravis targeted options to better match their needs, desires, and tolerance. Used appropriately, newer treatments can provide dramatic results faster and more safely than broad immunosuppressants. However, according to experts, payers’ willingness to cover costly new therapies remains a work in progress.

The availability of more effective treatments with fewer side effects has brought about a cultural shift, said James F. Howard, Jr, MD. “The physician’s goal now is for the patient to be symptom free with grade 1 or less adverse events. And patients are demanding freedom from all the side effects that our usual course of immune therapy produces.” Dr. Howard is professor of neurology, medicine and allied health and director of the Myasthenia Gravis Clinical Trials and Translational Research Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

courtesy University of North Carolina

The shift has been long in coming. Although myasthenia gravis was identified in the mid-1600s, it took more than 340 years to get the first drug approved specifically for the disorder.

Worldwide prevalence estimates vary widely, from less than 200,000 to 700,000 cases.^1,2 Pathophysiologically, myasthenia gravis stems from autoimmune destruction of neuromuscular junctions (NMJs), which transmit motor neuron impulses to muscle fibers.¹ Symptoms include variable skeletal muscle weakness that can range from mild and transient to life-threatening.

In approximately 80% of cases, autoimmune antibodies target the postsynaptic acetylcholine receptor (AChR). Additional autoimmune targets mainly include muscle-specific kinase (MuSK) and lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 (LRP4). However, around 10% of patients are seronegative, lacking autoantibodies detectable through conventional radioimmunoassays. Clinical disease does not always correspond with circulating antibody levels, and pathogenesis may require cooperation between multiple autoantibodies attacking the same target.³ Around 10% of MG cases are associated with thymomas.

Among myasthenia gravis treatments, immunosuppressants typically take 4-10 months to begin working and 18-36 months for maximum benefit. “Our new targeted therapies work within 1-2 weeks, with maximum improvement occurring somewhere between 8 and 12 weeks,” Dr. Howard said. Quick onset makes these drugs well suited for primary therapy in recalcitrant myasthenia gravis or as bridges to standard immunotherapy. Targeted drugs also appear to provide effective rescue therapy, although head-to-head studies are needed.
 

Complement Inhibition

In AChR antibody–positive myasthenia gravis, autoantibody binding with the postsynaptic AChR receptor activates complement to attack postsynaptic neuronal membrane. Complement inhibitors approved to date block activation of the terminal complement protein C5.

courtesy George Washington University

For many patients, complement inhibitors deliver dramatic results. Henry J. Kaminski, MD, said that the first patient for whom he prescribed a complement inhibitor outside a clinical trial went from being miserable to traveling internationally within a month. Dr. Kaminski is Meta A. Neumann Professor of Neurology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. 

Eculizumab (Soliris, Alexion), earned Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for myasthenia gravis in 2017. Week 26 results in the phase 3 REGAIN trial showed no significant difference in Myasthenia Gravis–Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scores between treatment and placebo. However, said Dr. Howard, primary investigator on the study, the negative result was a statistical aberration stemming from the FDA’s requirement to use worst-rank analysis rather than absolute change scores. What got eculizumab approved were highly positive results in the overwhelming majority of secondary endpoints.⁴ Subsequently, the FDA had the manufacturer rewrite the package insert using common statistical methods, which yielded positive primary results.

Ravulizumab (Ultomiris, Alexion), approved for myasthenia gravis in 2022, reduces eculizumab’s twice-monthly intravenous dosing to every 2 months (after loading doses), with very similar efficacy. The newest complement inhibitor, zilucoplan (Zilbrysq, UCB), administered once daily subcutaneously, earned FDA approval in 2023. Daily subcutaneous dosing provides patient convenience, said Dr. Howard. Because the body does not clear this small molecule as it would a full-size antibody, it is the only complement inhibitor that can be combined with a fragment crystallizable neonatal receptor (FcRn) inhibitor.
 

FcRn Inhibition

The FcRn exists on the surface and intracellular vesicles of many cells, including B cells, but not T cells.⁵FcRn inhibitors block binding of circulating IgG antibodies to the FcRn, preventing their normal recycling, significantly reducing circulating antibodies within days of treatment.

Efgartigimod (Vyvgart, Argenx), earned FDA approval in intravenous form in 2021, followed by a subcutaneous formulation that includes hyaluronidase (Vyvgart Hytrulo) in 2023. Rozanolixizumab (Rystiggo, UCB) earned FDA approval for both AChR antibody–positive and MuSK antibody–positive myasthenia gravis in 2023.

Along with rapid response, said Dr. Howard, complement inhibitors and FcRn inhibitors offer a “hugely improved” side-effect profile. In phase 3 research, the most common side effects for both classes included headache, nausea, and diarrhea.^4,6,7 Because complement inhibitors increase the risk of Neisseria infection, users require immunization against meningococcal infection (or concurrent antibiotic prophylaxis) while on complement inhibitors.
 

Insurance Issues

With many clinicians wondering which targeted therapy to choose for a particular patient, said Dr. Howard and Dr. Kaminski, the main obstacle to wider use of these treatments is payer attitudes and practices. “While many of us would like to see these drugs used earlier in the course of disease,” Dr. Howard explained, “there are numerous restrictions placed on the physician and the patient by whatever insurance the individual has.”

Dr. Kaminski said: “There’s a lot of variability among insurance companies regarding what is expected in terms of getting approval for a certain medication. It frustrates me, thinking this patient may do well with a complement inhibitor or an FcRn inhibitor, but it takes weeks to get them approved.”

Some of his patients have been approved for, and flourished on, complement inhibitors and FcRn inhibitors, he added, and then denied a second round of treatment. Dr. Kaminski said he does not know why these patients were denied, and every time he requests reevaluation, the decision is reversed. “That’s a significant time frame for me and my staff to manage.”

When asked what can be done to address high drug prices, Dr. Howard replied, “I have no idea. I’m not an advocate of high drug prices. But I don’t think people realize the cost of doing clinical trials, which is hundreds of millions of dollars, particularly in rare diseases.”

Presently, Dr. Howard said, FcRn inhibitors are used more frequently than complement inhibitors solely because of cost. Zilucoplan will be priced below existing complement inhibitors, although it is too soon to compare its price with those of FcRn inhibitors.

When eculizumab debuted, said Dr. Howard, it cost nearly $750,000 annually. “But if you look at the number of patients treated, the cost of the drug over this population is probably less than the cost for using a cholesterol-lowering agent to treat hyperlipidemia.”

An Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) report stated that eculizumab and efgartigimod should both cost less than $20,000 annually to meet commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.⁸ However, Dr. Howard said ICER used models based on common diseases and ignored the economic impact of patients’ losing fewer workdays and avoiding long-term immunosuppressant side effects such as diabetes and osteoporosis and related treatment costs. “We’ve got to start looking at total societal cost,” he said.

Leapfrogging Ahead

Not all the new drugs work in every indicated patient, Dr. Howard said. For example, up to 30% of patients do not respond to complement inhibitors. “We don’t understand why. It’s as if we have leapfrogged way ahead in terms of therapeutics, and now we have to go back and answer all the questions – the who, what, where, and why of an individual drug and its response in folks.”

In this climate, said Dr. Kaminski, heavy direct-to-consumer advertising of newer myasthenia gravis therapies creates complications. “My patients are highly excited to see, ‘that’s my disease being advertised on Jeopardy.’ ” Many patients are frustrated with the general lack of awareness regarding myasthenia gravis, he added. “But then I’ve had patients who clearly would never qualify for a certain medication getting mailings to their homes.”

Dr. Howard countered that broader awareness of myasthenia gravis can only help. “There’s increasing recognition of the disease, not only by patients, but to some extent, by the treating clinician. Patients are coming to our offices and saying, ‘am I a candidate for this new drug?’ It’s the responsibility of the clinician to decide.”

Individual physicians’ practice patterns vary greatly, said Dr. Kaminski, and very little quantitative data exist here. But based on personal communications, academic-center neurologists tend to use targeted treatments on patients who have failed conventional treatments.

Conversely, Dr. Howard said that, because community physicians rarely see myasthenia gravis, and targeted treatments remain relatively new, many of these providers rely on prednisone, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil.
 

B-Cell Blockers in Development

Overall, said Dr. Howard, the field of myasthenia gravis treatment development is “very rich. And pharma’s interest in myasthenia has taken off like a rocket. It’s exceptionally gratifying to those of us who take care of these patients whose life is miserable” because of adverse effects and/or nonresponse to current drugs.

“In myasthenia,” added Dr. Kaminski, “we know that T cells are promoting the activity of these auto-reactive B cells.” Many drugs currently in phase 2 or 3 development aim to eliminate B cells or signaling between T and B cells, he said. “That’s where most of the drug development is.”

Leading candidates include telitacicept (Tai’ai, RemeGen), which is both a B-lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferation-inducing ligand. A phase 3 trial (NCT05737160) is ongoing, with primary completion expected in late 2026. A second phase 3 trial (NCT06456580) recently began enrolling. Dr. Howard said that, although early results warranted phase 3 analysis, telitacicept’s phase 2 trial was open label and lacked a placebo group.⁹ The latter is a critical concern because placebo response rates in myasthenia gravis trials average 35%-40%.

Combined with standard care, the FcRn inhibitor nipocalimab (Johnson & Johnson) enabled patients with AChR, MuSK, and/or LRP4 autoantibodies to improve by 4.70 points on the MG-ADL vs 3.25 points for placebo (P = .002) over 24 weeks in phase ^3.10All FcRn inhibitors in development can broadly reduce autoantibody levels, said Dr. Howard. “But what role they will play in myasthenia gravis when they’re several years behind leaders in the field in terms of capturing market remains to be seen.”

Additionally, batoclimab (Immunovant/Harbour BioMed) showed positive topline results in phase 3, and an elevated rate of hypercholesterolemia in treated patients that was transient and consistent with previous research.¹¹ Subsequent to efgartigimod, Dr. Howard said, FcRn inhibitors are full-size antibodies. “I believe that contributes to the adverse events that we see. Efgartigimod is a small FcRn fragment. That’s why it’s a cleaner drug, if you will.”

FcRn inhibitors require periodic retreatment. For example, said Dr. Howard, the ADAPT phase 3 trial of efgartigimod, on which he was lead investigator, employed a cyclic dosing schedule – 4 weeks’ treatment, then observation until patients needed retreatment — because patients demanded it.¹² In clinical practice, some patients have gone more than 25 weeks before needing retreatment. One of his patients went beyond 40 weeks. “Others only get around 6-9 weeks. So patient choice again enters the decision-making process.”

Rituximab targets the CD20 protein on B cells nonspecifically, producing general immunosuppression. “That’s problematic in producing significant immunosuppression,” said Dr. Kaminski. Nevertheless, he said, rituximab is very effective for most patients with MuSK-specific MG, and its application to this indication has revealed differences between the MuSK subtype and AChR antibody–positive myasthenia. Specifically, MuSK antibody–positive patients have short-lived plasmablasts, which rituximab eliminates.¹³

Conversely, said Dr. Kaminski, patients with AChR antibody-positive myasthenia, especially long-term, likely have long-lived plasmablasts producing antibodies. This fact, and these patients’ lack of CD20, likely explain their poor response to rituximab.

A phase 3 trial (NCT04524273) of the CD19 blocker inebilizumab (Uplinza, Amgen) reached primary completion in May. Dr. Howard said that if topline results (unreleased at press time) prove positive, inebilizumab could replace rituximab in MG — provided payers do not reject inebilizumab because of cost.

Packed Early-Development Pipeline

Regarding early-stage projects, said Dr. Howard, the pipeline is packed with compounds that target various aspects of the immune system. “The real question with those is, what’s going to be the side effect profile? All of the trials are very early. We need bigger trials with much longer observation for safety, durability, and degree of efficacy.”

The next potential B cell–targeting game changer, he said, is chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell–based therapy. In a phase 2b trial of Descartes-08 (Cartesian Therapeutics), 71% of treated patients experienced clinically meaningful improvement in MG Composite score at 3 months vs 25% for placebo.¹⁴

In early clinical trials, said Dr. Howard, patients treated with Descartes-08 — which uses autologous mRNA to target B-cell maturation antigen — have shown “exceptional improvement” lasting 20 or more months. Because the drug is not ingrained permanently into the genome, Descartes-08 avoids potentially severe side effects of DNA-targeting CAR T candidates. Dr. Howard hopes a phase 3 trial will commence around January 2025.

The tolerance approach exemplified by CNP-106 (COUR Pharmaceuticals) and a myasthenia gravis tolerogen (Toleranzia) seeks to prevent the immune system from recognizing and reacting to the NMJ abnormalities that produce myasthenia gravis, potentially providing a cure. “We look forward to those trials as they come online in the next 1-2 years,” said Dr. Howard.
 

Unmet Needs

Historically, neurologists believed that all myasthenia gravis symptoms stemmed from muscle fatigue — the more active the muscle, the weaker it gets. However, said Dr. Kaminski, some patients might lack measurable weakness but still complain of fatigue.

Elevated levels of cytokines such as interleukin (IL)–6 or IL-17 also can produce fatigue, he noted. “With the drugs we’re using, certainly the new ones, we’re not specifically targeting this fatigue phenomenon, which has been studied in a very limited fashion.”

In the RAISE-XT zilucoplan trial, participants experienced significant improvement in fatigue scores for up to 60 weeks.¹⁵ Although zilucoplan does not address fatigue directly, said Dr. Howard, improving myasthenia gravis overall helps reduce fatigue.

The Myasthenia Gravis Symptoms Patient Reported Outcome (MG Symptoms PRO), which Dr. Kaminski helped develop, includes questions designed to distinguish muscular fatigue from overall physical fatigue.¹⁶ “I’m very interested in some of the information that’s coming out on long COVID and its effect on muscle,” Dr. Kaminski added. “We might be able to learn from there that there’s still some pathology going on beyond the neuromuscular junction.”

What the field desperately needs, said Dr. Howard, are biomarkers to identify which patients will and will not respond to certain therapeutics. “We’re not there yet.” Such biomarkers are at least 3-7 years from becoming clinical reality.

Promising antibody-independent serum markers include circulating microRNAs. For example, miRNA-150-5p and miRNA-21-5p are elevated in generalized AChR-positive myasthenia gravis and early-onset myasthenia gravis (occurring before age 50) and decline after immunosuppression and thymectomy.¹⁷

Among diagnostic modalities for patients with seronegative myasthenia gravis, said Dr. Kaminski, single-fiber EMG is the most sensitive, at approximately 95%. “It’s not perfect.” Moreover, he said, performing this test accurately requires a highly experienced expert, which many treatment centers lack.

Presently, added Dr. Kaminski, orbital MRI is neither specific nor sensitive enough to be clinically useful. “One needs to be careful with these specialized tests that are published from the best laboratory in the world that does the test, and does it repetitively.” As the search for effective myasthenia gravis biomarkers continues, avoiding false-positive results is as important as avoiding false negatives.

References

1. Bubuioc AM et al. J Med Life. 2021 Jan-Mar;14(1):7-16. doi: 10.25122/jml-2020-0145.

2. Deenen JC et al. J Neuromuscul Dis. 2015;2(1):73-85. doi: 10.3233/JND-140045.

3. Kaminski HJ et al. J Clin Invest. 2024 Jun 17;134(12):e179742. doi: 10.1172/JCI179742.

4. Howard JF Jr et al. Lancet Neurol. 2017 Dec;16(12):976-986. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30369-1.

5. Huda R. Front Immunol. 2020 Feb 21:11:240. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00240.

6. Howard JF Jr et al. Lancet Neurol. 2023 May;22(5):395-406. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00080-7.

7. Vu T et al. NEJM Evid. 2022 May;1(5):EVIDoa2100066. doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2100066.

8. Tice JA et al. October 20, 2021. https://icer.org/assessment/myasthenia-gravis/.

9. Yin J et al. Eur J Neurol. 2024 Aug;31(8):e16322. doi: 10.1111/ene.16322.

10. Antozzi C et al. EAN 2024, Abstract EPR-116. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000203660.

11. Yan C et al. JAMA Neurol. 2024 Mar 4;81(4):336-345. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0044.

12. Howard JF Jr et al. Lancet Neurol. 2021 Jul;20(7):526-536. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00159-9.

13. Stathopoulos P et al. JCI Insight. 2017 Sep 7;2(17):e94263. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.94263.

14. Cartesian Therapeutics. Cartesian Therapeutics announces positive topline results from phase 2b trial of Descartes-08 in patients with myasthenia gravis. 2024 Jul 2. https://ir.cartesiantherapeutics.com/news-releases/news-release-details/cartesian-therapeutics-announces-positive-topline-results-phase.

15. Howard JF Jr et al. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2024 Apr 17:17:17562864241243186. doi: 10.1177/17562864241243186.

16. Cleanthous S et al. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2021 Oct 30;16(1):457. doi: 10.1186/s13023-021-02064-0.

17. Sabre L et al. Front Immunol. 2020 Mar 4:11:213. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00213.

In a recent study, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) had half the rate of amyloid beta pathology versus matched controls without MS, supporting authors’ suspicion that MS may protect against Alzheimer’s disease. Understanding how MS does this may drive new treatment strategies, said the authors of the study, which was published online in Annals of Neurology. Regarding current treatments, they added, the availability of new disease-modifying Alzheimer’s disease therapies increases the importance of early diagnosis in cognitively impaired people including those with MS.

Confirmatory Studies Needed

“Replication and confirmation of these findings, including in studies representative of the real-world Alzheimer’s population in race/ethnicity and sex/gender, are needed before any clinical implications can be drawn,” said Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach. She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

The study’s most important immediate implication, said Dr. Sexton, is that it “opens the door to questions about why MS may be associated with Alzheimer’s risk.”

Alzheimer&#039;s Association

Anecdotal Observation

Although life expectancy for people with MS is increasing, the authors, led by Matthew R. Brier, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said they have seen no concomitant rise in Alzheimer’s disease dementia among their patients with MS. This anecdotal observation fueled their hypothesis that Alzheimer’s disease pathology occurs less frequently in this population.

To test their hypothesis, the investigators sequentially enrolled 100 patients with MS (age 60 years or older), along with 300 non-MS controls matched for age, sex, apolipoprotein E (apoE) proteotype, and cognitive status. All participants underwent the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and PrecivityAD2 (C2N Diagnostics) blood testing.

Washngton University

Possible Explanations

The authors hypothesized that the lower rate of amyloid pathology observed in their patients with MS may stem from the following possibly overlapping mechanisms:

• MS components, such as persistent perilesional immune activity, may inhibit amyloid beta deposition or facilitate its clearance.
• Exposure to MS drugs may impact Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Most study patients with MS were exposed to beta interferons or glatiramer acetate, the authors noted, and 39 had switched to high-efficacy medications such as B-cell depleting therapies and natalizumab.
• MS’s genetic signature may protect against AD.

“Investigating these ideas would advance our understanding of the relationship between MS and Alzheimer’s, and potentially inform avenues for treatment,” said Dr. Sexton. In this regard, the Alzheimer’s Association has funded an ongoing study examining a drug currently used to promote myelin formation in individuals with MS in genetically engineered Alzheimer’s-like mice. Additional Association-funded studies that examine inflammation also may improve understanding of the mechanisms that may link these diseases, said Dr. Sexton. 

The study authors added that unusual cases, such as a study patient who had high amyloid burden by PET but negative APS2 and tau PET, also may shed light on interactions between MS, amyloid pathology, and tau pathology.

Limitations of the present study include the fact that plasma Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers are potentially affected by other conditions as well, according to a study published in Nature Medicine. Additional shortcomings include the MS cohort’s relatively small size and lack of diagnostic confirmation by cerebrospinal fluid. Although MMSE scores among patients with MS were slightly lower, the authors added, this disparity would lead one to expect more, not less, amyloid pathology among these patients if their cognitive impairment resulted from Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Sexton reported no relevant financial interests.

The study was supported by the Hope Center for Neurological Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis and by C2N Diagnostics. Washington University in St. Louis holds equity in C2N Diagnostics and may receive royalties resulting from use of PrecivityAD2.

In a recent study, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) had half the rate of amyloid beta pathology versus matched controls without MS, supporting authors’ suspicion that MS may protect against Alzheimer’s disease. Understanding how MS does this may drive new treatment strategies, said the authors of the study, which was published online in Annals of Neurology. Regarding current treatments, they added, the availability of new disease-modifying Alzheimer’s disease therapies increases the importance of early diagnosis in cognitively impaired people including those with MS.

Confirmatory Studies Needed

“Replication and confirmation of these findings, including in studies representative of the real-world Alzheimer’s population in race/ethnicity and sex/gender, are needed before any clinical implications can be drawn,” said Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach. She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

The study’s most important immediate implication, said Dr. Sexton, is that it “opens the door to questions about why MS may be associated with Alzheimer’s risk.”

Alzheimer&#039;s Association

Anecdotal Observation

Although life expectancy for people with MS is increasing, the authors, led by Matthew R. Brier, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said they have seen no concomitant rise in Alzheimer’s disease dementia among their patients with MS. This anecdotal observation fueled their hypothesis that Alzheimer’s disease pathology occurs less frequently in this population.

To test their hypothesis, the investigators sequentially enrolled 100 patients with MS (age 60 years or older), along with 300 non-MS controls matched for age, sex, apolipoprotein E (apoE) proteotype, and cognitive status. All participants underwent the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and PrecivityAD2 (C2N Diagnostics) blood testing.

Washngton University

Possible Explanations

The authors hypothesized that the lower rate of amyloid pathology observed in their patients with MS may stem from the following possibly overlapping mechanisms:

• MS components, such as persistent perilesional immune activity, may inhibit amyloid beta deposition or facilitate its clearance.
• Exposure to MS drugs may impact Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Most study patients with MS were exposed to beta interferons or glatiramer acetate, the authors noted, and 39 had switched to high-efficacy medications such as B-cell depleting therapies and natalizumab.
• MS’s genetic signature may protect against AD.

“Investigating these ideas would advance our understanding of the relationship between MS and Alzheimer’s, and potentially inform avenues for treatment,” said Dr. Sexton. In this regard, the Alzheimer’s Association has funded an ongoing study examining a drug currently used to promote myelin formation in individuals with MS in genetically engineered Alzheimer’s-like mice. Additional Association-funded studies that examine inflammation also may improve understanding of the mechanisms that may link these diseases, said Dr. Sexton. 

The study authors added that unusual cases, such as a study patient who had high amyloid burden by PET but negative APS2 and tau PET, also may shed light on interactions between MS, amyloid pathology, and tau pathology.

Limitations of the present study include the fact that plasma Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers are potentially affected by other conditions as well, according to a study published in Nature Medicine. Additional shortcomings include the MS cohort’s relatively small size and lack of diagnostic confirmation by cerebrospinal fluid. Although MMSE scores among patients with MS were slightly lower, the authors added, this disparity would lead one to expect more, not less, amyloid pathology among these patients if their cognitive impairment resulted from Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Sexton reported no relevant financial interests.

The study was supported by the Hope Center for Neurological Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis and by C2N Diagnostics. Washington University in St. Louis holds equity in C2N Diagnostics and may receive royalties resulting from use of PrecivityAD2.

In a recent study, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) had half the rate of amyloid beta pathology versus matched controls without MS, supporting authors’ suspicion that MS may protect against Alzheimer’s disease. Understanding how MS does this may drive new treatment strategies, said the authors of the study, which was published online in Annals of Neurology. Regarding current treatments, they added, the availability of new disease-modifying Alzheimer’s disease therapies increases the importance of early diagnosis in cognitively impaired people including those with MS.

Confirmatory Studies Needed

“Replication and confirmation of these findings, including in studies representative of the real-world Alzheimer’s population in race/ethnicity and sex/gender, are needed before any clinical implications can be drawn,” said Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach. She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

The study’s most important immediate implication, said Dr. Sexton, is that it “opens the door to questions about why MS may be associated with Alzheimer’s risk.”

Alzheimer&#039;s Association

Anecdotal Observation

Although life expectancy for people with MS is increasing, the authors, led by Matthew R. Brier, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said they have seen no concomitant rise in Alzheimer’s disease dementia among their patients with MS. This anecdotal observation fueled their hypothesis that Alzheimer’s disease pathology occurs less frequently in this population.

To test their hypothesis, the investigators sequentially enrolled 100 patients with MS (age 60 years or older), along with 300 non-MS controls matched for age, sex, apolipoprotein E (apoE) proteotype, and cognitive status. All participants underwent the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and PrecivityAD2 (C2N Diagnostics) blood testing.

Washngton University

Possible Explanations

The authors hypothesized that the lower rate of amyloid pathology observed in their patients with MS may stem from the following possibly overlapping mechanisms:

• MS components, such as persistent perilesional immune activity, may inhibit amyloid beta deposition or facilitate its clearance.
• Exposure to MS drugs may impact Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Most study patients with MS were exposed to beta interferons or glatiramer acetate, the authors noted, and 39 had switched to high-efficacy medications such as B-cell depleting therapies and natalizumab.
• MS’s genetic signature may protect against AD.

“Investigating these ideas would advance our understanding of the relationship between MS and Alzheimer’s, and potentially inform avenues for treatment,” said Dr. Sexton. In this regard, the Alzheimer’s Association has funded an ongoing study examining a drug currently used to promote myelin formation in individuals with MS in genetically engineered Alzheimer’s-like mice. Additional Association-funded studies that examine inflammation also may improve understanding of the mechanisms that may link these diseases, said Dr. Sexton. 

The study authors added that unusual cases, such as a study patient who had high amyloid burden by PET but negative APS2 and tau PET, also may shed light on interactions between MS, amyloid pathology, and tau pathology.

Limitations of the present study include the fact that plasma Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers are potentially affected by other conditions as well, according to a study published in Nature Medicine. Additional shortcomings include the MS cohort’s relatively small size and lack of diagnostic confirmation by cerebrospinal fluid. Although MMSE scores among patients with MS were slightly lower, the authors added, this disparity would lead one to expect more, not less, amyloid pathology among these patients if their cognitive impairment resulted from Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. Sexton reported no relevant financial interests.

The study was supported by the Hope Center for Neurological Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis and by C2N Diagnostics. Washington University in St. Louis holds equity in C2N Diagnostics and may receive royalties resulting from use of PrecivityAD2.

The ability of advanced diffusion MRI (dMRI) techniques to detect microstructural neurological changes in military patients with remote mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) supports wider adoption of these techniques, according to authors of a recent study. In particular, they said, using neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) to monitor long-term mTBI impact on brain regions related to cognitive and emotional processing can help clinicians assess recovery, predict progression, and optimize treatment.

“Currently,” said co-senior study author Ping-Hong Yeh, PhD, “there is a lack of minimally invasive, quantitative diagnostic biomarkers for monitoring progression or recovery after mild TBI. However, mild TBI can be quite disabling, with many patients reporting symptoms months or even years after injury. This is the most difficult part to diagnose.” Dr. Yeh is a researcher at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE) at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

The NICoE, a Department of Defense organization and the senior member of Defense Intrepid Network for Traumatic Brain Injury and Brain Health, is among several centers charged with improving support for injured service members’ recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration into their communities. The overarching goal, said Dr. Yeh, is to enable community neurologists to refer service members and veterans to these centers for treatment and advanced imaging when needed.
 

Invisible Wounds

Limitations of conventional MRI and CT make it tough to discern which patients with mTBI will return to baseline functioning, and which will develop long-term complications. Addressing the silent or invisible wounds of mTBI will require improved diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic tools, he said.

For their study, published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Yeh and colleagues compared diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and NODDI data from 65 male service members with remote (more than 2 years old) mTBI against scans of 33 noninjured controls matched for age, sex, and active-duty status.

“Although DTI is very sensitive in detecting microstructural changes in mild TBI,” he said, “it is not specific to the underlying pathophysiological changes.”

Conversely, NODDI uses biophysical modeling of intracellular diffusion, extracellular diffusion, and free water to help physicians to understand subtle pathophysiological changes with greater sensitivity and specificity than does DTI. “This will allow us to correlate symptoms with brain structural changes, making the invisible wound visible.”

In the study, the greatest differences between injured and control patients appeared in the following NODDI metrics (P <.001 in all analyses):

• Intracellular volume fraction (ICVF) of the right corticospinal tract (CST)
• Orientation dispersion index (ODI) of the left posterior thalamic radiation (PTR)
• ODI of the left uncinate fasciculus (UNC)

Regarding patient-reported neurobehavioral symptoms, Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory cognitive subscores were associated with fractional anisotropy of the left UNC. In addition, PTSD Checklist–Civilian version total scores and avoidance subscores corresponded, respectively, with isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF) of the genu of corpus callosum and with ODI of the left fornix and stria terminalis.
 

Next Steps

Presently, Dr. Yeh said, conventional MRI and CT usually cannot differentiate between axonal injury, axonal inflammation (which develops during the chronic phase of mTBI), and demyelination. “But newer biophysical modeling, such as NODDI, will allow us to tell the difference.” Along with providing prognostic information, he said, such technology can guide appropriate treatment, such as anti-inflammatory agents for chronic inflammation.

Most community neurologists refer patients with persistent mTBI symptoms in the absence of red flags using CT and conventional MRI for advanced neuroimaging, said Dr. Yeh. But because few community neurologists are familiar with NODDI, he said, broadening its reach will require educating these providers. Additional steps that Dr. Yeh said could occur over the next decade or more include boosting advanced dMRI sensitivity levels through improved hardware, software, and diagnostic tools.

“We need to make these techniques clinically feasible,” he added. Currently, protocols that allow advanced dMRI scans in about 10 minutes can be achievable.

The investments required to implement advanced dMRI techniques will be substantial. A state-of-the-art 3T MRI scanner that can support NODDI and DTI can easily cost $1 million, said Dr. Yeh. Factor in additional equipment options and construction costs, he added, and the total price tag can easily exceed $2 million. But rather than replacing all existing MRI systems, said Dr. Yeh, AI one day may help translate high-gradient capability even to widely used lower-field MRI scanners operating at 0.5T.

Streamlining systems that incorporate disparate scanners with different acquisition parameters will require standardized data acquisition and sharing parameters. Along with helping to evaluate new techniques as they become available, data harmonization and sharing can facilitate a shift from research comparisons between large groups to comparing a single patient against many others — a move that Dr. Yeh said must occur for advanced dMRI techniques to achieve clinical relevance.

In addition, experts will need to revise clinical guidelines for use of new technologies as their availability grows. “Improper use of these techniques will not only increase health costs, but also probably result in adverse health results.” Such guidelines could be very useful in evaluating the suitability and quality of referrals for diagnostic images, Dr. Yeh said.

Dr. Yeh reports no relevant financial interests. The project was partially funded by the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.

The ability of advanced diffusion MRI (dMRI) techniques to detect microstructural neurological changes in military patients with remote mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) supports wider adoption of these techniques, according to authors of a recent study. In particular, they said, using neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) to monitor long-term mTBI impact on brain regions related to cognitive and emotional processing can help clinicians assess recovery, predict progression, and optimize treatment.

“Currently,” said co-senior study author Ping-Hong Yeh, PhD, “there is a lack of minimally invasive, quantitative diagnostic biomarkers for monitoring progression or recovery after mild TBI. However, mild TBI can be quite disabling, with many patients reporting symptoms months or even years after injury. This is the most difficult part to diagnose.” Dr. Yeh is a researcher at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE) at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

The NICoE, a Department of Defense organization and the senior member of Defense Intrepid Network for Traumatic Brain Injury and Brain Health, is among several centers charged with improving support for injured service members’ recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration into their communities. The overarching goal, said Dr. Yeh, is to enable community neurologists to refer service members and veterans to these centers for treatment and advanced imaging when needed.
 

Invisible Wounds

Limitations of conventional MRI and CT make it tough to discern which patients with mTBI will return to baseline functioning, and which will develop long-term complications. Addressing the silent or invisible wounds of mTBI will require improved diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic tools, he said.

For their study, published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Yeh and colleagues compared diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and NODDI data from 65 male service members with remote (more than 2 years old) mTBI against scans of 33 noninjured controls matched for age, sex, and active-duty status.

“Although DTI is very sensitive in detecting microstructural changes in mild TBI,” he said, “it is not specific to the underlying pathophysiological changes.”

Conversely, NODDI uses biophysical modeling of intracellular diffusion, extracellular diffusion, and free water to help physicians to understand subtle pathophysiological changes with greater sensitivity and specificity than does DTI. “This will allow us to correlate symptoms with brain structural changes, making the invisible wound visible.”

In the study, the greatest differences between injured and control patients appeared in the following NODDI metrics (P <.001 in all analyses):

• Intracellular volume fraction (ICVF) of the right corticospinal tract (CST)
• Orientation dispersion index (ODI) of the left posterior thalamic radiation (PTR)
• ODI of the left uncinate fasciculus (UNC)

Regarding patient-reported neurobehavioral symptoms, Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory cognitive subscores were associated with fractional anisotropy of the left UNC. In addition, PTSD Checklist–Civilian version total scores and avoidance subscores corresponded, respectively, with isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF) of the genu of corpus callosum and with ODI of the left fornix and stria terminalis.
 

Next Steps

Presently, Dr. Yeh said, conventional MRI and CT usually cannot differentiate between axonal injury, axonal inflammation (which develops during the chronic phase of mTBI), and demyelination. “But newer biophysical modeling, such as NODDI, will allow us to tell the difference.” Along with providing prognostic information, he said, such technology can guide appropriate treatment, such as anti-inflammatory agents for chronic inflammation.

Most community neurologists refer patients with persistent mTBI symptoms in the absence of red flags using CT and conventional MRI for advanced neuroimaging, said Dr. Yeh. But because few community neurologists are familiar with NODDI, he said, broadening its reach will require educating these providers. Additional steps that Dr. Yeh said could occur over the next decade or more include boosting advanced dMRI sensitivity levels through improved hardware, software, and diagnostic tools.

“We need to make these techniques clinically feasible,” he added. Currently, protocols that allow advanced dMRI scans in about 10 minutes can be achievable.

The investments required to implement advanced dMRI techniques will be substantial. A state-of-the-art 3T MRI scanner that can support NODDI and DTI can easily cost $1 million, said Dr. Yeh. Factor in additional equipment options and construction costs, he added, and the total price tag can easily exceed $2 million. But rather than replacing all existing MRI systems, said Dr. Yeh, AI one day may help translate high-gradient capability even to widely used lower-field MRI scanners operating at 0.5T.

Streamlining systems that incorporate disparate scanners with different acquisition parameters will require standardized data acquisition and sharing parameters. Along with helping to evaluate new techniques as they become available, data harmonization and sharing can facilitate a shift from research comparisons between large groups to comparing a single patient against many others — a move that Dr. Yeh said must occur for advanced dMRI techniques to achieve clinical relevance.

In addition, experts will need to revise clinical guidelines for use of new technologies as their availability grows. “Improper use of these techniques will not only increase health costs, but also probably result in adverse health results.” Such guidelines could be very useful in evaluating the suitability and quality of referrals for diagnostic images, Dr. Yeh said.

Dr. Yeh reports no relevant financial interests. The project was partially funded by the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.

The ability of advanced diffusion MRI (dMRI) techniques to detect microstructural neurological changes in military patients with remote mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) supports wider adoption of these techniques, according to authors of a recent study. In particular, they said, using neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) to monitor long-term mTBI impact on brain regions related to cognitive and emotional processing can help clinicians assess recovery, predict progression, and optimize treatment.

“Currently,” said co-senior study author Ping-Hong Yeh, PhD, “there is a lack of minimally invasive, quantitative diagnostic biomarkers for monitoring progression or recovery after mild TBI. However, mild TBI can be quite disabling, with many patients reporting symptoms months or even years after injury. This is the most difficult part to diagnose.” Dr. Yeh is a researcher at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence (NICoE) at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

The NICoE, a Department of Defense organization and the senior member of Defense Intrepid Network for Traumatic Brain Injury and Brain Health, is among several centers charged with improving support for injured service members’ recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration into their communities. The overarching goal, said Dr. Yeh, is to enable community neurologists to refer service members and veterans to these centers for treatment and advanced imaging when needed.
 

Invisible Wounds

Limitations of conventional MRI and CT make it tough to discern which patients with mTBI will return to baseline functioning, and which will develop long-term complications. Addressing the silent or invisible wounds of mTBI will require improved diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic tools, he said.

For their study, published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Yeh and colleagues compared diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and NODDI data from 65 male service members with remote (more than 2 years old) mTBI against scans of 33 noninjured controls matched for age, sex, and active-duty status.

“Although DTI is very sensitive in detecting microstructural changes in mild TBI,” he said, “it is not specific to the underlying pathophysiological changes.”

Conversely, NODDI uses biophysical modeling of intracellular diffusion, extracellular diffusion, and free water to help physicians to understand subtle pathophysiological changes with greater sensitivity and specificity than does DTI. “This will allow us to correlate symptoms with brain structural changes, making the invisible wound visible.”

In the study, the greatest differences between injured and control patients appeared in the following NODDI metrics (P <.001 in all analyses):

• Intracellular volume fraction (ICVF) of the right corticospinal tract (CST)
• Orientation dispersion index (ODI) of the left posterior thalamic radiation (PTR)
• ODI of the left uncinate fasciculus (UNC)

Regarding patient-reported neurobehavioral symptoms, Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory cognitive subscores were associated with fractional anisotropy of the left UNC. In addition, PTSD Checklist–Civilian version total scores and avoidance subscores corresponded, respectively, with isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF) of the genu of corpus callosum and with ODI of the left fornix and stria terminalis.
 

Next Steps

Presently, Dr. Yeh said, conventional MRI and CT usually cannot differentiate between axonal injury, axonal inflammation (which develops during the chronic phase of mTBI), and demyelination. “But newer biophysical modeling, such as NODDI, will allow us to tell the difference.” Along with providing prognostic information, he said, such technology can guide appropriate treatment, such as anti-inflammatory agents for chronic inflammation.

Most community neurologists refer patients with persistent mTBI symptoms in the absence of red flags using CT and conventional MRI for advanced neuroimaging, said Dr. Yeh. But because few community neurologists are familiar with NODDI, he said, broadening its reach will require educating these providers. Additional steps that Dr. Yeh said could occur over the next decade or more include boosting advanced dMRI sensitivity levels through improved hardware, software, and diagnostic tools.

“We need to make these techniques clinically feasible,” he added. Currently, protocols that allow advanced dMRI scans in about 10 minutes can be achievable.

The investments required to implement advanced dMRI techniques will be substantial. A state-of-the-art 3T MRI scanner that can support NODDI and DTI can easily cost $1 million, said Dr. Yeh. Factor in additional equipment options and construction costs, he added, and the total price tag can easily exceed $2 million. But rather than replacing all existing MRI systems, said Dr. Yeh, AI one day may help translate high-gradient capability even to widely used lower-field MRI scanners operating at 0.5T.

Streamlining systems that incorporate disparate scanners with different acquisition parameters will require standardized data acquisition and sharing parameters. Along with helping to evaluate new techniques as they become available, data harmonization and sharing can facilitate a shift from research comparisons between large groups to comparing a single patient against many others — a move that Dr. Yeh said must occur for advanced dMRI techniques to achieve clinical relevance.

In addition, experts will need to revise clinical guidelines for use of new technologies as their availability grows. “Improper use of these techniques will not only increase health costs, but also probably result in adverse health results.” Such guidelines could be very useful in evaluating the suitability and quality of referrals for diagnostic images, Dr. Yeh said.

Dr. Yeh reports no relevant financial interests. The project was partially funded by the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence in sexual minority (SM) Americans varied by race, ethnicity, and individual sexual identity, compared with that in heterosexual peers, according to a large cross-sectional study. Addressing dynamics of each SM subgroup will require increasingly tailored prevention, screening, and research efforts, the study authors said.

“We identified specific subgroups within the sexual minority community who are at higher risk for skin cancer, specifically White gay males and Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black SM men and women — particularly individuals who identify as bisexual,” senior author Matthew Mansh, MD, said in an interview. He is an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Using data of adults in the US general population from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from January 2014 to December 2021, investigators included more than 1.5 million respondents. The proportions of SM women and men (who self-identified as bisexual, lesbian, gay, “something else,” or other) were 2.6% and 2.0%, respectively.

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher among SM men than among heterosexual men (7.4% vs 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.16). In analyses stratified by racial and ethnic group, AORs for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM men vs their heterosexual counterparts were 2.18 and 3.81, respectively. The corresponding figures for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM women were 2.33 and 2.46, respectively.

When investigators combined all minority respondents along gender lines, lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher in bisexual men (aOR, 3.94), bisexual women (aOR, 1.51), and women identifying as something else or other (aOR, 2.70) than in their heterosexual peers.

“I wasn’t expecting that Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black SMs would be at higher risk for skin cancer,” Dr. Mansh said. Even if these groups have more behavioral risk factors for UV radiation (UVR) exposure, he explained, UVR exposure is less strongly linked with skin cancer in darker skin than in lighter skin. Reasons for the counterintuitive finding could include different screening habits among SM people of different racial and ethnic groups, he said, and analyzing such factors will require further research.

Although some effect sizes were modest, the authors wrote, their findings may have important implications for population-based research and public health efforts aimed at early skin cancer detection and prevention. Presently, the United States lacks established guidelines for skin cancer screening. In a 2023 statement published in JAMA, the US Preventive Services Task Force said that there is insufficient evidence to determine the benefit-harm balance of skin cancer screening in asymptomatic people.

“So there has been a lot of recent talk and a need to identify which subset groups of patients might be higher risk for skin cancer and might benefit from more screening,” Dr. Mansh said in an interview. “Understanding more about the high-risk demographic and clinical features that predispose someone to skin cancer helps identify these high-risk populations that could be used to develop better screening guidelines.”

Identifying groups at a higher risk for skin cancer also allows experts to design more targeted counseling or public health interventions focused on these groups, Dr. Mansh added. Absent screening guidelines, experts emphasize changing modifiable risk factors such as UVR exposure, smoking, and alcohol use. “And we know that the message that might change behaviors in a cisgender heterosexual man might be different than in a gay White male or a Hispanic bisexual male.”

A 2017 review showed that interventions to reduce behaviors involving UVR exposure, such as indoor tanning, among young cisgender women focused largely on aging and appearance-based concerns. A 2019 study showed that messages focused on avoiding skin cancer may help motivate SM men to reduce tanning behaviors.

Furthermore, said Dr. Mansh, all electronic health record products available in the United States must provide data fields for sexual orientation. “I don’t believe many dermatologists, depending on the setting, collect that information routinely. Integrating sexual orientation and/or gender identity data into patient intake forms so that it can be integrated into the electronic health record is probably very helpful, not only for your clinical practice but also for future research studies.”

Asked to comment on the results, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, who was not involved with the study, said that its impact on clinical practice will be challenging to ascertain. She is chief of dermatology with the VA Boston Healthcare System, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, and director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, all in Boston, Massachusetts.

“The study found significant adjusted odds ratios,” Dr. Hartman explained, “but for some of the different populations, the overall lifetime rate of skin cancer is still quite low.” For example, 1.0% for SM non-Hispanic Black men or a difference of 2.1% vs 1.8% in SM Hispanic women. “Thus, I am not sure specific screening recommendations are warranted, although some populations, such as Hispanic sexual minority males, seemed to have a much higher risk (3.8-fold on adjusted analysis) that warrants further investigation.”

For now, she advised assessing patients’ risks for skin cancer based on well-established risk factors such as sun exposure/indoor tanning, skin phototype, immunosuppression, and age.

Dr. Mansh reported no relevant conflicts or funding sources for the study. Dr. Hartman reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence in sexual minority (SM) Americans varied by race, ethnicity, and individual sexual identity, compared with that in heterosexual peers, according to a large cross-sectional study. Addressing dynamics of each SM subgroup will require increasingly tailored prevention, screening, and research efforts, the study authors said.

“We identified specific subgroups within the sexual minority community who are at higher risk for skin cancer, specifically White gay males and Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black SM men and women — particularly individuals who identify as bisexual,” senior author Matthew Mansh, MD, said in an interview. He is an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Using data of adults in the US general population from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from January 2014 to December 2021, investigators included more than 1.5 million respondents. The proportions of SM women and men (who self-identified as bisexual, lesbian, gay, “something else,” or other) were 2.6% and 2.0%, respectively.

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher among SM men than among heterosexual men (7.4% vs 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.16). In analyses stratified by racial and ethnic group, AORs for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM men vs their heterosexual counterparts were 2.18 and 3.81, respectively. The corresponding figures for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM women were 2.33 and 2.46, respectively.

When investigators combined all minority respondents along gender lines, lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher in bisexual men (aOR, 3.94), bisexual women (aOR, 1.51), and women identifying as something else or other (aOR, 2.70) than in their heterosexual peers.

“I wasn’t expecting that Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black SMs would be at higher risk for skin cancer,” Dr. Mansh said. Even if these groups have more behavioral risk factors for UV radiation (UVR) exposure, he explained, UVR exposure is less strongly linked with skin cancer in darker skin than in lighter skin. Reasons for the counterintuitive finding could include different screening habits among SM people of different racial and ethnic groups, he said, and analyzing such factors will require further research.

Although some effect sizes were modest, the authors wrote, their findings may have important implications for population-based research and public health efforts aimed at early skin cancer detection and prevention. Presently, the United States lacks established guidelines for skin cancer screening. In a 2023 statement published in JAMA, the US Preventive Services Task Force said that there is insufficient evidence to determine the benefit-harm balance of skin cancer screening in asymptomatic people.

“So there has been a lot of recent talk and a need to identify which subset groups of patients might be higher risk for skin cancer and might benefit from more screening,” Dr. Mansh said in an interview. “Understanding more about the high-risk demographic and clinical features that predispose someone to skin cancer helps identify these high-risk populations that could be used to develop better screening guidelines.”

Identifying groups at a higher risk for skin cancer also allows experts to design more targeted counseling or public health interventions focused on these groups, Dr. Mansh added. Absent screening guidelines, experts emphasize changing modifiable risk factors such as UVR exposure, smoking, and alcohol use. “And we know that the message that might change behaviors in a cisgender heterosexual man might be different than in a gay White male or a Hispanic bisexual male.”

A 2017 review showed that interventions to reduce behaviors involving UVR exposure, such as indoor tanning, among young cisgender women focused largely on aging and appearance-based concerns. A 2019 study showed that messages focused on avoiding skin cancer may help motivate SM men to reduce tanning behaviors.

Furthermore, said Dr. Mansh, all electronic health record products available in the United States must provide data fields for sexual orientation. “I don’t believe many dermatologists, depending on the setting, collect that information routinely. Integrating sexual orientation and/or gender identity data into patient intake forms so that it can be integrated into the electronic health record is probably very helpful, not only for your clinical practice but also for future research studies.”

Asked to comment on the results, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, who was not involved with the study, said that its impact on clinical practice will be challenging to ascertain. She is chief of dermatology with the VA Boston Healthcare System, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, and director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, all in Boston, Massachusetts.

“The study found significant adjusted odds ratios,” Dr. Hartman explained, “but for some of the different populations, the overall lifetime rate of skin cancer is still quite low.” For example, 1.0% for SM non-Hispanic Black men or a difference of 2.1% vs 1.8% in SM Hispanic women. “Thus, I am not sure specific screening recommendations are warranted, although some populations, such as Hispanic sexual minority males, seemed to have a much higher risk (3.8-fold on adjusted analysis) that warrants further investigation.”

For now, she advised assessing patients’ risks for skin cancer based on well-established risk factors such as sun exposure/indoor tanning, skin phototype, immunosuppression, and age.

Dr. Mansh reported no relevant conflicts or funding sources for the study. Dr. Hartman reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence in sexual minority (SM) Americans varied by race, ethnicity, and individual sexual identity, compared with that in heterosexual peers, according to a large cross-sectional study. Addressing dynamics of each SM subgroup will require increasingly tailored prevention, screening, and research efforts, the study authors said.

“We identified specific subgroups within the sexual minority community who are at higher risk for skin cancer, specifically White gay males and Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black SM men and women — particularly individuals who identify as bisexual,” senior author Matthew Mansh, MD, said in an interview. He is an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Using data of adults in the US general population from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from January 2014 to December 2021, investigators included more than 1.5 million respondents. The proportions of SM women and men (who self-identified as bisexual, lesbian, gay, “something else,” or other) were 2.6% and 2.0%, respectively.

Lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher among SM men than among heterosexual men (7.4% vs 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.16). In analyses stratified by racial and ethnic group, AORs for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM men vs their heterosexual counterparts were 2.18 and 3.81, respectively. The corresponding figures for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic SM women were 2.33 and 2.46, respectively.

When investigators combined all minority respondents along gender lines, lifetime skin cancer prevalence was higher in bisexual men (aOR, 3.94), bisexual women (aOR, 1.51), and women identifying as something else or other (aOR, 2.70) than in their heterosexual peers.

“I wasn’t expecting that Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black SMs would be at higher risk for skin cancer,” Dr. Mansh said. Even if these groups have more behavioral risk factors for UV radiation (UVR) exposure, he explained, UVR exposure is less strongly linked with skin cancer in darker skin than in lighter skin. Reasons for the counterintuitive finding could include different screening habits among SM people of different racial and ethnic groups, he said, and analyzing such factors will require further research.

Although some effect sizes were modest, the authors wrote, their findings may have important implications for population-based research and public health efforts aimed at early skin cancer detection and prevention. Presently, the United States lacks established guidelines for skin cancer screening. In a 2023 statement published in JAMA, the US Preventive Services Task Force said that there is insufficient evidence to determine the benefit-harm balance of skin cancer screening in asymptomatic people.

“So there has been a lot of recent talk and a need to identify which subset groups of patients might be higher risk for skin cancer and might benefit from more screening,” Dr. Mansh said in an interview. “Understanding more about the high-risk demographic and clinical features that predispose someone to skin cancer helps identify these high-risk populations that could be used to develop better screening guidelines.”

Identifying groups at a higher risk for skin cancer also allows experts to design more targeted counseling or public health interventions focused on these groups, Dr. Mansh added. Absent screening guidelines, experts emphasize changing modifiable risk factors such as UVR exposure, smoking, and alcohol use. “And we know that the message that might change behaviors in a cisgender heterosexual man might be different than in a gay White male or a Hispanic bisexual male.”

A 2017 review showed that interventions to reduce behaviors involving UVR exposure, such as indoor tanning, among young cisgender women focused largely on aging and appearance-based concerns. A 2019 study showed that messages focused on avoiding skin cancer may help motivate SM men to reduce tanning behaviors.

Furthermore, said Dr. Mansh, all electronic health record products available in the United States must provide data fields for sexual orientation. “I don’t believe many dermatologists, depending on the setting, collect that information routinely. Integrating sexual orientation and/or gender identity data into patient intake forms so that it can be integrated into the electronic health record is probably very helpful, not only for your clinical practice but also for future research studies.”

Asked to comment on the results, Rebecca I. Hartman, MD, MPH, who was not involved with the study, said that its impact on clinical practice will be challenging to ascertain. She is chief of dermatology with the VA Boston Healthcare System, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, and director of melanoma epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, all in Boston, Massachusetts.

“The study found significant adjusted odds ratios,” Dr. Hartman explained, “but for some of the different populations, the overall lifetime rate of skin cancer is still quite low.” For example, 1.0% for SM non-Hispanic Black men or a difference of 2.1% vs 1.8% in SM Hispanic women. “Thus, I am not sure specific screening recommendations are warranted, although some populations, such as Hispanic sexual minority males, seemed to have a much higher risk (3.8-fold on adjusted analysis) that warrants further investigation.”

For now, she advised assessing patients’ risks for skin cancer based on well-established risk factors such as sun exposure/indoor tanning, skin phototype, immunosuppression, and age.

Dr. Mansh reported no relevant conflicts or funding sources for the study. Dr. Hartman reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Avoiding severe skin reactions to antiseizure medications (ASMs) requires assessing patient risk factors and prescribing lower-risk drugs wherever possible, according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.

“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”

courtesy Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.

Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
 

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions

Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.

DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.

When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.

Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
 

Identifying Those at Risk

With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”

Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.

Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.

Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”

Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.

Avoiding severe skin reactions to antiseizure medications (ASMs) requires assessing patient risk factors and prescribing lower-risk drugs wherever possible, according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.

“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”

courtesy Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.

Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
 

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions

Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.

DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.

When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.

Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
 

Identifying Those at Risk

With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”

Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.

Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.

Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”

Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.

Avoiding severe skin reactions to antiseizure medications (ASMs) requires assessing patient risk factors and prescribing lower-risk drugs wherever possible, according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.

“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”

courtesy Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.

Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
 

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions

Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.

DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.

When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.

Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
 

Identifying Those at Risk

With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”

Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.

Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.

Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”

Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.

An intensive lifestyle intervention significantly improved cognition and function in many patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, in what authors said is the first randomized controlled trial of intensive lifestyle modification for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Results could help physicians address patients at risk of Alzheimer’s disease who reject relevant testing because they believe nothing can forestall development of the disease, the authors added. The study was published online in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.

Although technology allows probable Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis years before clinical symptoms appear, wrote investigators led by Dean Ornish, MD, of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, “many people do not want to know if they are likely to get Alzheimer’s disease if they do not believe they can do anything about it. If intensive lifestyle changes may cause improvement in cognition and function in MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, then it is reasonable to think that these lifestyle changes may also help to prevent MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.” As with cardiovascular disease, the authors added, preventing Alzheimer’s disease might require less intensive lifestyle modifications than treating it.
 

Study Methodology

Investigators randomized 26 patients with Montréal Cognitive Assessment scores of 18 or higher to an intensive intervention involving nutrition, exercise, and stress management techniques. To improve adherence, the protocol included participants’ spouses or caregivers.

Two patients, both in the treatment group, withdrew over logistical concerns.

After 20 weeks, treated patients exhibited statistically significant differences in several key measures versus a 25-patient usual-care control group. Scores that improved in the intervention group and worsened among controls included the following:

• Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC, P = .001)
• Clinical Dementia Rating-Global (CDR-Global, -0.04, P = .037)
• Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB, +0.08, P = .032)
• Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog, -1.01, P = .053)

The validity of these changes in cognition and function, and possible biological mechanisms of improvement, were supported by statistically significant improvements in several clinically relevant biomarkers versus controls, the investigators wrote. These biomarkers included Abeta42/40 ratio, HbA1c, insulin, and glycoprotein acetylation. “This information may also help in predicting which patients are more likely to show improvements in cognition and function by making these intensive lifestyle changes,” the authors added.

In primary analysis, the degree of lifestyle changes required to stop progression of MCI ranged from 71.4% (ADAS-Cog) to 120.6% (CDR-SB). “This helps to explain why other studies of less intensive lifestyle interventions may not have been sufficient to stop deterioration or improve cognition and function,” the authors wrote. Moreover, they added, variable adherence might explain why in the intervention group, 10 patients improved their CGIC scores, while the rest held static or worsened.
 

Caveats

Alzheimer’s Association Vice President of Medical and Scientific Relations Heather M. Snyder, PhD, said, “This is an interesting paper in an important area of research and adds to the growing body of literature on how behavior or lifestyle may be related to cognitive decline. However, because this is a small phase 2 study, it is important for this or similar work to be done in larger, more diverse populations and over a longer duration of the intervention.” She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Investigators chose the 20-week duration, they explained, because control-group patients likely would not refrain from trying the lifestyle intervention beyond that timeframe. Perhaps more importantly, challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic required researchers to cut planned enrollment in half, eliminate planned MRI and amyloid PET scans, and reduce the number of cognition and function tests.

Such shortcomings limit what neurologists can glean and generalize from the study, said Dr. Snyder. “That said,” she added, “it does demonstrate the potential of an intensive behavior/lifestyle intervention, and the importance of this sort of research in Alzheimer’s and dementia.” Although the complexity of the interventions makes these studies challenging, she added, “it is important that we continue to advance larger, longer studies in more representative study populations to develop specific recommendations.”
 

Further Study

The Alzheimer’s Association’s U.S. POINTER study is the first large-scale study in the United States to explore the impact of comprehensive lifestyle changes on cognitive health. About 2000 older adults at risk for cognitive decline are participating, from diverse locations across the country. More than 25% of participants come from groups typically underrepresented in dementia research, said Dr. Snyder. Initial results are expected in summer 2025.

Future research also should explore reasons (beyond adherence) why some patients respond to lifestyle interventions better than others, and the potential synergy of lifestyle changes with drug therapies, wrote Dr. Ornish and colleagues.

“For now,” said Dr. Snyder, “there is an opportunity for providers to incorporate or expand messaging with their patients and families about the habits that they can incorporate into their daily lives. The Alzheimer’s Association offers 10 Healthy Habits for Your Brain — everyday actions that can make a difference for your brain health.”

Investigators received study funding from more than two dozen charitable foundations and other organizations. Dr. Snyder is a full-time employee of the Alzheimer’s Association and in this role, serves on the leadership team of the U.S. POINTER study. Her partner works for Abbott in an unrelated field. 

An intensive lifestyle intervention significantly improved cognition and function in many patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, in what authors said is the first randomized controlled trial of intensive lifestyle modification for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Results could help physicians address patients at risk of Alzheimer’s disease who reject relevant testing because they believe nothing can forestall development of the disease, the authors added. The study was published online in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.

Although technology allows probable Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis years before clinical symptoms appear, wrote investigators led by Dean Ornish, MD, of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, “many people do not want to know if they are likely to get Alzheimer’s disease if they do not believe they can do anything about it. If intensive lifestyle changes may cause improvement in cognition and function in MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, then it is reasonable to think that these lifestyle changes may also help to prevent MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.” As with cardiovascular disease, the authors added, preventing Alzheimer’s disease might require less intensive lifestyle modifications than treating it.
 

Study Methodology

Investigators randomized 26 patients with Montréal Cognitive Assessment scores of 18 or higher to an intensive intervention involving nutrition, exercise, and stress management techniques. To improve adherence, the protocol included participants’ spouses or caregivers.

Two patients, both in the treatment group, withdrew over logistical concerns.

After 20 weeks, treated patients exhibited statistically significant differences in several key measures versus a 25-patient usual-care control group. Scores that improved in the intervention group and worsened among controls included the following:

• Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC, P = .001)
• Clinical Dementia Rating-Global (CDR-Global, -0.04, P = .037)
• Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB, +0.08, P = .032)
• Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog, -1.01, P = .053)

The validity of these changes in cognition and function, and possible biological mechanisms of improvement, were supported by statistically significant improvements in several clinically relevant biomarkers versus controls, the investigators wrote. These biomarkers included Abeta42/40 ratio, HbA1c, insulin, and glycoprotein acetylation. “This information may also help in predicting which patients are more likely to show improvements in cognition and function by making these intensive lifestyle changes,” the authors added.

In primary analysis, the degree of lifestyle changes required to stop progression of MCI ranged from 71.4% (ADAS-Cog) to 120.6% (CDR-SB). “This helps to explain why other studies of less intensive lifestyle interventions may not have been sufficient to stop deterioration or improve cognition and function,” the authors wrote. Moreover, they added, variable adherence might explain why in the intervention group, 10 patients improved their CGIC scores, while the rest held static or worsened.
 

Caveats

Alzheimer’s Association Vice President of Medical and Scientific Relations Heather M. Snyder, PhD, said, “This is an interesting paper in an important area of research and adds to the growing body of literature on how behavior or lifestyle may be related to cognitive decline. However, because this is a small phase 2 study, it is important for this or similar work to be done in larger, more diverse populations and over a longer duration of the intervention.” She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Investigators chose the 20-week duration, they explained, because control-group patients likely would not refrain from trying the lifestyle intervention beyond that timeframe. Perhaps more importantly, challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic required researchers to cut planned enrollment in half, eliminate planned MRI and amyloid PET scans, and reduce the number of cognition and function tests.

Such shortcomings limit what neurologists can glean and generalize from the study, said Dr. Snyder. “That said,” she added, “it does demonstrate the potential of an intensive behavior/lifestyle intervention, and the importance of this sort of research in Alzheimer’s and dementia.” Although the complexity of the interventions makes these studies challenging, she added, “it is important that we continue to advance larger, longer studies in more representative study populations to develop specific recommendations.”
 

Further Study

The Alzheimer’s Association’s U.S. POINTER study is the first large-scale study in the United States to explore the impact of comprehensive lifestyle changes on cognitive health. About 2000 older adults at risk for cognitive decline are participating, from diverse locations across the country. More than 25% of participants come from groups typically underrepresented in dementia research, said Dr. Snyder. Initial results are expected in summer 2025.

Future research also should explore reasons (beyond adherence) why some patients respond to lifestyle interventions better than others, and the potential synergy of lifestyle changes with drug therapies, wrote Dr. Ornish and colleagues.

“For now,” said Dr. Snyder, “there is an opportunity for providers to incorporate or expand messaging with their patients and families about the habits that they can incorporate into their daily lives. The Alzheimer’s Association offers 10 Healthy Habits for Your Brain — everyday actions that can make a difference for your brain health.”

Investigators received study funding from more than two dozen charitable foundations and other organizations. Dr. Snyder is a full-time employee of the Alzheimer’s Association and in this role, serves on the leadership team of the U.S. POINTER study. Her partner works for Abbott in an unrelated field. 

An intensive lifestyle intervention significantly improved cognition and function in many patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, in what authors said is the first randomized controlled trial of intensive lifestyle modification for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Results could help physicians address patients at risk of Alzheimer’s disease who reject relevant testing because they believe nothing can forestall development of the disease, the authors added. The study was published online in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.

Although technology allows probable Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis years before clinical symptoms appear, wrote investigators led by Dean Ornish, MD, of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, “many people do not want to know if they are likely to get Alzheimer’s disease if they do not believe they can do anything about it. If intensive lifestyle changes may cause improvement in cognition and function in MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, then it is reasonable to think that these lifestyle changes may also help to prevent MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.” As with cardiovascular disease, the authors added, preventing Alzheimer’s disease might require less intensive lifestyle modifications than treating it.
 

Study Methodology

Investigators randomized 26 patients with Montréal Cognitive Assessment scores of 18 or higher to an intensive intervention involving nutrition, exercise, and stress management techniques. To improve adherence, the protocol included participants’ spouses or caregivers.

Two patients, both in the treatment group, withdrew over logistical concerns.

After 20 weeks, treated patients exhibited statistically significant differences in several key measures versus a 25-patient usual-care control group. Scores that improved in the intervention group and worsened among controls included the following:

• Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC, P = .001)
• Clinical Dementia Rating-Global (CDR-Global, -0.04, P = .037)
• Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB, +0.08, P = .032)
• Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog, -1.01, P = .053)

The validity of these changes in cognition and function, and possible biological mechanisms of improvement, were supported by statistically significant improvements in several clinically relevant biomarkers versus controls, the investigators wrote. These biomarkers included Abeta42/40 ratio, HbA1c, insulin, and glycoprotein acetylation. “This information may also help in predicting which patients are more likely to show improvements in cognition and function by making these intensive lifestyle changes,” the authors added.

In primary analysis, the degree of lifestyle changes required to stop progression of MCI ranged from 71.4% (ADAS-Cog) to 120.6% (CDR-SB). “This helps to explain why other studies of less intensive lifestyle interventions may not have been sufficient to stop deterioration or improve cognition and function,” the authors wrote. Moreover, they added, variable adherence might explain why in the intervention group, 10 patients improved their CGIC scores, while the rest held static or worsened.
 

Caveats

Alzheimer’s Association Vice President of Medical and Scientific Relations Heather M. Snyder, PhD, said, “This is an interesting paper in an important area of research and adds to the growing body of literature on how behavior or lifestyle may be related to cognitive decline. However, because this is a small phase 2 study, it is important for this or similar work to be done in larger, more diverse populations and over a longer duration of the intervention.” She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Investigators chose the 20-week duration, they explained, because control-group patients likely would not refrain from trying the lifestyle intervention beyond that timeframe. Perhaps more importantly, challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic required researchers to cut planned enrollment in half, eliminate planned MRI and amyloid PET scans, and reduce the number of cognition and function tests.

Such shortcomings limit what neurologists can glean and generalize from the study, said Dr. Snyder. “That said,” she added, “it does demonstrate the potential of an intensive behavior/lifestyle intervention, and the importance of this sort of research in Alzheimer’s and dementia.” Although the complexity of the interventions makes these studies challenging, she added, “it is important that we continue to advance larger, longer studies in more representative study populations to develop specific recommendations.”
 

Further Study

The Alzheimer’s Association’s U.S. POINTER study is the first large-scale study in the United States to explore the impact of comprehensive lifestyle changes on cognitive health. About 2000 older adults at risk for cognitive decline are participating, from diverse locations across the country. More than 25% of participants come from groups typically underrepresented in dementia research, said Dr. Snyder. Initial results are expected in summer 2025.

Future research also should explore reasons (beyond adherence) why some patients respond to lifestyle interventions better than others, and the potential synergy of lifestyle changes with drug therapies, wrote Dr. Ornish and colleagues.

“For now,” said Dr. Snyder, “there is an opportunity for providers to incorporate or expand messaging with their patients and families about the habits that they can incorporate into their daily lives. The Alzheimer’s Association offers 10 Healthy Habits for Your Brain — everyday actions that can make a difference for your brain health.”

Investigators received study funding from more than two dozen charitable foundations and other organizations. Dr. Snyder is a full-time employee of the Alzheimer’s Association and in this role, serves on the leadership team of the U.S. POINTER study. Her partner works for Abbott in an unrelated field. 

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.

As the availability of potential biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease drives the debate around diagnosing prodromal Parkinson’s disease (pPD) from theory to practice, said authors of a recent study, clinicians should weigh each patient’s preferences, circumstances, and goals against the potential benefits and harms of disclosure. The study and an accompanying editorial appeared online in Neurology.

Because markers such as SNCA, LRRK2, and GBA mutations impact small subgroups of patients at risk of developing monogenic forms of Parkinson’s disease, wrote Richard N. Rees, MBChB, MD, from the Department of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, and colleagues, researchers are working to identify people at risk of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease using models based on known risk and protective factors. The recent development of highly accurate cerebrospinal fluid (and potentially serum) alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays, which may show Parkinson’s disease’s signature before overt symptoms appear, will reinforce these efforts, authors added.
 

‘Tap the Brakes’

However, sources interviewed by Neurology Reviews counseled caution with potential prodromal Parkinson’s disease biomarkers. “As the science advances in Parkinson’s disease and related disorders,” said Michael S. Okun, MD, “our ability to predict who will and will not be diagnosed will improve. We should, however, tap the brakes and consider the consequences of making a diagnosis in someone at risk — especially someone without symptoms.” Dr. Okun is National Medical Advisor to the Parkinson’s Foundation and director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at University of Florida Health in Gainesville, Florida. He was not involved with the study.

Neurologists should ask themselves why they are testing for Parkinson’s disease biomarkers, said Dr. Okun, and what counseling and shared decision-making they provided beforehand. “This already complex scenario becomes even more complicated when we consider that many people with GBA gene mutations and some with LRRK2 mutations may never actually manifest Parkinson’s disease.”

A Holistic Approach to Shared Decision-Making

To avoid needlessly scaring patients, Dr. Hoy suggested broaching the topic of Parkinson’s disease biomarkers during advance care planning. “In the same conversation that you might talk about establishing surrogate decision-makers or potential do-not-resuscitate/intubate orders, you can talk about the potential of predictive testing, which is becoming more prevalent across domains of clinical practice.”

Understanding each patient’s values, preferences, and priorities requires a holistic approach, he said. “In the context of prodromal Parkinson’s disease, the benefits of enrolling in a new clinical trial or implementing lifestyle changes might vary depending on the person. Do you think this person would be likely to enroll in a clinical trial or implement those lifestyle changes?” Additionally, he recommended considering how a patient might react to a false diagnosis.

Whereas a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment might not lead to Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, wrote Dr. Rees and colleagues, growing evidence including a review published in Neurology in 2022 supports the accuracy of alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays in detecting both established and prodromal Parkinson’s disease. For people thusly diagnosed, Dr. Rees and colleagues wrote, the psychosocial burden of inevitable progression could create feelings of helplessness, possibly undermining benefits of early knowledge.

Beyond patients’ reactions, said Dr. Hoy, a diagnosis of prodromal Parkinson’s disease could result in social stigma, changes to interpersonal relationships, or discrimination. “Understanding the implications and uncertainties of potential disclosure, relative to what a person would want to know or might be able to do about it, will be the key for deciding when is the right time,” he said.
 

Supporting Primary Care

As the shared decision-making burden likely will fall to primary care providers, Dr. Hoy added, neurologists should prioritize increasing these providers’ capacity to advise and refer patients appropriately. Although it is too soon to develop clinical guidelines, he said, neurologists could help educate such providers about pPD and the growing availability of promising biomarkers.

“Parkinson’s is thought of as a movement disorder first and foremost,” said Dr. Hoy. However, various non-motor symptoms including sleep problems, depression, anxiety, apathy, constipation, and gastrointestinal issues often appear before movement-related symptoms during the prodromal phase.

As potentially the first line of defense against prodromal Parkinson’s disease, primary care providers also should know the distinction between early and timely diagnosis, added Dr. Hoy. Introduced by Dr. Rees and colleagues in a 2018 review published in F1000Research, timely diagnosis balances patient preferences, the availability and efficacy of DMT, and health systems’ ability to support and manage individuals at every stage of disease.

The current study was funded by a Parkinson’s UK grant (which paid Dr. Rees’s salary). The editorial was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative award, a grant from the National Institute on Aging, and a Wellcome Discovery Award. Dr. Hoy reported no relevant disclosures.

As the availability of potential biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease drives the debate around diagnosing prodromal Parkinson’s disease (pPD) from theory to practice, said authors of a recent study, clinicians should weigh each patient’s preferences, circumstances, and goals against the potential benefits and harms of disclosure. The study and an accompanying editorial appeared online in Neurology.

Because markers such as SNCA, LRRK2, and GBA mutations impact small subgroups of patients at risk of developing monogenic forms of Parkinson’s disease, wrote Richard N. Rees, MBChB, MD, from the Department of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, and colleagues, researchers are working to identify people at risk of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease using models based on known risk and protective factors. The recent development of highly accurate cerebrospinal fluid (and potentially serum) alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays, which may show Parkinson’s disease’s signature before overt symptoms appear, will reinforce these efforts, authors added.
 

‘Tap the Brakes’

However, sources interviewed by Neurology Reviews counseled caution with potential prodromal Parkinson’s disease biomarkers. “As the science advances in Parkinson’s disease and related disorders,” said Michael S. Okun, MD, “our ability to predict who will and will not be diagnosed will improve. We should, however, tap the brakes and consider the consequences of making a diagnosis in someone at risk — especially someone without symptoms.” Dr. Okun is National Medical Advisor to the Parkinson’s Foundation and director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at University of Florida Health in Gainesville, Florida. He was not involved with the study.

Neurologists should ask themselves why they are testing for Parkinson’s disease biomarkers, said Dr. Okun, and what counseling and shared decision-making they provided beforehand. “This already complex scenario becomes even more complicated when we consider that many people with GBA gene mutations and some with LRRK2 mutations may never actually manifest Parkinson’s disease.”

A Holistic Approach to Shared Decision-Making

To avoid needlessly scaring patients, Dr. Hoy suggested broaching the topic of Parkinson’s disease biomarkers during advance care planning. “In the same conversation that you might talk about establishing surrogate decision-makers or potential do-not-resuscitate/intubate orders, you can talk about the potential of predictive testing, which is becoming more prevalent across domains of clinical practice.”

Understanding each patient’s values, preferences, and priorities requires a holistic approach, he said. “In the context of prodromal Parkinson’s disease, the benefits of enrolling in a new clinical trial or implementing lifestyle changes might vary depending on the person. Do you think this person would be likely to enroll in a clinical trial or implement those lifestyle changes?” Additionally, he recommended considering how a patient might react to a false diagnosis.

Whereas a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment might not lead to Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, wrote Dr. Rees and colleagues, growing evidence including a review published in Neurology in 2022 supports the accuracy of alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays in detecting both established and prodromal Parkinson’s disease. For people thusly diagnosed, Dr. Rees and colleagues wrote, the psychosocial burden of inevitable progression could create feelings of helplessness, possibly undermining benefits of early knowledge.

Beyond patients’ reactions, said Dr. Hoy, a diagnosis of prodromal Parkinson’s disease could result in social stigma, changes to interpersonal relationships, or discrimination. “Understanding the implications and uncertainties of potential disclosure, relative to what a person would want to know or might be able to do about it, will be the key for deciding when is the right time,” he said.
 

Supporting Primary Care

As the shared decision-making burden likely will fall to primary care providers, Dr. Hoy added, neurologists should prioritize increasing these providers’ capacity to advise and refer patients appropriately. Although it is too soon to develop clinical guidelines, he said, neurologists could help educate such providers about pPD and the growing availability of promising biomarkers.

“Parkinson’s is thought of as a movement disorder first and foremost,” said Dr. Hoy. However, various non-motor symptoms including sleep problems, depression, anxiety, apathy, constipation, and gastrointestinal issues often appear before movement-related symptoms during the prodromal phase.

As potentially the first line of defense against prodromal Parkinson’s disease, primary care providers also should know the distinction between early and timely diagnosis, added Dr. Hoy. Introduced by Dr. Rees and colleagues in a 2018 review published in F1000Research, timely diagnosis balances patient preferences, the availability and efficacy of DMT, and health systems’ ability to support and manage individuals at every stage of disease.

The current study was funded by a Parkinson’s UK grant (which paid Dr. Rees’s salary). The editorial was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative award, a grant from the National Institute on Aging, and a Wellcome Discovery Award. Dr. Hoy reported no relevant disclosures.

As the availability of potential biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease drives the debate around diagnosing prodromal Parkinson’s disease (pPD) from theory to practice, said authors of a recent study, clinicians should weigh each patient’s preferences, circumstances, and goals against the potential benefits and harms of disclosure. The study and an accompanying editorial appeared online in Neurology.

Because markers such as SNCA, LRRK2, and GBA mutations impact small subgroups of patients at risk of developing monogenic forms of Parkinson’s disease, wrote Richard N. Rees, MBChB, MD, from the Department of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences at University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, and colleagues, researchers are working to identify people at risk of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease using models based on known risk and protective factors. The recent development of highly accurate cerebrospinal fluid (and potentially serum) alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays, which may show Parkinson’s disease’s signature before overt symptoms appear, will reinforce these efforts, authors added.
 

‘Tap the Brakes’

However, sources interviewed by Neurology Reviews counseled caution with potential prodromal Parkinson’s disease biomarkers. “As the science advances in Parkinson’s disease and related disorders,” said Michael S. Okun, MD, “our ability to predict who will and will not be diagnosed will improve. We should, however, tap the brakes and consider the consequences of making a diagnosis in someone at risk — especially someone without symptoms.” Dr. Okun is National Medical Advisor to the Parkinson’s Foundation and director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at University of Florida Health in Gainesville, Florida. He was not involved with the study.

Neurologists should ask themselves why they are testing for Parkinson’s disease biomarkers, said Dr. Okun, and what counseling and shared decision-making they provided beforehand. “This already complex scenario becomes even more complicated when we consider that many people with GBA gene mutations and some with LRRK2 mutations may never actually manifest Parkinson’s disease.”

A Holistic Approach to Shared Decision-Making

To avoid needlessly scaring patients, Dr. Hoy suggested broaching the topic of Parkinson’s disease biomarkers during advance care planning. “In the same conversation that you might talk about establishing surrogate decision-makers or potential do-not-resuscitate/intubate orders, you can talk about the potential of predictive testing, which is becoming more prevalent across domains of clinical practice.”

Understanding each patient’s values, preferences, and priorities requires a holistic approach, he said. “In the context of prodromal Parkinson’s disease, the benefits of enrolling in a new clinical trial or implementing lifestyle changes might vary depending on the person. Do you think this person would be likely to enroll in a clinical trial or implement those lifestyle changes?” Additionally, he recommended considering how a patient might react to a false diagnosis.

Whereas a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment might not lead to Alzheimer’s disease or dementia, wrote Dr. Rees and colleagues, growing evidence including a review published in Neurology in 2022 supports the accuracy of alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays in detecting both established and prodromal Parkinson’s disease. For people thusly diagnosed, Dr. Rees and colleagues wrote, the psychosocial burden of inevitable progression could create feelings of helplessness, possibly undermining benefits of early knowledge.

Beyond patients’ reactions, said Dr. Hoy, a diagnosis of prodromal Parkinson’s disease could result in social stigma, changes to interpersonal relationships, or discrimination. “Understanding the implications and uncertainties of potential disclosure, relative to what a person would want to know or might be able to do about it, will be the key for deciding when is the right time,” he said.
 

Supporting Primary Care

As the shared decision-making burden likely will fall to primary care providers, Dr. Hoy added, neurologists should prioritize increasing these providers’ capacity to advise and refer patients appropriately. Although it is too soon to develop clinical guidelines, he said, neurologists could help educate such providers about pPD and the growing availability of promising biomarkers.

“Parkinson’s is thought of as a movement disorder first and foremost,” said Dr. Hoy. However, various non-motor symptoms including sleep problems, depression, anxiety, apathy, constipation, and gastrointestinal issues often appear before movement-related symptoms during the prodromal phase.

As potentially the first line of defense against prodromal Parkinson’s disease, primary care providers also should know the distinction between early and timely diagnosis, added Dr. Hoy. Introduced by Dr. Rees and colleagues in a 2018 review published in F1000Research, timely diagnosis balances patient preferences, the availability and efficacy of DMT, and health systems’ ability to support and manage individuals at every stage of disease.

The current study was funded by a Parkinson’s UK grant (which paid Dr. Rees’s salary). The editorial was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative award, a grant from the National Institute on Aging, and a Wellcome Discovery Award. Dr. Hoy reported no relevant disclosures.

The most reliable predictors of remission in newly diagnosed epilepsy include patient history, seizure characteristics, and onset age, according to authors of a recent review. Clinical prediction models can help neurologists identify which patients could benefit from more aggressive early treatment, authors added, although concerns over bias and model applicability leave room for improvement.

Triggering Aggressive Treatments

“These models are helpful because if you can predict that someone is going to do well with one or two medications, that’s great,” said Aatif M. Husain, MD. “But if you know early on that someone likely will not do well, will need many medications, and still not have their seizures under control, you’re much more likely to be more aggressive with their management, such as closely refer them to a specialist epilepsy center and evaluate them for surgical treatment options. This could minimize the amount of time their seizures are inadequately controlled.” Dr. Husain is an epileptologist, neurologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Duke University Health System in Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Husain was not involved with the study, which was published in Epilepsia.

“But the other important finding is that these models so far have not been that great,” he added.

Prognosis Predictors

Investigators Corey Ratcliffe of the University of Liverpool in England and colleagues systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for relevant publications, ultimately analyzing 48 models across 32 studies. The strongest predictors of seizure remission were history and seizure types or characteristics, the authors wrote, followed by onset age.

Regarding seizure history, a March 2018 JAMA Neurology study and a December 2013 BMC Neurology study linked factors such as history of seizures in the year pre-diagnosis, family history of epilepsy, and history of febrile seizures and of migraines with lower chances of seizure remission. Seizure types with increased chances of poor outcomes in the review included status epilepticus and seizures with complex or mixed etiologies. Additional seizure types associated with poor control include tonic-clonic seizures, frequent focal seizures, and seizures stemming from certain genetic predispositions, said Dr. Husain.

Although the roles of many of the foregoing factors are easily explained, he added, other variables’ impact is less clear. Younger onset often signals more refractory seizures, for example, while data regarding older onset are mixed. “Sometimes older individuals will have mild epilepsy due to a stroke, tumor, or something that can be relatively easily treated,” said Dr. Husain. Conversely, epilepsy can become more complicated if such patients take several medications and/or have coexisting medical problems that seizures or antiseizure medications exacerbate. “So sometimes it’s not so obvious.”
 

Incorporating Imaging, AI

Dr. Husain found it surprising that very few of the selected models incorporated EEG and MRI findings. “Subsequent research should look at those, since they are important diagnostic tests.” Moreover, he recommended including more sophisticated quantitative and connectivity analyses of EEG and MRI data. These analyses might provide additional prognostic information beyond a simple visual analysis of these tests, Dr. Husain explained, although their potential here remains unproven.

As for factors not represented in the review, he said, future studies will help clarify AI’s role in predicting newly diagnosed epilepsy outcomes. A study published in Epilepsia showed that among 248 potential pediatric surgical candidates, those whose providers received alerts based on machine learning analysis of prior visit notes were more likely to be referred for presurgical evaluation (9.8% versus 3.1%). Future clinical models will use AI to examine not only established elements of neurologic history, said Dr. Husain, but also other types of history such as socioeconomic characteristics, geographic location, and other such data.

Additionally, study authors recommended a standardized approach to prediction modeling, using Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines. Using consistent definitions, outcomes, and reporting requirements will facilitate communication among researchers, reduce bias, and support systematic between-study comparisons, Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues wrote.
 

Reaching General Neurologists

Epilepsy specialists are generally aware of reliable outcome predictors, Dr. Husain said, though they do not use models per se. “But the vast majority of patients with epilepsy are seen by general neurologists.” And the lack of awareness among these physicians and primary care practitioners drives a need for education to facilitate appropriate referrals to subspecialty centers, he said.

The stakes for timely referrals can be high. Although using appropriate outcome models improves patients’ quality of life sooner, said Dr. Husain, allowing seizures to go untreated or undertreated results in neuroplastic changes that hinder long-term seizure control.

The fact that all 32 included studies reflected a high risk of bias, and 9 studies raised high applicability concerns, raises questions regarding the models’ validity, he added. Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues attributed both types of concerns to the fact that 20% of included studies used baseline treatment response data as outcome predictors.

Nevertheless, Dr. Husain cautioned against dismissing prediction models in newly diagnosed epilepsy. “Practicing neurologists need to realize that the perfect model has yet to be developed. But the current tools can be used to help manage patients with epilepsy and predict who will do well and not as well,” he said.

Dr. Husain is a member of the American Epilepsy Society. He has been a consultant and researcher for Marinus Pharmaceuticals, PranaQ, and UCB, and a consultant for Eisai, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and uniQure. Study authors reported no funding sources or relevant conflicts of interest.

The most reliable predictors of remission in newly diagnosed epilepsy include patient history, seizure characteristics, and onset age, according to authors of a recent review. Clinical prediction models can help neurologists identify which patients could benefit from more aggressive early treatment, authors added, although concerns over bias and model applicability leave room for improvement.

Triggering Aggressive Treatments

“These models are helpful because if you can predict that someone is going to do well with one or two medications, that’s great,” said Aatif M. Husain, MD. “But if you know early on that someone likely will not do well, will need many medications, and still not have their seizures under control, you’re much more likely to be more aggressive with their management, such as closely refer them to a specialist epilepsy center and evaluate them for surgical treatment options. This could minimize the amount of time their seizures are inadequately controlled.” Dr. Husain is an epileptologist, neurologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Duke University Health System in Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Husain was not involved with the study, which was published in Epilepsia.

“But the other important finding is that these models so far have not been that great,” he added.

Prognosis Predictors

Investigators Corey Ratcliffe of the University of Liverpool in England and colleagues systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for relevant publications, ultimately analyzing 48 models across 32 studies. The strongest predictors of seizure remission were history and seizure types or characteristics, the authors wrote, followed by onset age.

Regarding seizure history, a March 2018 JAMA Neurology study and a December 2013 BMC Neurology study linked factors such as history of seizures in the year pre-diagnosis, family history of epilepsy, and history of febrile seizures and of migraines with lower chances of seizure remission. Seizure types with increased chances of poor outcomes in the review included status epilepticus and seizures with complex or mixed etiologies. Additional seizure types associated with poor control include tonic-clonic seizures, frequent focal seizures, and seizures stemming from certain genetic predispositions, said Dr. Husain.

Although the roles of many of the foregoing factors are easily explained, he added, other variables’ impact is less clear. Younger onset often signals more refractory seizures, for example, while data regarding older onset are mixed. “Sometimes older individuals will have mild epilepsy due to a stroke, tumor, or something that can be relatively easily treated,” said Dr. Husain. Conversely, epilepsy can become more complicated if such patients take several medications and/or have coexisting medical problems that seizures or antiseizure medications exacerbate. “So sometimes it’s not so obvious.”
 

Incorporating Imaging, AI

Dr. Husain found it surprising that very few of the selected models incorporated EEG and MRI findings. “Subsequent research should look at those, since they are important diagnostic tests.” Moreover, he recommended including more sophisticated quantitative and connectivity analyses of EEG and MRI data. These analyses might provide additional prognostic information beyond a simple visual analysis of these tests, Dr. Husain explained, although their potential here remains unproven.

As for factors not represented in the review, he said, future studies will help clarify AI’s role in predicting newly diagnosed epilepsy outcomes. A study published in Epilepsia showed that among 248 potential pediatric surgical candidates, those whose providers received alerts based on machine learning analysis of prior visit notes were more likely to be referred for presurgical evaluation (9.8% versus 3.1%). Future clinical models will use AI to examine not only established elements of neurologic history, said Dr. Husain, but also other types of history such as socioeconomic characteristics, geographic location, and other such data.

Additionally, study authors recommended a standardized approach to prediction modeling, using Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines. Using consistent definitions, outcomes, and reporting requirements will facilitate communication among researchers, reduce bias, and support systematic between-study comparisons, Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues wrote.
 

Reaching General Neurologists

Epilepsy specialists are generally aware of reliable outcome predictors, Dr. Husain said, though they do not use models per se. “But the vast majority of patients with epilepsy are seen by general neurologists.” And the lack of awareness among these physicians and primary care practitioners drives a need for education to facilitate appropriate referrals to subspecialty centers, he said.

The stakes for timely referrals can be high. Although using appropriate outcome models improves patients’ quality of life sooner, said Dr. Husain, allowing seizures to go untreated or undertreated results in neuroplastic changes that hinder long-term seizure control.

The fact that all 32 included studies reflected a high risk of bias, and 9 studies raised high applicability concerns, raises questions regarding the models’ validity, he added. Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues attributed both types of concerns to the fact that 20% of included studies used baseline treatment response data as outcome predictors.

Nevertheless, Dr. Husain cautioned against dismissing prediction models in newly diagnosed epilepsy. “Practicing neurologists need to realize that the perfect model has yet to be developed. But the current tools can be used to help manage patients with epilepsy and predict who will do well and not as well,” he said.

Dr. Husain is a member of the American Epilepsy Society. He has been a consultant and researcher for Marinus Pharmaceuticals, PranaQ, and UCB, and a consultant for Eisai, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and uniQure. Study authors reported no funding sources or relevant conflicts of interest.

The most reliable predictors of remission in newly diagnosed epilepsy include patient history, seizure characteristics, and onset age, according to authors of a recent review. Clinical prediction models can help neurologists identify which patients could benefit from more aggressive early treatment, authors added, although concerns over bias and model applicability leave room for improvement.

Triggering Aggressive Treatments

“These models are helpful because if you can predict that someone is going to do well with one or two medications, that’s great,” said Aatif M. Husain, MD. “But if you know early on that someone likely will not do well, will need many medications, and still not have their seizures under control, you’re much more likely to be more aggressive with their management, such as closely refer them to a specialist epilepsy center and evaluate them for surgical treatment options. This could minimize the amount of time their seizures are inadequately controlled.” Dr. Husain is an epileptologist, neurologist, and sleep medicine specialist at Duke University Health System in Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Husain was not involved with the study, which was published in Epilepsia.

“But the other important finding is that these models so far have not been that great,” he added.

Prognosis Predictors

Investigators Corey Ratcliffe of the University of Liverpool in England and colleagues systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for relevant publications, ultimately analyzing 48 models across 32 studies. The strongest predictors of seizure remission were history and seizure types or characteristics, the authors wrote, followed by onset age.

Regarding seizure history, a March 2018 JAMA Neurology study and a December 2013 BMC Neurology study linked factors such as history of seizures in the year pre-diagnosis, family history of epilepsy, and history of febrile seizures and of migraines with lower chances of seizure remission. Seizure types with increased chances of poor outcomes in the review included status epilepticus and seizures with complex or mixed etiologies. Additional seizure types associated with poor control include tonic-clonic seizures, frequent focal seizures, and seizures stemming from certain genetic predispositions, said Dr. Husain.

Although the roles of many of the foregoing factors are easily explained, he added, other variables’ impact is less clear. Younger onset often signals more refractory seizures, for example, while data regarding older onset are mixed. “Sometimes older individuals will have mild epilepsy due to a stroke, tumor, or something that can be relatively easily treated,” said Dr. Husain. Conversely, epilepsy can become more complicated if such patients take several medications and/or have coexisting medical problems that seizures or antiseizure medications exacerbate. “So sometimes it’s not so obvious.”
 

Incorporating Imaging, AI

Dr. Husain found it surprising that very few of the selected models incorporated EEG and MRI findings. “Subsequent research should look at those, since they are important diagnostic tests.” Moreover, he recommended including more sophisticated quantitative and connectivity analyses of EEG and MRI data. These analyses might provide additional prognostic information beyond a simple visual analysis of these tests, Dr. Husain explained, although their potential here remains unproven.

As for factors not represented in the review, he said, future studies will help clarify AI’s role in predicting newly diagnosed epilepsy outcomes. A study published in Epilepsia showed that among 248 potential pediatric surgical candidates, those whose providers received alerts based on machine learning analysis of prior visit notes were more likely to be referred for presurgical evaluation (9.8% versus 3.1%). Future clinical models will use AI to examine not only established elements of neurologic history, said Dr. Husain, but also other types of history such as socioeconomic characteristics, geographic location, and other such data.

Additionally, study authors recommended a standardized approach to prediction modeling, using Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines. Using consistent definitions, outcomes, and reporting requirements will facilitate communication among researchers, reduce bias, and support systematic between-study comparisons, Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues wrote.
 

Reaching General Neurologists

Epilepsy specialists are generally aware of reliable outcome predictors, Dr. Husain said, though they do not use models per se. “But the vast majority of patients with epilepsy are seen by general neurologists.” And the lack of awareness among these physicians and primary care practitioners drives a need for education to facilitate appropriate referrals to subspecialty centers, he said.

The stakes for timely referrals can be high. Although using appropriate outcome models improves patients’ quality of life sooner, said Dr. Husain, allowing seizures to go untreated or undertreated results in neuroplastic changes that hinder long-term seizure control.

The fact that all 32 included studies reflected a high risk of bias, and 9 studies raised high applicability concerns, raises questions regarding the models’ validity, he added. Mr. Ratcliffe and colleagues attributed both types of concerns to the fact that 20% of included studies used baseline treatment response data as outcome predictors.

Nevertheless, Dr. Husain cautioned against dismissing prediction models in newly diagnosed epilepsy. “Practicing neurologists need to realize that the perfect model has yet to be developed. But the current tools can be used to help manage patients with epilepsy and predict who will do well and not as well,” he said.

Dr. Husain is a member of the American Epilepsy Society. He has been a consultant and researcher for Marinus Pharmaceuticals, PranaQ, and UCB, and a consultant for Eisai, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and uniQure. Study authors reported no funding sources or relevant conflicts of interest.