Kelli Whitlock Burton

Having two copies of the APOE4 gene may be the genetic cause of up to one fifth of all Alzheimer’s disease cases, a new study suggests.

More than 95% of those with two copies of the gene (APOE4 homozygotes) in a large multicohort study had higher levels of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers by age 55 years than did those with other APOE gene variants. By age 65 years, most had developed Alzheimer’s disease symptoms and showed abnormal amyloid levels in cerebrospinal fluid and on PET.

Investigators said that such a high penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in this group suggests that APOE4 may not be just a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease but also a distinct genetic form of the disease. 

“Sometimes, we say we don’t know the cause of Alzheimer’s disease, but this would be behind 15%-20% of the population of people with Alzheimer’s disease,” lead investigator Juan Fortea, MD, PhD, director of the Memory Unit of the Neurology Department at the Hospital of Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain, said at a press briefing.

Although some experts urge caution in interpreting these results, investigators and others say the findings, published online in Nature Medicine, could lead to calls for more widespread testing for APOE4 and may spur drug development.
 

High AD Penetrance

Mutations in the APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 genes are linked to risk for early-onset autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease, and dozens of other genes are associated with greater odds of late-onset disease. Among all these genes, APOE is considered the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. 

Prior studies found that APOE4 homozygotes have a 60% lifetime risk for Alzheimer’s disease by age 85 years, a risk higher than that found with other gene variants or in single APOE carriers or noncarriers. 

Despite that, no previous study had examined the predictability of symptom onset in APOE4 homozygotes, which make up about 2%-3% of the general population and 15-20% of those with Alzheimer’s disease. And because most biomarker studies have combined single- and double-carrier APOE4 carriers into one group, very little was known about the penetrance or disease progression in APOE4 homozygotes.

Investigators analyzed data from 3200 brain donors from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center and more than 10,000 people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers from five multicenter cohorts in the United States and Europe.

Nearly all APOE4 homozygotes had either high or intermediate Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change scores compared with about 50% among APOE3 homozygotes and was the same regardless of age at time of death. 

Beginning at age 55 years, APOE4 homozygotes exhibited higher levels of abnormal Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers than did APOE3 homozygotes. By age 65 years, nearly everyone with two copies of APOE4 showed abnormal levels of amyloid in cerebrospinal fluid and 75% had positive amyloid scans. 

Other biomarkers showed a biologic penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease that increased with age. By age 80 years, penetrance for all amyloid and tau biomarkers reached 88%. 

Postmortem analysis revealed Alzheimer’s disease and dementia symptoms were evident in APOE4 homozygotes 7-10 years before APOE3 homozygotes, with Alzheimer’s disease symptoms present at age 65 years, minor cognitive impairment at 72 years, dementia at 74 years, and death at 77 years (P <.05 differences).

When they limited analysis to only those who developed Alzheimer’s disease dementia, investigators found no difference in amyloid or tau accumulation between APOE3 and APOE4 homozygotes. That was surprising given the much earlier presentation of clinical symptoms and biomarkers in those who carried two copies of APOE4.
 

More Than a Risk Factor

Overall, study findings provide evidence that APOE4 homozygotes represent another form of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, similar to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease and down syndrome-associated Alzheimer’s disease, investigators said.

“Our work showed that APOE4 homozygotes meet the three main characteristics of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, namely near-full penetrance, symptom onset predictability and a predictable sequence of biomarker and clinical changes,” they wrote. 

Based on the results, investigators recommend that future clinical trials avoid combining single and double APOE4 carriers into one study group. 

Because the global average proportion of APOE4 homozygotes is estimated to be approximately 2%, APOE4-homozygous Alzheimer’s disease may represent one of the most frequently occurring Mendelian diseases worldwide. This could have implications for genetic counseling and genetic screening recommendations, they said. 

“We may need to start treating these homozygotes as a separate group in our research so we can really understand the relation between amyloid and tau and symptoms in E4 homozygotes in a way that we have not been able to because of our practice in the field of thinking that APOE4 is this unitary risk effect,” co-investigator Sterling Johnson, PhD, professor of geriatrics and dementia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said at a press briefing.

The findings may also have implications for Alzheimer’s disease prevention, investigators added.

“What’s particularly important is the promise that perhaps we could treat people before symptoms, particularly in people who already have the disease in their brain such as APOE4 homozygotes, which reliably predicts that they will have impairment and try to treat them beforehand,” co-investigator Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women›s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at a press briefing. 

“This is important for preventing Alzheimer’s-related dementia and a real movement forward in defining the disease on the basis of genetics and biomarkers,” she added. 
 

Experts Offer Mixed Reactions

Commenting on the findings, Paul Mathews, MD, DPhil, group leader of the UK Dementia Research Institute Centre at Imperial College, said that the data point to a need to look at APOE4 differently. 

“One implication of this work is that testing for APOE4 gene homozygosity should be assessed for use clinically, when late middle-aged people present to their doctors with symptoms of dementia,” Dr. Mathews, who was not part of the study, said in a statement. 

In an accompany editorial, Yadong Huang, MD, PhD, Departments of Neurology and Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, and co-authors noted that the findings also have implications for clinical drug trials.

“So far, APOE4 homozygotes have not been treated as a separate predefined treatment group in clinical trials,” they wrote. “Following this study, APOE4 status must be recognized as a crucial parameter in trial design, patient recruitment and data analysis, with APOE4 homozygotes and heterozygotes being clearly separated. Such an approach may enhance the treatment efficacy and help tailor therapeutic interventions more effectively towards genetically defined patient populations.”

Other experts urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

“It is clear that APOE4 homozygosity is tightly linked to the appearance of Alzheimer’s-related pathology, but even at age 80, 12% of people with APOE4/E4 did not have amyloid/tau biomarkers,” said Yuko Hara, PhD, director of aging and Alzheimer’s disease prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation. “Also, having two copies of APOE4 does not mean you will definitely develop symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease in your lifetime,” Dr. Hara added. 

Researchers have long known that APOE4 is a strong risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and that people with two copies of the gene are at especially high risk, David Curtis, MD, PhD, Genetics Institute at University of College London, England, said in a statement.

“I do not see anything in this paper to justify the claim that carrying two copies of APOE4 represents some ‘distinct genetic form’ of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Curtis said. “No matter how many alleles of APOE4 one carries, the underlying disease processes seem similar across cases of Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that any effective treatment and prevention strategies, which have yet to be developed would have broad applicability.” 

Study funders included Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitario, Carlos III Health Institute, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, Unión Europea, National Institutes of Health, the Department de Salut de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Horizon 2020–Research and Innovation Framework Programme from the European Union, La Caixa Foundation, EIT Digital, and the Alzheimer Association. Dr. Fortea reported receiving personal fees for service on the advisory boards, adjudication committees or speaker honoraria from AC Immune, Adamed, Alzheon, Biogen, Eisai, Esteve, Fujirebio, Ionis, Laboratorios Carnot, Life Molecular Imaging, Lilly, Lundbeck, Perha, Roche, and outside the submitted work. Dr. Johnson has served at scientific advisory boards for ALZPath, Enigma and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sperling has received personal consulting fees from AbbVie, AC Immune, Acumen, Alector, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Genentech, Ionis and Vaxxinity outside the submitted work. Dr. Huang is a co-founder and scientific advisory board member of GABAeron, Inc. Dr. Mathews reports consultancies with Sudo Biosciences, Nimbus, Redburn. Dr. Hara and Dr. Curtis reported no conflicts. Complete funding sources and disclosures are included in the original articles. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Having two copies of the APOE4 gene may be the genetic cause of up to one fifth of all Alzheimer’s disease cases, a new study suggests.

More than 95% of those with two copies of the gene (APOE4 homozygotes) in a large multicohort study had higher levels of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers by age 55 years than did those with other APOE gene variants. By age 65 years, most had developed Alzheimer’s disease symptoms and showed abnormal amyloid levels in cerebrospinal fluid and on PET.

Investigators said that such a high penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in this group suggests that APOE4 may not be just a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease but also a distinct genetic form of the disease. 

“Sometimes, we say we don’t know the cause of Alzheimer’s disease, but this would be behind 15%-20% of the population of people with Alzheimer’s disease,” lead investigator Juan Fortea, MD, PhD, director of the Memory Unit of the Neurology Department at the Hospital of Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain, said at a press briefing.

Although some experts urge caution in interpreting these results, investigators and others say the findings, published online in Nature Medicine, could lead to calls for more widespread testing for APOE4 and may spur drug development.
 

High AD Penetrance

Mutations in the APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 genes are linked to risk for early-onset autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease, and dozens of other genes are associated with greater odds of late-onset disease. Among all these genes, APOE is considered the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. 

Prior studies found that APOE4 homozygotes have a 60% lifetime risk for Alzheimer’s disease by age 85 years, a risk higher than that found with other gene variants or in single APOE carriers or noncarriers. 

Despite that, no previous study had examined the predictability of symptom onset in APOE4 homozygotes, which make up about 2%-3% of the general population and 15-20% of those with Alzheimer’s disease. And because most biomarker studies have combined single- and double-carrier APOE4 carriers into one group, very little was known about the penetrance or disease progression in APOE4 homozygotes.

Investigators analyzed data from 3200 brain donors from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center and more than 10,000 people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers from five multicenter cohorts in the United States and Europe.

Nearly all APOE4 homozygotes had either high or intermediate Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change scores compared with about 50% among APOE3 homozygotes and was the same regardless of age at time of death. 

Beginning at age 55 years, APOE4 homozygotes exhibited higher levels of abnormal Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers than did APOE3 homozygotes. By age 65 years, nearly everyone with two copies of APOE4 showed abnormal levels of amyloid in cerebrospinal fluid and 75% had positive amyloid scans. 

Other biomarkers showed a biologic penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease that increased with age. By age 80 years, penetrance for all amyloid and tau biomarkers reached 88%. 

Postmortem analysis revealed Alzheimer’s disease and dementia symptoms were evident in APOE4 homozygotes 7-10 years before APOE3 homozygotes, with Alzheimer’s disease symptoms present at age 65 years, minor cognitive impairment at 72 years, dementia at 74 years, and death at 77 years (P <.05 differences).

When they limited analysis to only those who developed Alzheimer’s disease dementia, investigators found no difference in amyloid or tau accumulation between APOE3 and APOE4 homozygotes. That was surprising given the much earlier presentation of clinical symptoms and biomarkers in those who carried two copies of APOE4.
 

More Than a Risk Factor

Overall, study findings provide evidence that APOE4 homozygotes represent another form of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, similar to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease and down syndrome-associated Alzheimer’s disease, investigators said.

“Our work showed that APOE4 homozygotes meet the three main characteristics of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, namely near-full penetrance, symptom onset predictability and a predictable sequence of biomarker and clinical changes,” they wrote. 

Based on the results, investigators recommend that future clinical trials avoid combining single and double APOE4 carriers into one study group. 

Because the global average proportion of APOE4 homozygotes is estimated to be approximately 2%, APOE4-homozygous Alzheimer’s disease may represent one of the most frequently occurring Mendelian diseases worldwide. This could have implications for genetic counseling and genetic screening recommendations, they said. 

“We may need to start treating these homozygotes as a separate group in our research so we can really understand the relation between amyloid and tau and symptoms in E4 homozygotes in a way that we have not been able to because of our practice in the field of thinking that APOE4 is this unitary risk effect,” co-investigator Sterling Johnson, PhD, professor of geriatrics and dementia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said at a press briefing.

The findings may also have implications for Alzheimer’s disease prevention, investigators added.

“What’s particularly important is the promise that perhaps we could treat people before symptoms, particularly in people who already have the disease in their brain such as APOE4 homozygotes, which reliably predicts that they will have impairment and try to treat them beforehand,” co-investigator Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women›s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at a press briefing. 

“This is important for preventing Alzheimer’s-related dementia and a real movement forward in defining the disease on the basis of genetics and biomarkers,” she added. 
 

Experts Offer Mixed Reactions

Commenting on the findings, Paul Mathews, MD, DPhil, group leader of the UK Dementia Research Institute Centre at Imperial College, said that the data point to a need to look at APOE4 differently. 

“One implication of this work is that testing for APOE4 gene homozygosity should be assessed for use clinically, when late middle-aged people present to their doctors with symptoms of dementia,” Dr. Mathews, who was not part of the study, said in a statement. 

In an accompany editorial, Yadong Huang, MD, PhD, Departments of Neurology and Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, and co-authors noted that the findings also have implications for clinical drug trials.

“So far, APOE4 homozygotes have not been treated as a separate predefined treatment group in clinical trials,” they wrote. “Following this study, APOE4 status must be recognized as a crucial parameter in trial design, patient recruitment and data analysis, with APOE4 homozygotes and heterozygotes being clearly separated. Such an approach may enhance the treatment efficacy and help tailor therapeutic interventions more effectively towards genetically defined patient populations.”

Other experts urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

“It is clear that APOE4 homozygosity is tightly linked to the appearance of Alzheimer’s-related pathology, but even at age 80, 12% of people with APOE4/E4 did not have amyloid/tau biomarkers,” said Yuko Hara, PhD, director of aging and Alzheimer’s disease prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation. “Also, having two copies of APOE4 does not mean you will definitely develop symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease in your lifetime,” Dr. Hara added. 

Researchers have long known that APOE4 is a strong risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and that people with two copies of the gene are at especially high risk, David Curtis, MD, PhD, Genetics Institute at University of College London, England, said in a statement.

“I do not see anything in this paper to justify the claim that carrying two copies of APOE4 represents some ‘distinct genetic form’ of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Curtis said. “No matter how many alleles of APOE4 one carries, the underlying disease processes seem similar across cases of Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that any effective treatment and prevention strategies, which have yet to be developed would have broad applicability.” 

Study funders included Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitario, Carlos III Health Institute, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, Unión Europea, National Institutes of Health, the Department de Salut de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Horizon 2020–Research and Innovation Framework Programme from the European Union, La Caixa Foundation, EIT Digital, and the Alzheimer Association. Dr. Fortea reported receiving personal fees for service on the advisory boards, adjudication committees or speaker honoraria from AC Immune, Adamed, Alzheon, Biogen, Eisai, Esteve, Fujirebio, Ionis, Laboratorios Carnot, Life Molecular Imaging, Lilly, Lundbeck, Perha, Roche, and outside the submitted work. Dr. Johnson has served at scientific advisory boards for ALZPath, Enigma and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sperling has received personal consulting fees from AbbVie, AC Immune, Acumen, Alector, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Genentech, Ionis and Vaxxinity outside the submitted work. Dr. Huang is a co-founder and scientific advisory board member of GABAeron, Inc. Dr. Mathews reports consultancies with Sudo Biosciences, Nimbus, Redburn. Dr. Hara and Dr. Curtis reported no conflicts. Complete funding sources and disclosures are included in the original articles. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Having two copies of the APOE4 gene may be the genetic cause of up to one fifth of all Alzheimer’s disease cases, a new study suggests.

More than 95% of those with two copies of the gene (APOE4 homozygotes) in a large multicohort study had higher levels of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers by age 55 years than did those with other APOE gene variants. By age 65 years, most had developed Alzheimer’s disease symptoms and showed abnormal amyloid levels in cerebrospinal fluid and on PET.

Investigators said that such a high penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in this group suggests that APOE4 may not be just a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease but also a distinct genetic form of the disease. 

“Sometimes, we say we don’t know the cause of Alzheimer’s disease, but this would be behind 15%-20% of the population of people with Alzheimer’s disease,” lead investigator Juan Fortea, MD, PhD, director of the Memory Unit of the Neurology Department at the Hospital of Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain, said at a press briefing.

Although some experts urge caution in interpreting these results, investigators and others say the findings, published online in Nature Medicine, could lead to calls for more widespread testing for APOE4 and may spur drug development.
 

High AD Penetrance

Mutations in the APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 genes are linked to risk for early-onset autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease, and dozens of other genes are associated with greater odds of late-onset disease. Among all these genes, APOE is considered the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. 

Prior studies found that APOE4 homozygotes have a 60% lifetime risk for Alzheimer’s disease by age 85 years, a risk higher than that found with other gene variants or in single APOE carriers or noncarriers. 

Despite that, no previous study had examined the predictability of symptom onset in APOE4 homozygotes, which make up about 2%-3% of the general population and 15-20% of those with Alzheimer’s disease. And because most biomarker studies have combined single- and double-carrier APOE4 carriers into one group, very little was known about the penetrance or disease progression in APOE4 homozygotes.

Investigators analyzed data from 3200 brain donors from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center and more than 10,000 people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers from five multicenter cohorts in the United States and Europe.

Nearly all APOE4 homozygotes had either high or intermediate Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change scores compared with about 50% among APOE3 homozygotes and was the same regardless of age at time of death. 

Beginning at age 55 years, APOE4 homozygotes exhibited higher levels of abnormal Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers than did APOE3 homozygotes. By age 65 years, nearly everyone with two copies of APOE4 showed abnormal levels of amyloid in cerebrospinal fluid and 75% had positive amyloid scans. 

Other biomarkers showed a biologic penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease that increased with age. By age 80 years, penetrance for all amyloid and tau biomarkers reached 88%. 

Postmortem analysis revealed Alzheimer’s disease and dementia symptoms were evident in APOE4 homozygotes 7-10 years before APOE3 homozygotes, with Alzheimer’s disease symptoms present at age 65 years, minor cognitive impairment at 72 years, dementia at 74 years, and death at 77 years (P <.05 differences).

When they limited analysis to only those who developed Alzheimer’s disease dementia, investigators found no difference in amyloid or tau accumulation between APOE3 and APOE4 homozygotes. That was surprising given the much earlier presentation of clinical symptoms and biomarkers in those who carried two copies of APOE4.
 

More Than a Risk Factor

Overall, study findings provide evidence that APOE4 homozygotes represent another form of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, similar to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease and down syndrome-associated Alzheimer’s disease, investigators said.

“Our work showed that APOE4 homozygotes meet the three main characteristics of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, namely near-full penetrance, symptom onset predictability and a predictable sequence of biomarker and clinical changes,” they wrote. 

Based on the results, investigators recommend that future clinical trials avoid combining single and double APOE4 carriers into one study group. 

Because the global average proportion of APOE4 homozygotes is estimated to be approximately 2%, APOE4-homozygous Alzheimer’s disease may represent one of the most frequently occurring Mendelian diseases worldwide. This could have implications for genetic counseling and genetic screening recommendations, they said. 

“We may need to start treating these homozygotes as a separate group in our research so we can really understand the relation between amyloid and tau and symptoms in E4 homozygotes in a way that we have not been able to because of our practice in the field of thinking that APOE4 is this unitary risk effect,” co-investigator Sterling Johnson, PhD, professor of geriatrics and dementia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said at a press briefing.

The findings may also have implications for Alzheimer’s disease prevention, investigators added.

“What’s particularly important is the promise that perhaps we could treat people before symptoms, particularly in people who already have the disease in their brain such as APOE4 homozygotes, which reliably predicts that they will have impairment and try to treat them beforehand,” co-investigator Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women›s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at a press briefing. 

“This is important for preventing Alzheimer’s-related dementia and a real movement forward in defining the disease on the basis of genetics and biomarkers,” she added. 
 

Experts Offer Mixed Reactions

Commenting on the findings, Paul Mathews, MD, DPhil, group leader of the UK Dementia Research Institute Centre at Imperial College, said that the data point to a need to look at APOE4 differently. 

“One implication of this work is that testing for APOE4 gene homozygosity should be assessed for use clinically, when late middle-aged people present to their doctors with symptoms of dementia,” Dr. Mathews, who was not part of the study, said in a statement. 

In an accompany editorial, Yadong Huang, MD, PhD, Departments of Neurology and Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, and co-authors noted that the findings also have implications for clinical drug trials.

“So far, APOE4 homozygotes have not been treated as a separate predefined treatment group in clinical trials,” they wrote. “Following this study, APOE4 status must be recognized as a crucial parameter in trial design, patient recruitment and data analysis, with APOE4 homozygotes and heterozygotes being clearly separated. Such an approach may enhance the treatment efficacy and help tailor therapeutic interventions more effectively towards genetically defined patient populations.”

Other experts urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

“It is clear that APOE4 homozygosity is tightly linked to the appearance of Alzheimer’s-related pathology, but even at age 80, 12% of people with APOE4/E4 did not have amyloid/tau biomarkers,” said Yuko Hara, PhD, director of aging and Alzheimer’s disease prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation. “Also, having two copies of APOE4 does not mean you will definitely develop symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease in your lifetime,” Dr. Hara added. 

Researchers have long known that APOE4 is a strong risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and that people with two copies of the gene are at especially high risk, David Curtis, MD, PhD, Genetics Institute at University of College London, England, said in a statement.

“I do not see anything in this paper to justify the claim that carrying two copies of APOE4 represents some ‘distinct genetic form’ of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Curtis said. “No matter how many alleles of APOE4 one carries, the underlying disease processes seem similar across cases of Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that any effective treatment and prevention strategies, which have yet to be developed would have broad applicability.” 

Study funders included Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitario, Carlos III Health Institute, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, Unión Europea, National Institutes of Health, the Department de Salut de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Horizon 2020–Research and Innovation Framework Programme from the European Union, La Caixa Foundation, EIT Digital, and the Alzheimer Association. Dr. Fortea reported receiving personal fees for service on the advisory boards, adjudication committees or speaker honoraria from AC Immune, Adamed, Alzheon, Biogen, Eisai, Esteve, Fujirebio, Ionis, Laboratorios Carnot, Life Molecular Imaging, Lilly, Lundbeck, Perha, Roche, and outside the submitted work. Dr. Johnson has served at scientific advisory boards for ALZPath, Enigma and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sperling has received personal consulting fees from AbbVie, AC Immune, Acumen, Alector, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Genentech, Ionis and Vaxxinity outside the submitted work. Dr. Huang is a co-founder and scientific advisory board member of GABAeron, Inc. Dr. Mathews reports consultancies with Sudo Biosciences, Nimbus, Redburn. Dr. Hara and Dr. Curtis reported no conflicts. Complete funding sources and disclosures are included in the original articles. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia is associated with a significant increased risk for stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, fracture, acute kidney injury, and a range of other health problems compared with nonuse, new research showed.

The adverse events are far broader and pose more severe health risks than previously reported, investigators noted, and suggested greater caution is needed when prescribing antipsychotics to treat psychological symptoms of dementia.

The matched cohort study used patient registry data on nearly 174,000 people with dementia and compared those who were prescribed an antipsychotic on or after their dementia diagnosis with those who had not received a prescription for the drugs.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with double the risk for pneumonia, a 1.7-fold increased risk for acute kidney injury, and 1.6-fold higher odds of venous thromboembolism compared to nonuse.

Investigators found an increased risk for all outcomes studied, except for ventricular arrythmia, and risk was highest for most within the first week of treatment.

“Any potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment therefore need to be weighed against the risk of serious harm across multiple outcomes. Although there may be times when an antipsychotic prescription is the least bad option, clinicians should actively consider the risks, considering patients’ pre-existing comorbidities and living support,” lead investigator Pearl Mok, research fellow at the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, The University of Manchester, Manchester, England, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in The BMJ.
 

High Risk

Depression, aggression, anxiety, psychosis, and other behavioral and psychological symptoms are common in people with dementia. Despite earlier reports of increased risk for stroke and mortality with antipsychotic use, the drugs are frequently prescribed to treat these symptoms.

While some preliminary studies identified other adverse outcomes from antipsychotic use, results are limited and inconsistent.

Investigators used primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. A total of 173,910 adults (63% women) had a dementia diagnosis between January 1998 and May 2018.

Of the total cohort, 35,339 patients were prescribed an antipsychotic on, or after, a dementia diagnosis. Each was matched with up to 15 patients with dementia with no history of antipsychotic use following diagnosis.

Almost 80% of antipsychotic prescriptions were for risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol, and olanzapine.

Any antipsychotic use was associated with significantly higher risks for pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.03; 95% CI, 1.96-2.10), acute kidney injury (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.66), stroke (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.46-1.63), venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.38-1.67), fracture (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30-1.44), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and heart failure (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24).

The risk for all conditions was highest within the first 3 months of treatment, with a cumulative incidence of pneumonia among antipsychotic users of 4.48% vs 1.49% among nonusers. At 1 year, this increased to 10.41% for users vs 5.63% for nonusers.

“Given the higher risks of adverse events in the early days after drug initiation, clinical examinations should be taken before, and clinical reviews conducted shortly after, the start of treatment,” the authors wrote. “Our study reaffirms that these drugs should only be prescribed for the shortest period possible.”
 

‘Serious Harms’

In an accompanying editorial, Raya Elfadel Kheirbek, MD, and Cristina LaFont, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, said the findings “highlight the need for careful justification of antipsychotic use in dementia care, including a comprehensive assessment of the benefits weighed against a broader range of serious harms than previously acknowledged.”

“Using antipsychotics for the management of dementia-related behaviors requires nuanced decision-making after careful assessment, informed by a personalized approach,” they continued. “Dr. Mok and colleagues call for a critical re-evaluation of antipsychotic use in this clinical setting.”

While the findings add to and expand what was already known, “we need to be clear that they don’t show antipsychotics cause all the adverse outcomes reported,” Masud Husain, DPhil, professor of neurology, University of Oxford, England, said in a statement.

While investigators attempted to use matched controls with dementia who had not received antipsychotics, “the people who were prescribed the drugs may simply have been more vulnerable to some of the conditions that occurred more frequently in them, such as pneumonia and cardiovascular disorders,” said Dr. Husain, who was not part of the research.

Although the study was not designed to explore reverse causality, the findings are important for clinicians who prescribe antipsychotics for patients with dementia, Robert Howard, professor of old age psychiatry, at the University of College London, London, England said in a statement.

“Initiation of these drugs in people with dementia should only ever be under specialist supervision, with involvement of patients and family members in informed discussion and review,” said Dr. Howard, who was not involved in the study.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Mok reported no relevant conflicts. Other authors’ disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Hussain, Dr. Howard, Dr. Kheirbek, and Dr. LeFon reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men prescribed drugs to treat newly diagnosed erectile dysfunction (ED) are 18% less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease (AD) during a 5-year follow-up period, new research shows. 

The study is the second in recent years to suggest an association between the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) such as sildenafil (Viagra) or tadalafil (Cialis) and AD risk. The findings contradict those in a third study, reported by this news organization, that showed no link between the two. 

Although the research is interesting, outside experts noted that there is no evidence that the drugs can treat AD and urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

Investigators agree but believe that the results offer a direction for future studies and underscore the importance of investigating whether existing approved therapies can be repurposed to treat AD. 

“The positive findings from our large study in over 250,000 men is promising and can be used to enhance research capacity and knowledge, with a potential future impact on clinical use and public health policy,” senior author Ruth Brauer, PhD, of the University College London, told this news organization.

“However, before recommending PDE5I are used to reduce the risk of AD, more work is required to validate the findings of our work, particularly in a more generalizable population that includes women and men without erectile dysfunction,” she continued.

The findings were published online February 7 in Neurology.

Strong Association

The study drew on primary healthcare data from the United Kingdom and included 269,725 men (average age, 59 years) with newly diagnosed ED, 55% of whom had received prescriptions for PDE5Is. 

Participants were free from memory or cognitive issues when the study began and were followed for a median of 5.1 years. Investigators accounted for a range of potential AD risk factors, including smoking status, alcohol use, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, depression, anxiety, and concomitant medication use.

During the study period, 749 in the PDE5I group were diagnosed with AD, corresponding to a rate of 8.1 cases per 10,000 person-years. Among those who did not take the drugs, 370 developed AD, corresponding to a rate of 9.7 cases per 10,000 person-years.

Overall, initiation of a PDE5I was associated with an 18% lower risk for AD (adjusted hazard ration [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) compared with those with no prescriptions. 

The association was stronger in people aged 70 years or older and those with a history of hypertension or diabetes. The greatest risk reduction was found in people with the most prescriptions during the study period. Those with 21-50 prescriptions had a 44% lower risk for AD (aHR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.73) and those with more than 50 were 35% less likely to be diagnosed with AD (aHR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87).

There was no association with AD risk in individuals who received fewer than 20 prescriptions. 

Investigators also analyzed associations after introducing a 1- and 3-year lag period after cohort entry to address the latent period between AD onset and diagnosis. The primary findings held with a 1-year lag period but lost significance with the inclusion of a 3-year lag period.

In subgroup analyses, investigators found evidence of reduced AD risk in those who received prescriptions for sildenafil (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93), but there was no evidence for reduced risk compared with nonusers in those who received tadalafil and vardenafil.

Lower AD risk was found in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and in men aged 70 years or older, but there was no association in younger men or those with no history of hypertension or diabetes. 

Although investigators controlled for a wide range of potential risk factors, Dr. Brauer noted that unmeasured confounders such as physical and sexual activity, which were not tracked and may predict PDE5I exposure, may have affected the results. 

Interpret With Caution

Commenting on the findings, Ozama Ismail, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs, noted that in addition to the limitations cited by the study authors, AD diagnoses were not made with the “gold standard” testing that typically includes imaging biomarkers and postmortem assessments. 

“While this study is interesting and adds to a potential association, there is no evidence that these drugs are able to treat Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Brauer, who was not part of the current study. 

“People should not use over-the-counter phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for prevention of Alzheimer’s or other dementias based on this very preliminary finding. Always consult with your physician before starting or changing your medications,” he cautioned.

However, Dr. Ismael added that the study does highlight a potential new avenue for drug repurposing. 

“Repurposing of existing, already-approved treatments can be a valuable part of drug development because, through already-completed testing, we know much about their safety and side effects,” which can decrease cost and time needed for studies, he said. 

“When considering repurposing an existing drug to an Alzheimer’s treatment, however, it is often important to conduct new studies over longer periods of time and in older people that reflect the diversity of individuals living with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ismael said.

Randomized Trials Needed

Dr. Brauer agreed, offering that such a trial should also include people with mild cognitive impairment and measure the effects of PDE5Is given in predefined doses plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or placebo plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. 

“The primary outcome would be the change in baseline cognitive function,” she said. “This approach would provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential therapeutic benefits of PDE5I and AD.”

Studies are also needed to better understand the mechanisms by which these drugs might influence AD risk, Sevil Yasar, MD, PhD, and Lolita Nidadavolu, MD, PhD, from the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, noted in an accompanying editorial.

The strong association between PDE5I use and AD risk in people with a history of hypertension or diabetes suggests “a potential neuroprotective effect through a vascular pathway,” they wrote.

In vitro studies on the role of inflammation and clearance of beta-amyloid could strengthen findings from studies like this one, and in vivo studies could help explain the mechanisms behind PDE5I use and lower AD risk, Dr. Yasar and Dr. Nidadavolu noted. 

“In the end, however, further observational studies exploring mechanisms will not prove a causal association,” they wrote. “A well-designed randomized controlled trial is needed before PDE5I drugs can be prescribed for AD prevention.”

The study was unfunded. The study and editorial authors and Dr. Ismail report no relevant financial conflicts. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men prescribed drugs to treat newly diagnosed erectile dysfunction (ED) are 18% less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease (AD) during a 5-year follow-up period, new research shows. 

The study is the second in recent years to suggest an association between the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) such as sildenafil (Viagra) or tadalafil (Cialis) and AD risk. The findings contradict those in a third study, reported by this news organization, that showed no link between the two. 

Although the research is interesting, outside experts noted that there is no evidence that the drugs can treat AD and urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

Investigators agree but believe that the results offer a direction for future studies and underscore the importance of investigating whether existing approved therapies can be repurposed to treat AD. 

“The positive findings from our large study in over 250,000 men is promising and can be used to enhance research capacity and knowledge, with a potential future impact on clinical use and public health policy,” senior author Ruth Brauer, PhD, of the University College London, told this news organization.

“However, before recommending PDE5I are used to reduce the risk of AD, more work is required to validate the findings of our work, particularly in a more generalizable population that includes women and men without erectile dysfunction,” she continued.

The findings were published online February 7 in Neurology.

Strong Association

The study drew on primary healthcare data from the United Kingdom and included 269,725 men (average age, 59 years) with newly diagnosed ED, 55% of whom had received prescriptions for PDE5Is. 

Participants were free from memory or cognitive issues when the study began and were followed for a median of 5.1 years. Investigators accounted for a range of potential AD risk factors, including smoking status, alcohol use, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, depression, anxiety, and concomitant medication use.

During the study period, 749 in the PDE5I group were diagnosed with AD, corresponding to a rate of 8.1 cases per 10,000 person-years. Among those who did not take the drugs, 370 developed AD, corresponding to a rate of 9.7 cases per 10,000 person-years.

Overall, initiation of a PDE5I was associated with an 18% lower risk for AD (adjusted hazard ration [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) compared with those with no prescriptions. 

The association was stronger in people aged 70 years or older and those with a history of hypertension or diabetes. The greatest risk reduction was found in people with the most prescriptions during the study period. Those with 21-50 prescriptions had a 44% lower risk for AD (aHR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.73) and those with more than 50 were 35% less likely to be diagnosed with AD (aHR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87).

There was no association with AD risk in individuals who received fewer than 20 prescriptions. 

Investigators also analyzed associations after introducing a 1- and 3-year lag period after cohort entry to address the latent period between AD onset and diagnosis. The primary findings held with a 1-year lag period but lost significance with the inclusion of a 3-year lag period.

In subgroup analyses, investigators found evidence of reduced AD risk in those who received prescriptions for sildenafil (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93), but there was no evidence for reduced risk compared with nonusers in those who received tadalafil and vardenafil.

Lower AD risk was found in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and in men aged 70 years or older, but there was no association in younger men or those with no history of hypertension or diabetes. 

Although investigators controlled for a wide range of potential risk factors, Dr. Brauer noted that unmeasured confounders such as physical and sexual activity, which were not tracked and may predict PDE5I exposure, may have affected the results. 

Interpret With Caution

Commenting on the findings, Ozama Ismail, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs, noted that in addition to the limitations cited by the study authors, AD diagnoses were not made with the “gold standard” testing that typically includes imaging biomarkers and postmortem assessments. 

“While this study is interesting and adds to a potential association, there is no evidence that these drugs are able to treat Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Brauer, who was not part of the current study. 

“People should not use over-the-counter phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for prevention of Alzheimer’s or other dementias based on this very preliminary finding. Always consult with your physician before starting or changing your medications,” he cautioned.

However, Dr. Ismael added that the study does highlight a potential new avenue for drug repurposing. 

“Repurposing of existing, already-approved treatments can be a valuable part of drug development because, through already-completed testing, we know much about their safety and side effects,” which can decrease cost and time needed for studies, he said. 

“When considering repurposing an existing drug to an Alzheimer’s treatment, however, it is often important to conduct new studies over longer periods of time and in older people that reflect the diversity of individuals living with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ismael said.

Randomized Trials Needed

Dr. Brauer agreed, offering that such a trial should also include people with mild cognitive impairment and measure the effects of PDE5Is given in predefined doses plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or placebo plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. 

“The primary outcome would be the change in baseline cognitive function,” she said. “This approach would provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential therapeutic benefits of PDE5I and AD.”

Studies are also needed to better understand the mechanisms by which these drugs might influence AD risk, Sevil Yasar, MD, PhD, and Lolita Nidadavolu, MD, PhD, from the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, noted in an accompanying editorial.

The strong association between PDE5I use and AD risk in people with a history of hypertension or diabetes suggests “a potential neuroprotective effect through a vascular pathway,” they wrote.

In vitro studies on the role of inflammation and clearance of beta-amyloid could strengthen findings from studies like this one, and in vivo studies could help explain the mechanisms behind PDE5I use and lower AD risk, Dr. Yasar and Dr. Nidadavolu noted. 

“In the end, however, further observational studies exploring mechanisms will not prove a causal association,” they wrote. “A well-designed randomized controlled trial is needed before PDE5I drugs can be prescribed for AD prevention.”

The study was unfunded. The study and editorial authors and Dr. Ismail report no relevant financial conflicts. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men prescribed drugs to treat newly diagnosed erectile dysfunction (ED) are 18% less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease (AD) during a 5-year follow-up period, new research shows. 

The study is the second in recent years to suggest an association between the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) such as sildenafil (Viagra) or tadalafil (Cialis) and AD risk. The findings contradict those in a third study, reported by this news organization, that showed no link between the two. 

Although the research is interesting, outside experts noted that there is no evidence that the drugs can treat AD and urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

Investigators agree but believe that the results offer a direction for future studies and underscore the importance of investigating whether existing approved therapies can be repurposed to treat AD. 

“The positive findings from our large study in over 250,000 men is promising and can be used to enhance research capacity and knowledge, with a potential future impact on clinical use and public health policy,” senior author Ruth Brauer, PhD, of the University College London, told this news organization.

“However, before recommending PDE5I are used to reduce the risk of AD, more work is required to validate the findings of our work, particularly in a more generalizable population that includes women and men without erectile dysfunction,” she continued.

The findings were published online February 7 in Neurology.

Strong Association

The study drew on primary healthcare data from the United Kingdom and included 269,725 men (average age, 59 years) with newly diagnosed ED, 55% of whom had received prescriptions for PDE5Is. 

Participants were free from memory or cognitive issues when the study began and were followed for a median of 5.1 years. Investigators accounted for a range of potential AD risk factors, including smoking status, alcohol use, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, depression, anxiety, and concomitant medication use.

During the study period, 749 in the PDE5I group were diagnosed with AD, corresponding to a rate of 8.1 cases per 10,000 person-years. Among those who did not take the drugs, 370 developed AD, corresponding to a rate of 9.7 cases per 10,000 person-years.

Overall, initiation of a PDE5I was associated with an 18% lower risk for AD (adjusted hazard ration [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93) compared with those with no prescriptions. 

The association was stronger in people aged 70 years or older and those with a history of hypertension or diabetes. The greatest risk reduction was found in people with the most prescriptions during the study period. Those with 21-50 prescriptions had a 44% lower risk for AD (aHR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.73) and those with more than 50 were 35% less likely to be diagnosed with AD (aHR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87).

There was no association with AD risk in individuals who received fewer than 20 prescriptions. 

Investigators also analyzed associations after introducing a 1- and 3-year lag period after cohort entry to address the latent period between AD onset and diagnosis. The primary findings held with a 1-year lag period but lost significance with the inclusion of a 3-year lag period.

In subgroup analyses, investigators found evidence of reduced AD risk in those who received prescriptions for sildenafil (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93), but there was no evidence for reduced risk compared with nonusers in those who received tadalafil and vardenafil.

Lower AD risk was found in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and in men aged 70 years or older, but there was no association in younger men or those with no history of hypertension or diabetes. 

Although investigators controlled for a wide range of potential risk factors, Dr. Brauer noted that unmeasured confounders such as physical and sexual activity, which were not tracked and may predict PDE5I exposure, may have affected the results. 

Interpret With Caution

Commenting on the findings, Ozama Ismail, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific programs, noted that in addition to the limitations cited by the study authors, AD diagnoses were not made with the “gold standard” testing that typically includes imaging biomarkers and postmortem assessments. 

“While this study is interesting and adds to a potential association, there is no evidence that these drugs are able to treat Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Brauer, who was not part of the current study. 

“People should not use over-the-counter phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for prevention of Alzheimer’s or other dementias based on this very preliminary finding. Always consult with your physician before starting or changing your medications,” he cautioned.

However, Dr. Ismael added that the study does highlight a potential new avenue for drug repurposing. 

“Repurposing of existing, already-approved treatments can be a valuable part of drug development because, through already-completed testing, we know much about their safety and side effects,” which can decrease cost and time needed for studies, he said. 

“When considering repurposing an existing drug to an Alzheimer’s treatment, however, it is often important to conduct new studies over longer periods of time and in older people that reflect the diversity of individuals living with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ismael said.

Randomized Trials Needed

Dr. Brauer agreed, offering that such a trial should also include people with mild cognitive impairment and measure the effects of PDE5Is given in predefined doses plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or placebo plus an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. 

“The primary outcome would be the change in baseline cognitive function,” she said. “This approach would provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential therapeutic benefits of PDE5I and AD.”

Studies are also needed to better understand the mechanisms by which these drugs might influence AD risk, Sevil Yasar, MD, PhD, and Lolita Nidadavolu, MD, PhD, from the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, noted in an accompanying editorial.

The strong association between PDE5I use and AD risk in people with a history of hypertension or diabetes suggests “a potential neuroprotective effect through a vascular pathway,” they wrote.

In vitro studies on the role of inflammation and clearance of beta-amyloid could strengthen findings from studies like this one, and in vivo studies could help explain the mechanisms behind PDE5I use and lower AD risk, Dr. Yasar and Dr. Nidadavolu noted. 

“In the end, however, further observational studies exploring mechanisms will not prove a causal association,” they wrote. “A well-designed randomized controlled trial is needed before PDE5I drugs can be prescribed for AD prevention.”

The study was unfunded. The study and editorial authors and Dr. Ismail report no relevant financial conflicts. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five people in the United Kingdom have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease resulting from a medical treatment they received decades earlier, new research shows. 

Investigators say they are the first known cases of medically acquired AD in living people, but outside experts say the findings should be interpreted cautiously.

The individuals received treatment as children with human growth hormone extracted from pituitary glands of cadavers (c-hGH). Between 1958-1985, an estimated 30,000 people worldwide, mostly children, were treated with c-hGH for genetic disorders and growth hormone deficiencies. 

The therapy was halted in 1985 after three patients in the US who received the treatment later died of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) transmitted through batches of c-hGH that were contaminated with disease-causing prions. 

The new study builds on the investigators’ earlier work that showed the batches of c-hGH also contained amyloid-beta protein and that the protein could be transmitted decades later. These five cases were referred to or reviewed by researchers and clinicians at a prion clinic led by one of the lead researchers.

There are no reports of amyloid-beta transmission through any other medical or surgical procedures, researchers stress, and there is no evidence that amyloid-beta can be passed on during routine patient care or in daily activities. 

“However, the recognition of transmission of amyloid-beta pathology in these rare situations should lead us to review measures to prevent accidental transmission via other medical or surgical procedures, in order to prevent such cases occurring in future,” lead author John Collinge, MD, director of the University of College London Institute of Prion Diseases, London, England, and leader of the UK’s National Prion Clinic, said in a press release. 

“Importantly, our findings also suggest that Alzheimer’s and some other neurological conditions share similar disease processes to CJD, and this may have important implications for understanding and treating Alzheimer’s disease in the future,” Dr. Collinge continued.

The findings were published online January 29 in Nature Medicine. 
 

Building on Earlier Work

The research builds on investigators’ previous 2015 work that found archived samples of c-hGH were also contaminated with amyloid-beta protein. In 2018, mouse studies showed that c-hGH samples stored for decades could still transmit amyloid-beta via injection. 

Researchers said the findings suggested that individuals exposed to contaminated c-hGH who did not die from CJD might eventually develop AD.

Patients in the new study developed neurological symptoms consistent with AD between the ages of 38 and 55 years. The individual cases were either referred to or reviewed by experts in the National Prion Clinic in the UK between 2017 and 2022. The clinic coordinates the National Prion Monitoring Cohort, a longitudinal study of individuals with confirmed prion diseases. 

Of the eight cases, three were diagnosed with AD before referral to the clinic; two others met criteria for an AD diagnosis; and three did not meet the criteria. Three of the patients — two of whom had AD — are now deceased. 

All patients in the study received c-hGH prepared using a method called Wilhelmi or Hartree-modified Wilhelmi preparation (HWP).

Biomarker analyses confirmed the AD diagnosis in two patients. Other cases showed either progressive brain volume loss on brain imaging or elevated cerebrospinal fluid total tau and phosphorylated tau, or evidence of amyloid-beta deposits on autopsy. 
 

‘Potentially Transmissible’

The cases offered diverse presentations. Some were not symptomatic and some failed to meet current diagnostic criteria for sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. Treatment duration and frequency differed among those in the study, as did their age at treatment onset and completion. That and other factors could contribute to the diverse phenotype recorded in individuals, investigators note. 

Investigators examined and ruled out other factors that might explain the individuals’ cognitive symptoms, including childhood intellectual disability, which has been linked to dementia risk, the underlying condition that prompted their treatment with c-hGH, growth hormone deficiency, and cranial radiotherapy, which four of the individuals had received. They also ruled out inherited disease in all five of the cases with samples available for testing. 

“Taken together, the only factor common to all of the patients whom we describe is treatment with the HWP subtype of c-hGH,” the authors write. “Given the strong experimental evidence for A-beta transmission from relevant archived HWP c-hGH batches, we conclude that this is the most plausible explanation for the findings observed.”

Investigators say the findings show that, like other prion diseases, AD has three etiologies: sporadic, inherited, and rare acquired forms, or iatrogenic AD. 

“The clinical syndrome developed by these individuals can, therefore, be termed iatrogenic Alzheimer’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease should now be recognized as a potentially transmissible disorder,” the authors write. 

“Our cases suggest that, similarly to what is observed in human prion diseases, iatrogenic forms of Alzheimer’s disease differ phenotypically from sporadic and inherited forms, with some individuals remaining asymptomatic despite exposure to A-beta seeds due to protective factors that, at present, are unknown,” they continue
 

‘Measure of Skepticism’

In an accompanying editorial, Mathias Jucker, PhD, of the Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, and Lary C. Walker, PhD, in the Department of Neurology at Emory University, Atlanta, write that the findings should be considered “with a measure of skepticism.”

“The cases presented are diverse and complicated; the individuals had undergone a variety of medical interventions for various disorders earlier in life, and it is difficult to exclude a contribution of these circumstances to the complex disease phenotypes that appeared many years later,” they write. 

However, they continue, “there is good reason to take the findings seriously.”

“From a practical standpoint, this report reinforces the potential of amyloid-beta seeds as targets for early prevention, and it underscores the importance of informed caution in the preparation of surgical instruments, handling of tissues, and implementation of therapeutic biologics, particularly those derived from human sources,” Dr. Jucker and Dr. Walker write. 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association, says the idea that amyloid-beta is transmissible between individuals has been shown before. 

“We’ve known for a long time that it is possible to create abnormal amyloid buildup — similar to that seen in Alzheimer’s – in the brain of an animal by injecting it with amyloid-beta. We also transfer human Alzheimer’s genes into animals to initiate abnormal, Alzheimer’s-like processes in their brains,” he said. “Thus, the idea that amyloid is transferable between individuals is not so novel as implied in the new paper.”

However, the study does highlight the importance of safety measures to prevent the accidental transmission of amyloid-beta, Weber added. 

“It is a reasonable and actionable caution that the scientific and clinical communities must understand the possible risks and ensure that all methods of transmission are eliminated — for example, with complete and conscientious sterilization of surgical instruments,” he said. “Bottom line: We shouldn’t put amyloid-beta into people’s brains, either accidentally or on purpose, and appropriate measures should be in place to ensure that doesn’t happen.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the NIHR University College of London Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, Alzheimer’s Research UK, and the Stroke Association. Dr. Collinge is a shareholder and director of D-Gen, Ltd., an academic spin-out company working in the field of prion disease diagnosis, decontamination and therapeutics. Dr. Jucker and Dr. Walker report no conflicts of interest. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five people in the United Kingdom have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease resulting from a medical treatment they received decades earlier, new research shows. 

Investigators say they are the first known cases of medically acquired AD in living people, but outside experts say the findings should be interpreted cautiously.

The individuals received treatment as children with human growth hormone extracted from pituitary glands of cadavers (c-hGH). Between 1958-1985, an estimated 30,000 people worldwide, mostly children, were treated with c-hGH for genetic disorders and growth hormone deficiencies. 

The therapy was halted in 1985 after three patients in the US who received the treatment later died of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) transmitted through batches of c-hGH that were contaminated with disease-causing prions. 

The new study builds on the investigators’ earlier work that showed the batches of c-hGH also contained amyloid-beta protein and that the protein could be transmitted decades later. These five cases were referred to or reviewed by researchers and clinicians at a prion clinic led by one of the lead researchers.

There are no reports of amyloid-beta transmission through any other medical or surgical procedures, researchers stress, and there is no evidence that amyloid-beta can be passed on during routine patient care or in daily activities. 

“However, the recognition of transmission of amyloid-beta pathology in these rare situations should lead us to review measures to prevent accidental transmission via other medical or surgical procedures, in order to prevent such cases occurring in future,” lead author John Collinge, MD, director of the University of College London Institute of Prion Diseases, London, England, and leader of the UK’s National Prion Clinic, said in a press release. 

“Importantly, our findings also suggest that Alzheimer’s and some other neurological conditions share similar disease processes to CJD, and this may have important implications for understanding and treating Alzheimer’s disease in the future,” Dr. Collinge continued.

The findings were published online January 29 in Nature Medicine. 
 

Building on Earlier Work

The research builds on investigators’ previous 2015 work that found archived samples of c-hGH were also contaminated with amyloid-beta protein. In 2018, mouse studies showed that c-hGH samples stored for decades could still transmit amyloid-beta via injection. 

Researchers said the findings suggested that individuals exposed to contaminated c-hGH who did not die from CJD might eventually develop AD.

Patients in the new study developed neurological symptoms consistent with AD between the ages of 38 and 55 years. The individual cases were either referred to or reviewed by experts in the National Prion Clinic in the UK between 2017 and 2022. The clinic coordinates the National Prion Monitoring Cohort, a longitudinal study of individuals with confirmed prion diseases. 

Of the eight cases, three were diagnosed with AD before referral to the clinic; two others met criteria for an AD diagnosis; and three did not meet the criteria. Three of the patients — two of whom had AD — are now deceased. 

All patients in the study received c-hGH prepared using a method called Wilhelmi or Hartree-modified Wilhelmi preparation (HWP).

Biomarker analyses confirmed the AD diagnosis in two patients. Other cases showed either progressive brain volume loss on brain imaging or elevated cerebrospinal fluid total tau and phosphorylated tau, or evidence of amyloid-beta deposits on autopsy. 
 

‘Potentially Transmissible’

The cases offered diverse presentations. Some were not symptomatic and some failed to meet current diagnostic criteria for sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. Treatment duration and frequency differed among those in the study, as did their age at treatment onset and completion. That and other factors could contribute to the diverse phenotype recorded in individuals, investigators note. 

Investigators examined and ruled out other factors that might explain the individuals’ cognitive symptoms, including childhood intellectual disability, which has been linked to dementia risk, the underlying condition that prompted their treatment with c-hGH, growth hormone deficiency, and cranial radiotherapy, which four of the individuals had received. They also ruled out inherited disease in all five of the cases with samples available for testing. 

“Taken together, the only factor common to all of the patients whom we describe is treatment with the HWP subtype of c-hGH,” the authors write. “Given the strong experimental evidence for A-beta transmission from relevant archived HWP c-hGH batches, we conclude that this is the most plausible explanation for the findings observed.”

Investigators say the findings show that, like other prion diseases, AD has three etiologies: sporadic, inherited, and rare acquired forms, or iatrogenic AD. 

“The clinical syndrome developed by these individuals can, therefore, be termed iatrogenic Alzheimer’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease should now be recognized as a potentially transmissible disorder,” the authors write. 

“Our cases suggest that, similarly to what is observed in human prion diseases, iatrogenic forms of Alzheimer’s disease differ phenotypically from sporadic and inherited forms, with some individuals remaining asymptomatic despite exposure to A-beta seeds due to protective factors that, at present, are unknown,” they continue
 

‘Measure of Skepticism’

In an accompanying editorial, Mathias Jucker, PhD, of the Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, and Lary C. Walker, PhD, in the Department of Neurology at Emory University, Atlanta, write that the findings should be considered “with a measure of skepticism.”

“The cases presented are diverse and complicated; the individuals had undergone a variety of medical interventions for various disorders earlier in life, and it is difficult to exclude a contribution of these circumstances to the complex disease phenotypes that appeared many years later,” they write. 

However, they continue, “there is good reason to take the findings seriously.”

“From a practical standpoint, this report reinforces the potential of amyloid-beta seeds as targets for early prevention, and it underscores the importance of informed caution in the preparation of surgical instruments, handling of tissues, and implementation of therapeutic biologics, particularly those derived from human sources,” Dr. Jucker and Dr. Walker write. 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association, says the idea that amyloid-beta is transmissible between individuals has been shown before. 

“We’ve known for a long time that it is possible to create abnormal amyloid buildup — similar to that seen in Alzheimer’s – in the brain of an animal by injecting it with amyloid-beta. We also transfer human Alzheimer’s genes into animals to initiate abnormal, Alzheimer’s-like processes in their brains,” he said. “Thus, the idea that amyloid is transferable between individuals is not so novel as implied in the new paper.”

However, the study does highlight the importance of safety measures to prevent the accidental transmission of amyloid-beta, Weber added. 

“It is a reasonable and actionable caution that the scientific and clinical communities must understand the possible risks and ensure that all methods of transmission are eliminated — for example, with complete and conscientious sterilization of surgical instruments,” he said. “Bottom line: We shouldn’t put amyloid-beta into people’s brains, either accidentally or on purpose, and appropriate measures should be in place to ensure that doesn’t happen.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the NIHR University College of London Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, Alzheimer’s Research UK, and the Stroke Association. Dr. Collinge is a shareholder and director of D-Gen, Ltd., an academic spin-out company working in the field of prion disease diagnosis, decontamination and therapeutics. Dr. Jucker and Dr. Walker report no conflicts of interest. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five people in the United Kingdom have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease resulting from a medical treatment they received decades earlier, new research shows. 

Investigators say they are the first known cases of medically acquired AD in living people, but outside experts say the findings should be interpreted cautiously.

The individuals received treatment as children with human growth hormone extracted from pituitary glands of cadavers (c-hGH). Between 1958-1985, an estimated 30,000 people worldwide, mostly children, were treated with c-hGH for genetic disorders and growth hormone deficiencies. 

The therapy was halted in 1985 after three patients in the US who received the treatment later died of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) transmitted through batches of c-hGH that were contaminated with disease-causing prions. 

The new study builds on the investigators’ earlier work that showed the batches of c-hGH also contained amyloid-beta protein and that the protein could be transmitted decades later. These five cases were referred to or reviewed by researchers and clinicians at a prion clinic led by one of the lead researchers.

There are no reports of amyloid-beta transmission through any other medical or surgical procedures, researchers stress, and there is no evidence that amyloid-beta can be passed on during routine patient care or in daily activities. 

“However, the recognition of transmission of amyloid-beta pathology in these rare situations should lead us to review measures to prevent accidental transmission via other medical or surgical procedures, in order to prevent such cases occurring in future,” lead author John Collinge, MD, director of the University of College London Institute of Prion Diseases, London, England, and leader of the UK’s National Prion Clinic, said in a press release. 

“Importantly, our findings also suggest that Alzheimer’s and some other neurological conditions share similar disease processes to CJD, and this may have important implications for understanding and treating Alzheimer’s disease in the future,” Dr. Collinge continued.

The findings were published online January 29 in Nature Medicine. 
 

Building on Earlier Work

The research builds on investigators’ previous 2015 work that found archived samples of c-hGH were also contaminated with amyloid-beta protein. In 2018, mouse studies showed that c-hGH samples stored for decades could still transmit amyloid-beta via injection. 

Researchers said the findings suggested that individuals exposed to contaminated c-hGH who did not die from CJD might eventually develop AD.

Patients in the new study developed neurological symptoms consistent with AD between the ages of 38 and 55 years. The individual cases were either referred to or reviewed by experts in the National Prion Clinic in the UK between 2017 and 2022. The clinic coordinates the National Prion Monitoring Cohort, a longitudinal study of individuals with confirmed prion diseases. 

Of the eight cases, three were diagnosed with AD before referral to the clinic; two others met criteria for an AD diagnosis; and three did not meet the criteria. Three of the patients — two of whom had AD — are now deceased. 

All patients in the study received c-hGH prepared using a method called Wilhelmi or Hartree-modified Wilhelmi preparation (HWP).

Biomarker analyses confirmed the AD diagnosis in two patients. Other cases showed either progressive brain volume loss on brain imaging or elevated cerebrospinal fluid total tau and phosphorylated tau, or evidence of amyloid-beta deposits on autopsy. 
 

‘Potentially Transmissible’

The cases offered diverse presentations. Some were not symptomatic and some failed to meet current diagnostic criteria for sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. Treatment duration and frequency differed among those in the study, as did their age at treatment onset and completion. That and other factors could contribute to the diverse phenotype recorded in individuals, investigators note. 

Investigators examined and ruled out other factors that might explain the individuals’ cognitive symptoms, including childhood intellectual disability, which has been linked to dementia risk, the underlying condition that prompted their treatment with c-hGH, growth hormone deficiency, and cranial radiotherapy, which four of the individuals had received. They also ruled out inherited disease in all five of the cases with samples available for testing. 

“Taken together, the only factor common to all of the patients whom we describe is treatment with the HWP subtype of c-hGH,” the authors write. “Given the strong experimental evidence for A-beta transmission from relevant archived HWP c-hGH batches, we conclude that this is the most plausible explanation for the findings observed.”

Investigators say the findings show that, like other prion diseases, AD has three etiologies: sporadic, inherited, and rare acquired forms, or iatrogenic AD. 

“The clinical syndrome developed by these individuals can, therefore, be termed iatrogenic Alzheimer’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease should now be recognized as a potentially transmissible disorder,” the authors write. 

“Our cases suggest that, similarly to what is observed in human prion diseases, iatrogenic forms of Alzheimer’s disease differ phenotypically from sporadic and inherited forms, with some individuals remaining asymptomatic despite exposure to A-beta seeds due to protective factors that, at present, are unknown,” they continue
 

‘Measure of Skepticism’

In an accompanying editorial, Mathias Jucker, PhD, of the Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, and Lary C. Walker, PhD, in the Department of Neurology at Emory University, Atlanta, write that the findings should be considered “with a measure of skepticism.”

“The cases presented are diverse and complicated; the individuals had undergone a variety of medical interventions for various disorders earlier in life, and it is difficult to exclude a contribution of these circumstances to the complex disease phenotypes that appeared many years later,” they write. 

However, they continue, “there is good reason to take the findings seriously.”

“From a practical standpoint, this report reinforces the potential of amyloid-beta seeds as targets for early prevention, and it underscores the importance of informed caution in the preparation of surgical instruments, handling of tissues, and implementation of therapeutic biologics, particularly those derived from human sources,” Dr. Jucker and Dr. Walker write. 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association, says the idea that amyloid-beta is transmissible between individuals has been shown before. 

“We’ve known for a long time that it is possible to create abnormal amyloid buildup — similar to that seen in Alzheimer’s – in the brain of an animal by injecting it with amyloid-beta. We also transfer human Alzheimer’s genes into animals to initiate abnormal, Alzheimer’s-like processes in their brains,” he said. “Thus, the idea that amyloid is transferable between individuals is not so novel as implied in the new paper.”

However, the study does highlight the importance of safety measures to prevent the accidental transmission of amyloid-beta, Weber added. 

“It is a reasonable and actionable caution that the scientific and clinical communities must understand the possible risks and ensure that all methods of transmission are eliminated — for example, with complete and conscientious sterilization of surgical instruments,” he said. “Bottom line: We shouldn’t put amyloid-beta into people’s brains, either accidentally or on purpose, and appropriate measures should be in place to ensure that doesn’t happen.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the NIHR University College of London Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, Alzheimer’s Research UK, and the Stroke Association. Dr. Collinge is a shareholder and director of D-Gen, Ltd., an academic spin-out company working in the field of prion disease diagnosis, decontamination and therapeutics. Dr. Jucker and Dr. Walker report no conflicts of interest. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About 60% of US physicians who served as panel and task force members for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) received more than $14 million in undisclosed industry funding, a new study shows. 

Most payments were for food and beverages, travel, and consulting fees. But more than one third of contributors received compensation for services other than consulting, such as serving on a pharmaceutical company’s speakers bureau, which medical ethicists say is particularly problematic. 

Often referred to as the bible of psychiatric disorders, the DSM-5-TR was released in 2022 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and includes changes that were made online since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

An APA spokesperson said that DSM-5-TR decision-makers were unable to participate if they had received more than $5000 in industry payments and that all 186 individuals who worked on the text revision were required to disclose all sources of income prior to their participation. 

“The APA implemented and enforced a rigorous process for DSM-5-TR that required transparency by all contributors of their personal and professional interests, followed by an independent review to ensure that personal and professional interests did not bias any results,” the spokesperson said.

However, having industry funding did not preclude contributors’ participation, and investigators note that none of the disclosures were published in the manual or shared publicly. 

“The point is not to point fingers at the APA or individual members of the APA but rather to provide hopefully a small piece of research data that would help the APA look at the larger systemic issue of conflicts of interest,” said the study’s lead investigator Lisa Cosgrove, PhD, professor of counseling and faculty fellow in the Applied Ethics Center at the University of Massachusetts Boston. 

The findings were published online in The BMJ .

A Deep Dive

The work builds on the investigators’ earlier research into financial conflicts among DSM contributors. The lack of a centralized database of industry payments made the group›s prior studies far more complicated and time-consuming. 

For this project, investigators drew on the Open Payments database, which launched in 2014. It collects and publishes data on payments by pharmaceutical and medical device companies to physicians and other healthcare professionals for research, meals, travel, gifts, speaking fees, and other expenses. The program was established as part of the Affordable Care Act and is run by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 

Investigators analyzed industry payments made to DSM-5-TR contributors between 2016 and 2019, just before work on the text revision began. Of the 168 individuals listed as contributors to the manual, 92 met the inclusion criteria of being a US-based physician with industry payments tracked in Open Payments.

Fifty-five of those physicians, or 59.8%, had financial ties to industry. The most common type of payment was for food and beverages (90.9%), travel (69.1%), and consulting (69.1%). Nineteen panel members received $1.8 million for “compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program.”

The greatest proportion of compensation by category of payment was for research funding (71%).

Investigators found that every DSM-5-TR panel included at least one member with industry ties. The panels with the highest number of members with a recent history of industry funding were those for neurodevelopmental disorders; bipolar disorders; obsessive-compulsive disorders; neurocognitive disorders; medication induced movement disorders; and disruptive, impulse control, and conduct disorders. More than 70% of members on those panels had received industry funding. 

The total payments received by all contributors was more than $14.2 million, with a range from just under $14 per physician to $2.7 million per physician. The researchers note that the percentage of panel members with industry support was similar between DSM-5-TR and DSM-5.

“What we also see that’s consistent with our 2016 study and 2012 study is the panels for which the members had the most financial ties to industry were those for which pharmaceutical interventions are the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cosgrove said.

No Public Disclosure

For DSM-5, the APA instituted a new disclosure policy for contributors and reported those disclosures on its website. 

This time, the association spokesperson said that DSM-5-TR chairs and the DSM Steering Committee who reviewed all proposed changes were required to have no industry-related income above $5000 and that “in fact, many had no industry income.”

Other DSM-5-TR contributors had to submit “extensive” disclosure forms and report “any relationships they or close relations had with industry (very broadly defined) and sources of income,” the spokesperson added. They were also asked to report other nonfinancial interests that they or close relatives had that could potentially bias their work. 

The APA’s standing Conflict of Interest Committee reviewed all disclosure forms and flagged those with disclosures that could impact content. Text written by individuals with flagged disclosures received additional review, the spokesperson said. 

“If any possible bias was noted in the text content, such as for a potential commercial advantage with a diagnostic instrument, that content was deleted,” the spokesperson said.

However, the real sticking point for medical ethicists is that unlike with the DSM-5, the APA did not share DSM-5-TR contributors’ disclosures publicly. 

Commenting on the research, Bernard Lo, MD, professor emeritus of medicine and director emeritus of the Program in Medical Ethics Emeritus at University of California, San Francisco, said that the lack of public disclosure is critical.

“Part of the report should be, ‘Here are the conflicts of interest reported by the members of the panel,’” said Dr. Lo, adding that publishing disclosures is standard in all of APA’s peer-reviewed journals. “Failure to do that in the DSM-5-TR is unacceptable from an ethical and transparency point of view.”

Loss of Public Trust?

In her previous research and in this new study, Dr. Cosgrove recommends the APA follow the 2011 report Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now called the National Academy of Medicine), that report updated and streamlined a 2009 conflicts of interest guideline, which Dr. Lo coauthored. 

“The IOM recommends that the whole guideline development group be free of industry ties,” Dr. Cosgrove said. “At a minimum, the chair should not have ties and the majority of folks should not have ties to industry.”

Some have argued that banning all contributors with industry ties would shrink the expert pool that develops the DSM and other guidelines. Dr. Cosgrove disagrees with that assertion.

“There are hundreds of experts in all medical disciplines that do not have industry ties,” Dr. Cosgrove said. “The ‘most experts have industry ties’ is a spurious and unsupported argument.”

The APA also should ban contributors who receive industry funding as key opinion leaders, known as KOLs, such as members of pharmaceutical companies’ speakers bureaus, Dr. Lo said. 

“Certain types of funding relationships with industry are more fraught with ethical problems,” including KOLs, who Dr. Lo said are “basically salespeople trying to increase sales of a product.” 

“It really compromises their scientific objectivity and should exclude someone from any practice guideline body,” Dr. Lo said. “This failure to adequately address conflicts of interest doesn’t promote transparency and it doesn’t promote public trust in the diagnostic criteria.”

The Larger Issue

Removing financial conflicts of interest is a start, but it wouldn’t address the larger issue in medicine, said Allen Frances, MD, who chaired the DSM-4 task force and has been an outspoken critic of the DSM-5. 

“The financial conflicts of interest may play a role with some people, I’m not denying that,” said Dr. Frances, a professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. “But that’s a much smaller problem than the fact that any individual from any professional association that has an intense interest in any given diagnosis will always be on the side of expanding that diagnosis and expanding the treatment for it.”

Though financial conflicts of interest can be addressed, Frances believes that professionals’ “intellectual and emotional conflicts” are much harder to overcome. 

“People who spend their careers working on any diagnosis are terribly biased by virtue of their attachment to their work,” he said. 

The solution is for guidelines in psychiatry and all medical fields to be developed by a truly multidisciplinary “neutral board” that includes broad representation of primary care physicians. 

Specialists would be involved in the development of the guidelines but would not have a final say in what diagnoses or treatments are included or excluded. 

“80% of psychiatric meds are prescribed by primary care doctors, not psychiatrists,” he said. “So, when you’re making a suggestion for a change in psychiatry, you’re making that suggestion primarily for primary care doctor and have to be thinking about, How will this change play in primary care, which the experts never do.”

The study was unfunded. Dr. Allen reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lo served as a paid member of the Takeda Pharmaceuticals Ethics Advisory Committee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About 60% of US physicians who served as panel and task force members for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) received more than $14 million in undisclosed industry funding, a new study shows. 

Most payments were for food and beverages, travel, and consulting fees. But more than one third of contributors received compensation for services other than consulting, such as serving on a pharmaceutical company’s speakers bureau, which medical ethicists say is particularly problematic. 

Often referred to as the bible of psychiatric disorders, the DSM-5-TR was released in 2022 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and includes changes that were made online since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

An APA spokesperson said that DSM-5-TR decision-makers were unable to participate if they had received more than $5000 in industry payments and that all 186 individuals who worked on the text revision were required to disclose all sources of income prior to their participation. 

“The APA implemented and enforced a rigorous process for DSM-5-TR that required transparency by all contributors of their personal and professional interests, followed by an independent review to ensure that personal and professional interests did not bias any results,” the spokesperson said.

However, having industry funding did not preclude contributors’ participation, and investigators note that none of the disclosures were published in the manual or shared publicly. 

“The point is not to point fingers at the APA or individual members of the APA but rather to provide hopefully a small piece of research data that would help the APA look at the larger systemic issue of conflicts of interest,” said the study’s lead investigator Lisa Cosgrove, PhD, professor of counseling and faculty fellow in the Applied Ethics Center at the University of Massachusetts Boston. 

The findings were published online in The BMJ .

A Deep Dive

The work builds on the investigators’ earlier research into financial conflicts among DSM contributors. The lack of a centralized database of industry payments made the group›s prior studies far more complicated and time-consuming. 

For this project, investigators drew on the Open Payments database, which launched in 2014. It collects and publishes data on payments by pharmaceutical and medical device companies to physicians and other healthcare professionals for research, meals, travel, gifts, speaking fees, and other expenses. The program was established as part of the Affordable Care Act and is run by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 

Investigators analyzed industry payments made to DSM-5-TR contributors between 2016 and 2019, just before work on the text revision began. Of the 168 individuals listed as contributors to the manual, 92 met the inclusion criteria of being a US-based physician with industry payments tracked in Open Payments.

Fifty-five of those physicians, or 59.8%, had financial ties to industry. The most common type of payment was for food and beverages (90.9%), travel (69.1%), and consulting (69.1%). Nineteen panel members received $1.8 million for “compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program.”

The greatest proportion of compensation by category of payment was for research funding (71%).

Investigators found that every DSM-5-TR panel included at least one member with industry ties. The panels with the highest number of members with a recent history of industry funding were those for neurodevelopmental disorders; bipolar disorders; obsessive-compulsive disorders; neurocognitive disorders; medication induced movement disorders; and disruptive, impulse control, and conduct disorders. More than 70% of members on those panels had received industry funding. 

The total payments received by all contributors was more than $14.2 million, with a range from just under $14 per physician to $2.7 million per physician. The researchers note that the percentage of panel members with industry support was similar between DSM-5-TR and DSM-5.

“What we also see that’s consistent with our 2016 study and 2012 study is the panels for which the members had the most financial ties to industry were those for which pharmaceutical interventions are the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cosgrove said.

No Public Disclosure

For DSM-5, the APA instituted a new disclosure policy for contributors and reported those disclosures on its website. 

This time, the association spokesperson said that DSM-5-TR chairs and the DSM Steering Committee who reviewed all proposed changes were required to have no industry-related income above $5000 and that “in fact, many had no industry income.”

Other DSM-5-TR contributors had to submit “extensive” disclosure forms and report “any relationships they or close relations had with industry (very broadly defined) and sources of income,” the spokesperson added. They were also asked to report other nonfinancial interests that they or close relatives had that could potentially bias their work. 

The APA’s standing Conflict of Interest Committee reviewed all disclosure forms and flagged those with disclosures that could impact content. Text written by individuals with flagged disclosures received additional review, the spokesperson said. 

“If any possible bias was noted in the text content, such as for a potential commercial advantage with a diagnostic instrument, that content was deleted,” the spokesperson said.

However, the real sticking point for medical ethicists is that unlike with the DSM-5, the APA did not share DSM-5-TR contributors’ disclosures publicly. 

Commenting on the research, Bernard Lo, MD, professor emeritus of medicine and director emeritus of the Program in Medical Ethics Emeritus at University of California, San Francisco, said that the lack of public disclosure is critical.

“Part of the report should be, ‘Here are the conflicts of interest reported by the members of the panel,’” said Dr. Lo, adding that publishing disclosures is standard in all of APA’s peer-reviewed journals. “Failure to do that in the DSM-5-TR is unacceptable from an ethical and transparency point of view.”

Loss of Public Trust?

In her previous research and in this new study, Dr. Cosgrove recommends the APA follow the 2011 report Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now called the National Academy of Medicine), that report updated and streamlined a 2009 conflicts of interest guideline, which Dr. Lo coauthored. 

“The IOM recommends that the whole guideline development group be free of industry ties,” Dr. Cosgrove said. “At a minimum, the chair should not have ties and the majority of folks should not have ties to industry.”

Some have argued that banning all contributors with industry ties would shrink the expert pool that develops the DSM and other guidelines. Dr. Cosgrove disagrees with that assertion.

“There are hundreds of experts in all medical disciplines that do not have industry ties,” Dr. Cosgrove said. “The ‘most experts have industry ties’ is a spurious and unsupported argument.”

The APA also should ban contributors who receive industry funding as key opinion leaders, known as KOLs, such as members of pharmaceutical companies’ speakers bureaus, Dr. Lo said. 

“Certain types of funding relationships with industry are more fraught with ethical problems,” including KOLs, who Dr. Lo said are “basically salespeople trying to increase sales of a product.” 

“It really compromises their scientific objectivity and should exclude someone from any practice guideline body,” Dr. Lo said. “This failure to adequately address conflicts of interest doesn’t promote transparency and it doesn’t promote public trust in the diagnostic criteria.”

The Larger Issue

Removing financial conflicts of interest is a start, but it wouldn’t address the larger issue in medicine, said Allen Frances, MD, who chaired the DSM-4 task force and has been an outspoken critic of the DSM-5. 

“The financial conflicts of interest may play a role with some people, I’m not denying that,” said Dr. Frances, a professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. “But that’s a much smaller problem than the fact that any individual from any professional association that has an intense interest in any given diagnosis will always be on the side of expanding that diagnosis and expanding the treatment for it.”

Though financial conflicts of interest can be addressed, Frances believes that professionals’ “intellectual and emotional conflicts” are much harder to overcome. 

“People who spend their careers working on any diagnosis are terribly biased by virtue of their attachment to their work,” he said. 

The solution is for guidelines in psychiatry and all medical fields to be developed by a truly multidisciplinary “neutral board” that includes broad representation of primary care physicians. 

Specialists would be involved in the development of the guidelines but would not have a final say in what diagnoses or treatments are included or excluded. 

“80% of psychiatric meds are prescribed by primary care doctors, not psychiatrists,” he said. “So, when you’re making a suggestion for a change in psychiatry, you’re making that suggestion primarily for primary care doctor and have to be thinking about, How will this change play in primary care, which the experts never do.”

The study was unfunded. Dr. Allen reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lo served as a paid member of the Takeda Pharmaceuticals Ethics Advisory Committee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About 60% of US physicians who served as panel and task force members for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) received more than $14 million in undisclosed industry funding, a new study shows. 

Most payments were for food and beverages, travel, and consulting fees. But more than one third of contributors received compensation for services other than consulting, such as serving on a pharmaceutical company’s speakers bureau, which medical ethicists say is particularly problematic. 

Often referred to as the bible of psychiatric disorders, the DSM-5-TR was released in 2022 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and includes changes that were made online since the DSM-5 was first published in 2013.

An APA spokesperson said that DSM-5-TR decision-makers were unable to participate if they had received more than $5000 in industry payments and that all 186 individuals who worked on the text revision were required to disclose all sources of income prior to their participation. 

“The APA implemented and enforced a rigorous process for DSM-5-TR that required transparency by all contributors of their personal and professional interests, followed by an independent review to ensure that personal and professional interests did not bias any results,” the spokesperson said.

However, having industry funding did not preclude contributors’ participation, and investigators note that none of the disclosures were published in the manual or shared publicly. 

“The point is not to point fingers at the APA or individual members of the APA but rather to provide hopefully a small piece of research data that would help the APA look at the larger systemic issue of conflicts of interest,” said the study’s lead investigator Lisa Cosgrove, PhD, professor of counseling and faculty fellow in the Applied Ethics Center at the University of Massachusetts Boston. 

The findings were published online in The BMJ .

A Deep Dive

The work builds on the investigators’ earlier research into financial conflicts among DSM contributors. The lack of a centralized database of industry payments made the group›s prior studies far more complicated and time-consuming. 

For this project, investigators drew on the Open Payments database, which launched in 2014. It collects and publishes data on payments by pharmaceutical and medical device companies to physicians and other healthcare professionals for research, meals, travel, gifts, speaking fees, and other expenses. The program was established as part of the Affordable Care Act and is run by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 

Investigators analyzed industry payments made to DSM-5-TR contributors between 2016 and 2019, just before work on the text revision began. Of the 168 individuals listed as contributors to the manual, 92 met the inclusion criteria of being a US-based physician with industry payments tracked in Open Payments.

Fifty-five of those physicians, or 59.8%, had financial ties to industry. The most common type of payment was for food and beverages (90.9%), travel (69.1%), and consulting (69.1%). Nineteen panel members received $1.8 million for “compensation for services other than consulting, including serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue other than a continuing education program.”

The greatest proportion of compensation by category of payment was for research funding (71%).

Investigators found that every DSM-5-TR panel included at least one member with industry ties. The panels with the highest number of members with a recent history of industry funding were those for neurodevelopmental disorders; bipolar disorders; obsessive-compulsive disorders; neurocognitive disorders; medication induced movement disorders; and disruptive, impulse control, and conduct disorders. More than 70% of members on those panels had received industry funding. 

The total payments received by all contributors was more than $14.2 million, with a range from just under $14 per physician to $2.7 million per physician. The researchers note that the percentage of panel members with industry support was similar between DSM-5-TR and DSM-5.

“What we also see that’s consistent with our 2016 study and 2012 study is the panels for which the members had the most financial ties to industry were those for which pharmaceutical interventions are the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cosgrove said.

No Public Disclosure

For DSM-5, the APA instituted a new disclosure policy for contributors and reported those disclosures on its website. 

This time, the association spokesperson said that DSM-5-TR chairs and the DSM Steering Committee who reviewed all proposed changes were required to have no industry-related income above $5000 and that “in fact, many had no industry income.”

Other DSM-5-TR contributors had to submit “extensive” disclosure forms and report “any relationships they or close relations had with industry (very broadly defined) and sources of income,” the spokesperson added. They were also asked to report other nonfinancial interests that they or close relatives had that could potentially bias their work. 

The APA’s standing Conflict of Interest Committee reviewed all disclosure forms and flagged those with disclosures that could impact content. Text written by individuals with flagged disclosures received additional review, the spokesperson said. 

“If any possible bias was noted in the text content, such as for a potential commercial advantage with a diagnostic instrument, that content was deleted,” the spokesperson said.

However, the real sticking point for medical ethicists is that unlike with the DSM-5, the APA did not share DSM-5-TR contributors’ disclosures publicly. 

Commenting on the research, Bernard Lo, MD, professor emeritus of medicine and director emeritus of the Program in Medical Ethics Emeritus at University of California, San Francisco, said that the lack of public disclosure is critical.

“Part of the report should be, ‘Here are the conflicts of interest reported by the members of the panel,’” said Dr. Lo, adding that publishing disclosures is standard in all of APA’s peer-reviewed journals. “Failure to do that in the DSM-5-TR is unacceptable from an ethical and transparency point of view.”

Loss of Public Trust?

In her previous research and in this new study, Dr. Cosgrove recommends the APA follow the 2011 report Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now called the National Academy of Medicine), that report updated and streamlined a 2009 conflicts of interest guideline, which Dr. Lo coauthored. 

“The IOM recommends that the whole guideline development group be free of industry ties,” Dr. Cosgrove said. “At a minimum, the chair should not have ties and the majority of folks should not have ties to industry.”

Some have argued that banning all contributors with industry ties would shrink the expert pool that develops the DSM and other guidelines. Dr. Cosgrove disagrees with that assertion.

“There are hundreds of experts in all medical disciplines that do not have industry ties,” Dr. Cosgrove said. “The ‘most experts have industry ties’ is a spurious and unsupported argument.”

The APA also should ban contributors who receive industry funding as key opinion leaders, known as KOLs, such as members of pharmaceutical companies’ speakers bureaus, Dr. Lo said. 

“Certain types of funding relationships with industry are more fraught with ethical problems,” including KOLs, who Dr. Lo said are “basically salespeople trying to increase sales of a product.” 

“It really compromises their scientific objectivity and should exclude someone from any practice guideline body,” Dr. Lo said. “This failure to adequately address conflicts of interest doesn’t promote transparency and it doesn’t promote public trust in the diagnostic criteria.”

The Larger Issue

Removing financial conflicts of interest is a start, but it wouldn’t address the larger issue in medicine, said Allen Frances, MD, who chaired the DSM-4 task force and has been an outspoken critic of the DSM-5. 

“The financial conflicts of interest may play a role with some people, I’m not denying that,” said Dr. Frances, a professor and chair emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. “But that’s a much smaller problem than the fact that any individual from any professional association that has an intense interest in any given diagnosis will always be on the side of expanding that diagnosis and expanding the treatment for it.”

Though financial conflicts of interest can be addressed, Frances believes that professionals’ “intellectual and emotional conflicts” are much harder to overcome. 

“People who spend their careers working on any diagnosis are terribly biased by virtue of their attachment to their work,” he said. 

The solution is for guidelines in psychiatry and all medical fields to be developed by a truly multidisciplinary “neutral board” that includes broad representation of primary care physicians. 

Specialists would be involved in the development of the guidelines but would not have a final say in what diagnoses or treatments are included or excluded. 

“80% of psychiatric meds are prescribed by primary care doctors, not psychiatrists,” he said. “So, when you’re making a suggestion for a change in psychiatry, you’re making that suggestion primarily for primary care doctor and have to be thinking about, How will this change play in primary care, which the experts never do.”

The study was unfunded. Dr. Allen reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lo served as a paid member of the Takeda Pharmaceuticals Ethics Advisory Committee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An experimental therapy that uses deep brain stimulation (DBS) to deliver precise electrical pulses to an area deep inside the brain restored executive function in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI) and chronic sequelae.

Participants in this first-in-humans trial experienced brain injuries between 3-18 years before the study that left them with persistent neuropsychological impairment and a range of functional disabilities.

This is the first time a DBS device has been implanted in the central thalamus in humans, an area of the brain measuring only a few millimeters wide that helps regulate consciousness.

Placing the electrodes required a novel surgical technique developed by the investigators that included virtual models of each participant’s brain, microelectrode recording, and neuroimaging to identify neuronal circuits affected by the TBI.

After 3 months of 12-hour daily DBS treatments, participants’ performance on cognitive tests improved by an average of 32% from baseline. Participants were able to read books, watch TV shows, play video games, complete schoolwork, and felt significantly less fatigued during the day.

Although the small trial only included five patients, the work is already being hailed by other experts as significant.“We were looking for partial restoration of executive attention and expected [the treatment] would have an effect, but I wouldn’t have anticipated the effect size we saw,” co-lead investigator Nicholas Schiff, MD, professor of neuroscience at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, said in an interview.

The findings were published online Dec. 4 in Nature Medicine.

“No Trivial Feat”

An estimated 5.3 million children and adults are living with a permanent TBI-related disability in the US today. There currently is no effective therapy for impaired attention, executive function, working memory or information-processing speed caused by the initial injury.

Previous research suggests that a loss of activity in key brain circuits in the thalamus may be associated with a loss of cognitive function.

The investigators recruited six adults (four men and two women) between the ages of 22 and 60 years with a history of msTBI and chronic neuropsychological impairment and functional disability. One participant was later withdrawn from the trial for protocol noncompliance.

Participants completed a range of questionnaires and tests to establish baseline cognitive, psychological, and quality-of-life status.

To restore lost executive functioning in the brain, investigators had to target not only the central lateral nucleus, but also the neuronal network connected to the region that reaches other parts of the brain.

“To do both of those things we had to develop a whole toolset in order to model both the target and trajectory, which had to be right to make it work properly,” co-lead investigator Jaimie Henderson, MD, professor of neurosurgery at Stanford University College of Medicine, Stanford, California, said in an interview. “That gave us a pretty narrow window in which to work and getting an electrode accurately to this target is not a trivial feat.”

“A Moving Target”

Each participant’s brain physiology was slightly different, meaning the path that worked for one individual might not work for another. The surgery was further complicated by shifting in the brain that occurred as individual electrodes were placed.

“It was a literal moving target,” Dr. Henderson said.

In the beginning, investigators used microelectrode recording to “listen” to individual neurons to see which ones weren’t firing correctly.

When that method failed to offer the precise information needed for electrode placement, the investigators switched to neuroimaging, which allowed them to complete the surgery more quickly and accurately.

Participants remained in the hospital 1-2 days after surgery. They returned for postoperative imaging 30 days after surgery and were randomly assigned to different schedules for a 14-day titration period to optimize DBS stimulation.

The primary outcome was a 10% improvement on part B of the trail-making test, a neuropsychological test that measures executive functioning.

After 90 days of 12-hour daily DBS treatments, participants’ scores increased 15%–52% (average 32%) from baseline. Participants also reported an average of 33% decline in fatigue, one of the most common side effects of msTBI, and an average 80% improvement in attention.

The main safety risk during the 3- to-4-hour procedure is bleeding, which didn’t affect any of the participants in this study. One participant developed a surgical site infection, but all other side effects were mild.

After the 90-day treatment period, the study plan called for patients to be randomly assigned to a blinded withdrawal of treatment, with the DBS turned off for 21 days. Two of the patients declined to be randomized. DBS was turned off in one participant while the other two continued as normal.

After 3 weeks, the patient whose DBS was turned off showed a 34% decline on cognitive tests. The device was reactivated after the study and that participant has since reported improvements.

The DBS devices continue to function in all participants. Although their performance is not being measured as part of the study, anecdotal reports indicate sustained improvement in executive functioning.

“The brain injury causes this global down-regulation of brain function and what we think that this is doing is turning that back up again,” Dr. Henderson said. “At a very simplistic level, what we’re trying to do is turn the lights back up after the dimmer switch is switched down from the injury.”

New Hope

TBI patients are usually treated aggressively during the first year, when significant improvements are most likely, but there are few therapeutic options beyond that time, said neurologist Javier Cardenas, MD, who commented on the findings for this article.

“Many providers throw their hands up after a year in terms of intervention and then we’re always looking at potential declines over time,” said Dr. Cardenas, director of the Concussion and Brain Injury Center at the Rockefeller Neuroscience Institution, West Virginia University, Morgantown. “Most people plateau and don’t decline but we’re always worried about a secondary decline in traumatic brain injury.”Surgery is usually only employed immediately following the brain injury. The notion of surgery as a therapeutic option years after the initial assault on the brain is novel, said Jimmy Yang, MD, assistant professor of neurologic surgery at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, who commented on the findings for this article.

“While deep brain stimulation surgery in clinical practice is specifically tailored to each patient we treat, this study goes a step further by integrating research tools that have not yet made it to the clinical realm,” Dr. Yang said. “As a result, while these methods are not commonly used in clinical care, the overall strategy highlights how research advances are linked to clinical advances.”

Investigators are working to secure funding for a larger phase 2 trial.

“With millions of people affected by traumatic brain injury but without effective therapies, this study brings hope that options are on the horizon to help these patients,” Dr. Yang said.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institute of Health BRAIN Initiative and a grant from the Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College. Surgical implants were provided by Medtronic. Dr. Henderson and Dr. Schiff are listed as inventors on several patent applications for the experimental DBS therapy described in the study. Dr. Cardenas and Dr. Yang report no relevant financial relationships.

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

An experimental therapy that uses deep brain stimulation (DBS) to deliver precise electrical pulses to an area deep inside the brain restored executive function in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI) and chronic sequelae.

Participants in this first-in-humans trial experienced brain injuries between 3-18 years before the study that left them with persistent neuropsychological impairment and a range of functional disabilities.

This is the first time a DBS device has been implanted in the central thalamus in humans, an area of the brain measuring only a few millimeters wide that helps regulate consciousness.

Placing the electrodes required a novel surgical technique developed by the investigators that included virtual models of each participant’s brain, microelectrode recording, and neuroimaging to identify neuronal circuits affected by the TBI.

After 3 months of 12-hour daily DBS treatments, participants’ performance on cognitive tests improved by an average of 32% from baseline. Participants were able to read books, watch TV shows, play video games, complete schoolwork, and felt significantly less fatigued during the day.

Although the small trial only included five patients, the work is already being hailed by other experts as significant.“We were looking for partial restoration of executive attention and expected [the treatment] would have an effect, but I wouldn’t have anticipated the effect size we saw,” co-lead investigator Nicholas Schiff, MD, professor of neuroscience at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, said in an interview.

The findings were published online Dec. 4 in Nature Medicine.

“No Trivial Feat”

An estimated 5.3 million children and adults are living with a permanent TBI-related disability in the US today. There currently is no effective therapy for impaired attention, executive function, working memory or information-processing speed caused by the initial injury.

Previous research suggests that a loss of activity in key brain circuits in the thalamus may be associated with a loss of cognitive function.

The investigators recruited six adults (four men and two women) between the ages of 22 and 60 years with a history of msTBI and chronic neuropsychological impairment and functional disability. One participant was later withdrawn from the trial for protocol noncompliance.

Participants completed a range of questionnaires and tests to establish baseline cognitive, psychological, and quality-of-life status.

To restore lost executive functioning in the brain, investigators had to target not only the central lateral nucleus, but also the neuronal network connected to the region that reaches other parts of the brain.

“To do both of those things we had to develop a whole toolset in order to model both the target and trajectory, which had to be right to make it work properly,” co-lead investigator Jaimie Henderson, MD, professor of neurosurgery at Stanford University College of Medicine, Stanford, California, said in an interview. “That gave us a pretty narrow window in which to work and getting an electrode accurately to this target is not a trivial feat.”

“A Moving Target”

Each participant’s brain physiology was slightly different, meaning the path that worked for one individual might not work for another. The surgery was further complicated by shifting in the brain that occurred as individual electrodes were placed.

“It was a literal moving target,” Dr. Henderson said.

In the beginning, investigators used microelectrode recording to “listen” to individual neurons to see which ones weren’t firing correctly.

When that method failed to offer the precise information needed for electrode placement, the investigators switched to neuroimaging, which allowed them to complete the surgery more quickly and accurately.

Participants remained in the hospital 1-2 days after surgery. They returned for postoperative imaging 30 days after surgery and were randomly assigned to different schedules for a 14-day titration period to optimize DBS stimulation.

The primary outcome was a 10% improvement on part B of the trail-making test, a neuropsychological test that measures executive functioning.

After 90 days of 12-hour daily DBS treatments, participants’ scores increased 15%–52% (average 32%) from baseline. Participants also reported an average of 33% decline in fatigue, one of the most common side effects of msTBI, and an average 80% improvement in attention.

The main safety risk during the 3- to-4-hour procedure is bleeding, which didn’t affect any of the participants in this study. One participant developed a surgical site infection, but all other side effects were mild.

After the 90-day treatment period, the study plan called for patients to be randomly assigned to a blinded withdrawal of treatment, with the DBS turned off for 21 days. Two of the patients declined to be randomized. DBS was turned off in one participant while the other two continued as normal.

After 3 weeks, the patient whose DBS was turned off showed a 34% decline on cognitive tests. The device was reactivated after the study and that participant has since reported improvements.

The DBS devices continue to function in all participants. Although their performance is not being measured as part of the study, anecdotal reports indicate sustained improvement in executive functioning.

“The brain injury causes this global down-regulation of brain function and what we think that this is doing is turning that back up again,” Dr. Henderson said. “At a very simplistic level, what we’re trying to do is turn the lights back up after the dimmer switch is switched down from the injury.”

New Hope

TBI patients are usually treated aggressively during the first year, when significant improvements are most likely, but there are few therapeutic options beyond that time, said neurologist Javier Cardenas, MD, who commented on the findings for this article.

“Many providers throw their hands up after a year in terms of intervention and then we’re always looking at potential declines over time,” said Dr. Cardenas, director of the Concussion and Brain Injury Center at the Rockefeller Neuroscience Institution, West Virginia University, Morgantown. “Most people plateau and don’t decline but we’re always worried about a secondary decline in traumatic brain injury.”Surgery is usually only employed immediately following the brain injury. The notion of surgery as a therapeutic option years after the initial assault on the brain is novel, said Jimmy Yang, MD, assistant professor of neurologic surgery at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, who commented on the findings for this article.

“While deep brain stimulation surgery in clinical practice is specifically tailored to each patient we treat, this study goes a step further by integrating research tools that have not yet made it to the clinical realm,” Dr. Yang said. “As a result, while these methods are not commonly used in clinical care, the overall strategy highlights how research advances are linked to clinical advances.”

Investigators are working to secure funding for a larger phase 2 trial.

“With millions of people affected by traumatic brain injury but without effective therapies, this study brings hope that options are on the horizon to help these patients,” Dr. Yang said.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institute of Health BRAIN Initiative and a grant from the Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College. Surgical implants were provided by Medtronic. Dr. Henderson and Dr. Schiff are listed as inventors on several patent applications for the experimental DBS therapy described in the study. Dr. Cardenas and Dr. Yang report no relevant financial relationships.

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

An experimental therapy that uses deep brain stimulation (DBS) to deliver precise electrical pulses to an area deep inside the brain restored executive function in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI) and chronic sequelae.

Participants in this first-in-humans trial experienced brain injuries between 3-18 years before the study that left them with persistent neuropsychological impairment and a range of functional disabilities.

This is the first time a DBS device has been implanted in the central thalamus in humans, an area of the brain measuring only a few millimeters wide that helps regulate consciousness.

Placing the electrodes required a novel surgical technique developed by the investigators that included virtual models of each participant’s brain, microelectrode recording, and neuroimaging to identify neuronal circuits affected by the TBI.

After 3 months of 12-hour daily DBS treatments, participants’ performance on cognitive tests improved by an average of 32% from baseline. Participants were able to read books, watch TV shows, play video games, complete schoolwork, and felt significantly less fatigued during the day.

Although the small trial only included five patients, the work is already being hailed by other experts as significant.“We were looking for partial restoration of executive attention and expected [the treatment] would have an effect, but I wouldn’t have anticipated the effect size we saw,” co-lead investigator Nicholas Schiff, MD, professor of neuroscience at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, said in an interview.

The findings were published online Dec. 4 in Nature Medicine.

“No Trivial Feat”

An estimated 5.3 million children and adults are living with a permanent TBI-related disability in the US today. There currently is no effective therapy for impaired attention, executive function, working memory or information-processing speed caused by the initial injury.

Previous research suggests that a loss of activity in key brain circuits in the thalamus may be associated with a loss of cognitive function.

The investigators recruited six adults (four men and two women) between the ages of 22 and 60 years with a history of msTBI and chronic neuropsychological impairment and functional disability. One participant was later withdrawn from the trial for protocol noncompliance.

Participants completed a range of questionnaires and tests to establish baseline cognitive, psychological, and quality-of-life status.

To restore lost executive functioning in the brain, investigators had to target not only the central lateral nucleus, but also the neuronal network connected to the region that reaches other parts of the brain.

“To do both of those things we had to develop a whole toolset in order to model both the target and trajectory, which had to be right to make it work properly,” co-lead investigator Jaimie Henderson, MD, professor of neurosurgery at Stanford University College of Medicine, Stanford, California, said in an interview. “That gave us a pretty narrow window in which to work and getting an electrode accurately to this target is not a trivial feat.”

“A Moving Target”

Each participant’s brain physiology was slightly different, meaning the path that worked for one individual might not work for another. The surgery was further complicated by shifting in the brain that occurred as individual electrodes were placed.

“It was a literal moving target,” Dr. Henderson said.

In the beginning, investigators used microelectrode recording to “listen” to individual neurons to see which ones weren’t firing correctly.

When that method failed to offer the precise information needed for electrode placement, the investigators switched to neuroimaging, which allowed them to complete the surgery more quickly and accurately.

Participants remained in the hospital 1-2 days after surgery. They returned for postoperative imaging 30 days after surgery and were randomly assigned to different schedules for a 14-day titration period to optimize DBS stimulation.

The primary outcome was a 10% improvement on part B of the trail-making test, a neuropsychological test that measures executive functioning.

After 90 days of 12-hour daily DBS treatments, participants’ scores increased 15%–52% (average 32%) from baseline. Participants also reported an average of 33% decline in fatigue, one of the most common side effects of msTBI, and an average 80% improvement in attention.

The main safety risk during the 3- to-4-hour procedure is bleeding, which didn’t affect any of the participants in this study. One participant developed a surgical site infection, but all other side effects were mild.

After the 90-day treatment period, the study plan called for patients to be randomly assigned to a blinded withdrawal of treatment, with the DBS turned off for 21 days. Two of the patients declined to be randomized. DBS was turned off in one participant while the other two continued as normal.

After 3 weeks, the patient whose DBS was turned off showed a 34% decline on cognitive tests. The device was reactivated after the study and that participant has since reported improvements.

The DBS devices continue to function in all participants. Although their performance is not being measured as part of the study, anecdotal reports indicate sustained improvement in executive functioning.

“The brain injury causes this global down-regulation of brain function and what we think that this is doing is turning that back up again,” Dr. Henderson said. “At a very simplistic level, what we’re trying to do is turn the lights back up after the dimmer switch is switched down from the injury.”

New Hope

TBI patients are usually treated aggressively during the first year, when significant improvements are most likely, but there are few therapeutic options beyond that time, said neurologist Javier Cardenas, MD, who commented on the findings for this article.

“Many providers throw their hands up after a year in terms of intervention and then we’re always looking at potential declines over time,” said Dr. Cardenas, director of the Concussion and Brain Injury Center at the Rockefeller Neuroscience Institution, West Virginia University, Morgantown. “Most people plateau and don’t decline but we’re always worried about a secondary decline in traumatic brain injury.”Surgery is usually only employed immediately following the brain injury. The notion of surgery as a therapeutic option years after the initial assault on the brain is novel, said Jimmy Yang, MD, assistant professor of neurologic surgery at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, who commented on the findings for this article.

“While deep brain stimulation surgery in clinical practice is specifically tailored to each patient we treat, this study goes a step further by integrating research tools that have not yet made it to the clinical realm,” Dr. Yang said. “As a result, while these methods are not commonly used in clinical care, the overall strategy highlights how research advances are linked to clinical advances.”

Investigators are working to secure funding for a larger phase 2 trial.

“With millions of people affected by traumatic brain injury but without effective therapies, this study brings hope that options are on the horizon to help these patients,” Dr. Yang said.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institute of Health BRAIN Initiative and a grant from the Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College. Surgical implants were provided by Medtronic. Dr. Henderson and Dr. Schiff are listed as inventors on several patent applications for the experimental DBS therapy described in the study. Dr. Cardenas and Dr. Yang report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A blood test that measures elevations in neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) could warn of worsening disability up to 2 years before it occurs, a new study suggests.

Rising NfL levels are a known indicator of neuroaxonal injury and correlate with MS disease activity. Levels rise in the presence of an MS relapse or MRI activity and fall following treatment with disease-modifying therapies. But the link between NfL levels and worsening disability was less understood.

This new analysis of NfL in two large MS cohorts found that elevated levels of the neuronal protein at baseline were associated with large increases in future disability risk, even in patients with no clinical relapse.

“This rising of NfL up to 2 years before signs of disability worsening represents the window when interventions may prevent worsening,” lead investigator Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Early warning system?

The study included data on 1,899 patients with nearly 13,000 patient visits from two observational, long-term, real-world cohorts: the U.S.-based Expression, Proteomics, Imaging, Clinical (EPIC) study (n = 609 patients), and the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort trial (SMSC; n = 1,290 patients).

Investigators analyzed longitudinal serum NfL measurements in conjunction with clinical disability worsening, defined as 6 months or more of increased impairment as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale.

Researchers also assessed the temporal association between NfL measurements and the risk of increased disability and distinguished between disability with and without relapse.

Worsening disability was reported in 227 patients in the EPIC group and 435 in the SMSC trial.

Elevated NfL at baseline was associated with a 70% higher risk for worsening disability with relapse about 11 months later in the SMSC study (hazard ratio, 1.70; P = .02). In the EPIC trial, there was trend toward a 91% higher risk for worsening disability with relapse at 12.6 months, although the findings did not meet statistical significance (HR, 1.91; P = .07).

The risk of future disability progression independent of clinical relapse was 40% higher in those with high NfL at baseline in the EPIC study 12 months after baseline (HR, 1.40; P = .02) and 49% higher in the SMSC trial 21 months later (HR, 1.49; P < .001).

The early elevation of NfL levels suggests a slower degradation of nerve cells and could be a possible early warning system of future progression of disability, allowing time for interventions that could slow or even halt further disability.

“Monitoring NfL levels might be able to detect disease activity with higher sensitivity than clinical exam or conventional imaging,” senior author Jens Kuhle, MD, PhD, leader of the Swiss cohort and head of the Multiple Sclerosis Center at University Hospital and University of Basel, said in a statement.
 

Challenges for clinicians

Commenting on the findings, Robert Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice chair for research, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, said that, while there is a clinical test to measure NfL levels, incorporating that test into standard of care isn’t straightforward.

“The challenge for the practicing clinician is to translate these population-level studies to individual patient management decisions,” said Dr. Fox, who was not a part of the study.

“The published prediction curves corrected for age, sex, disease course, disease-modifying treatment, relapse within the past 90 days, and current disability status, the combination of which makes it rather challenging to calculate and interpret adjusted z score NfL levels in routine practice and then use it in clinical decision-making.”

The investigators said the study underscores the importance of NfL as an MS biomarker and “points to the existence of different windows of dynamic central nervous system pathology” that precedes worsening disability with or without relapse. But there may be a simpler explanation, Dr. Fox suggested.

“We know MRI activity occurs 5-10 times more frequently than relapses, and we know that MRI activity is associated with both NfL increases and future disability progression,” Dr. Fox said. “It is quite likely that the elevations in NfL seen here are reflective of new MRI disease activity, which frequently is seen without symptoms of an MS relapse,” he said

The study was funded by the Westridge Foundation, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, the Fishman Family, the Swiss National Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Valhalla Foundation. Dr. Abdelhak reported receiving grants from the German Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Weill Institute for Neurosciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Kuhle has received grants from Swiss MS Society, the Swiss National Research Foundation, the Progressive MS Alliance, Biogen, Merck, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Octave Bioscience, Roche, Sanofi, Alnylam, Bayer, Immunic, Quanterix, Neurogenesis, Stata DX, and the University of Basel outside the submitted work. Dr. Fox reported receiving consulting fees from Siemens and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood test that measures elevations in neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) could warn of worsening disability up to 2 years before it occurs, a new study suggests.

Rising NfL levels are a known indicator of neuroaxonal injury and correlate with MS disease activity. Levels rise in the presence of an MS relapse or MRI activity and fall following treatment with disease-modifying therapies. But the link between NfL levels and worsening disability was less understood.

This new analysis of NfL in two large MS cohorts found that elevated levels of the neuronal protein at baseline were associated with large increases in future disability risk, even in patients with no clinical relapse.

“This rising of NfL up to 2 years before signs of disability worsening represents the window when interventions may prevent worsening,” lead investigator Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Early warning system?

The study included data on 1,899 patients with nearly 13,000 patient visits from two observational, long-term, real-world cohorts: the U.S.-based Expression, Proteomics, Imaging, Clinical (EPIC) study (n = 609 patients), and the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort trial (SMSC; n = 1,290 patients).

Investigators analyzed longitudinal serum NfL measurements in conjunction with clinical disability worsening, defined as 6 months or more of increased impairment as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale.

Researchers also assessed the temporal association between NfL measurements and the risk of increased disability and distinguished between disability with and without relapse.

Worsening disability was reported in 227 patients in the EPIC group and 435 in the SMSC trial.

Elevated NfL at baseline was associated with a 70% higher risk for worsening disability with relapse about 11 months later in the SMSC study (hazard ratio, 1.70; P = .02). In the EPIC trial, there was trend toward a 91% higher risk for worsening disability with relapse at 12.6 months, although the findings did not meet statistical significance (HR, 1.91; P = .07).

The risk of future disability progression independent of clinical relapse was 40% higher in those with high NfL at baseline in the EPIC study 12 months after baseline (HR, 1.40; P = .02) and 49% higher in the SMSC trial 21 months later (HR, 1.49; P < .001).

The early elevation of NfL levels suggests a slower degradation of nerve cells and could be a possible early warning system of future progression of disability, allowing time for interventions that could slow or even halt further disability.

“Monitoring NfL levels might be able to detect disease activity with higher sensitivity than clinical exam or conventional imaging,” senior author Jens Kuhle, MD, PhD, leader of the Swiss cohort and head of the Multiple Sclerosis Center at University Hospital and University of Basel, said in a statement.
 

Challenges for clinicians

Commenting on the findings, Robert Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice chair for research, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, said that, while there is a clinical test to measure NfL levels, incorporating that test into standard of care isn’t straightforward.

“The challenge for the practicing clinician is to translate these population-level studies to individual patient management decisions,” said Dr. Fox, who was not a part of the study.

“The published prediction curves corrected for age, sex, disease course, disease-modifying treatment, relapse within the past 90 days, and current disability status, the combination of which makes it rather challenging to calculate and interpret adjusted z score NfL levels in routine practice and then use it in clinical decision-making.”

The investigators said the study underscores the importance of NfL as an MS biomarker and “points to the existence of different windows of dynamic central nervous system pathology” that precedes worsening disability with or without relapse. But there may be a simpler explanation, Dr. Fox suggested.

“We know MRI activity occurs 5-10 times more frequently than relapses, and we know that MRI activity is associated with both NfL increases and future disability progression,” Dr. Fox said. “It is quite likely that the elevations in NfL seen here are reflective of new MRI disease activity, which frequently is seen without symptoms of an MS relapse,” he said

The study was funded by the Westridge Foundation, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, the Fishman Family, the Swiss National Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Valhalla Foundation. Dr. Abdelhak reported receiving grants from the German Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Weill Institute for Neurosciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Kuhle has received grants from Swiss MS Society, the Swiss National Research Foundation, the Progressive MS Alliance, Biogen, Merck, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Octave Bioscience, Roche, Sanofi, Alnylam, Bayer, Immunic, Quanterix, Neurogenesis, Stata DX, and the University of Basel outside the submitted work. Dr. Fox reported receiving consulting fees from Siemens and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A blood test that measures elevations in neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) could warn of worsening disability up to 2 years before it occurs, a new study suggests.

Rising NfL levels are a known indicator of neuroaxonal injury and correlate with MS disease activity. Levels rise in the presence of an MS relapse or MRI activity and fall following treatment with disease-modifying therapies. But the link between NfL levels and worsening disability was less understood.

This new analysis of NfL in two large MS cohorts found that elevated levels of the neuronal protein at baseline were associated with large increases in future disability risk, even in patients with no clinical relapse.

“This rising of NfL up to 2 years before signs of disability worsening represents the window when interventions may prevent worsening,” lead investigator Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, department of neurology, University of California, San Francisco, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Early warning system?

The study included data on 1,899 patients with nearly 13,000 patient visits from two observational, long-term, real-world cohorts: the U.S.-based Expression, Proteomics, Imaging, Clinical (EPIC) study (n = 609 patients), and the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort trial (SMSC; n = 1,290 patients).

Investigators analyzed longitudinal serum NfL measurements in conjunction with clinical disability worsening, defined as 6 months or more of increased impairment as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale.

Researchers also assessed the temporal association between NfL measurements and the risk of increased disability and distinguished between disability with and without relapse.

Worsening disability was reported in 227 patients in the EPIC group and 435 in the SMSC trial.

Elevated NfL at baseline was associated with a 70% higher risk for worsening disability with relapse about 11 months later in the SMSC study (hazard ratio, 1.70; P = .02). In the EPIC trial, there was trend toward a 91% higher risk for worsening disability with relapse at 12.6 months, although the findings did not meet statistical significance (HR, 1.91; P = .07).

The risk of future disability progression independent of clinical relapse was 40% higher in those with high NfL at baseline in the EPIC study 12 months after baseline (HR, 1.40; P = .02) and 49% higher in the SMSC trial 21 months later (HR, 1.49; P < .001).

The early elevation of NfL levels suggests a slower degradation of nerve cells and could be a possible early warning system of future progression of disability, allowing time for interventions that could slow or even halt further disability.

“Monitoring NfL levels might be able to detect disease activity with higher sensitivity than clinical exam or conventional imaging,” senior author Jens Kuhle, MD, PhD, leader of the Swiss cohort and head of the Multiple Sclerosis Center at University Hospital and University of Basel, said in a statement.
 

Challenges for clinicians

Commenting on the findings, Robert Fox, MD, staff neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS and vice chair for research, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, said that, while there is a clinical test to measure NfL levels, incorporating that test into standard of care isn’t straightforward.

“The challenge for the practicing clinician is to translate these population-level studies to individual patient management decisions,” said Dr. Fox, who was not a part of the study.

“The published prediction curves corrected for age, sex, disease course, disease-modifying treatment, relapse within the past 90 days, and current disability status, the combination of which makes it rather challenging to calculate and interpret adjusted z score NfL levels in routine practice and then use it in clinical decision-making.”

The investigators said the study underscores the importance of NfL as an MS biomarker and “points to the existence of different windows of dynamic central nervous system pathology” that precedes worsening disability with or without relapse. But there may be a simpler explanation, Dr. Fox suggested.

“We know MRI activity occurs 5-10 times more frequently than relapses, and we know that MRI activity is associated with both NfL increases and future disability progression,” Dr. Fox said. “It is quite likely that the elevations in NfL seen here are reflective of new MRI disease activity, which frequently is seen without symptoms of an MS relapse,” he said

The study was funded by the Westridge Foundation, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, the Fishman Family, the Swiss National Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Valhalla Foundation. Dr. Abdelhak reported receiving grants from the German Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Weill Institute for Neurosciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Kuhle has received grants from Swiss MS Society, the Swiss National Research Foundation, the Progressive MS Alliance, Biogen, Merck, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Octave Bioscience, Roche, Sanofi, Alnylam, Bayer, Immunic, Quanterix, Neurogenesis, Stata DX, and the University of Basel outside the submitted work. Dr. Fox reported receiving consulting fees from Siemens and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) make up nearly three-quarters of the entire U.S. food supply and about 60% of Americans’ daily caloric intake. A significant body of research has tied consumption of these foods – awash in added sugar, salt, fat, artificial colors, or preservatives – to cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
 

Now, a growing number of studies also link them to poor brain health, including an increased risk of dementia, depression, and anxiety, and some experts are calling for public health policies aimed at reducing UPF consumption.

But what’s the science behind the link between UPFs and brain health and what does it mean for clinicians and their patients?
 

Under srutiny

A mainstay of diets in countries around the world, UPFs have come under increasing scrutiny because of their link to major diseases. The ingredients in UPFs add little or no nutritional value. Their primary function is to increase a product’s shelf life and palatability. Some recent evidence suggests these foods may be as addictive as tobacco. In addition, two pooled analysis studies using the Yale Food Addiction Scale showed that 14% of adults and 12% of children in the United States may have a UPF addiction.

The most widely used measure of what is, and what is not, a UPF was developed in 2009 by researchers in Brazil. The NOVA food classification system assigns food and beverages to one of four groups:

• Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, milk, and meat.
• Processed culinary ingredients, including white sugar, butter, and oils derived from seeds, nuts, and fruits.
• Processed foods, such as tomato paste, bacon, canned tuna, and wine.
• Ultraprocessed foods, such as soda, ice cream, breakfast cereal, and prepackaged meals.

Those sounding the alarm about the potential harmful effects of UPFs are particularly concerned about their consumption by young people. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed that from 1999 to 2018, highly processed foods accounted for the majority of energy intake in those aged 2-19 years.

One of the most commonly used additives in UPFs, the artificial sweetener aspartame, garnered headlines this summer when the World Health Organization classified it as a likely carcinogen in humans. Aspartame is used in thousands of products, from soda to chewing gum to chewable vitamins.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration strongly disagreed with the WHO’s position and is sticking by its recommended daily limit of 50 mg/kg of body weight – equivalent to 75 packets of the sweetener Equal – as safe for human consumption.

“Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply,” FDA officials said in a statement, adding that the agency found “significant shortcomings” in the studies the WHO used to justify the new classification. “FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions.”

Increased attention to consumption of UPFs in general and aspartame particularly in recent years has yielded several studies pointing to the foods’ association with compromised brain health.
 

Link to depression, dementia

A recent report on UPF consumption and mental well-being among nearly 300,000 people across 70 countries showed that 53% of those who consumed UPFs several times a day were distressed or were struggling with their mental well-being, compared with 18% of those who rarely or never consumed UPFs.

Part of the Global Mind Project run by the nonprofit Sapien Labs in Arlington, Va., the report also showed that individuals with the highest rates of UPF consumption reported higher levels of confusion, slowed thinking, unwanted or obsessive thoughts, irritability, and feelings of sadness.

“There seems to be a much broader effect than just depression symptoms,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, founder and chief scientist of Sapien Labs and coauthor of the report, said in an interview.

The report, which has not been peer reviewed, comes on the heels of several other studies, including one from the Nurses Health Study II that showed that participants who consumed more than eight servings of UPFs daily had about a 50% higher depression risk, compared with those who consumed half that much.

“We found that UPFs in general, and artificial sweeteners and beverages in particular, were associated with increased risk,” said lead investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

“This was an interesting finding that correlates with data from animal studies that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” he told this news organization.

Cognition may also be affected. An analysis of more than 72,000 people in the UK Biobank showed that those who consumed a high levels of UPFs were 50% more likely to develop dementia than those who consumed fewer processed foods. For every 10% increase in UPF consumption, the odds of developing any kind of dementia increased by 25%.

Another study of nearly 11,000 people showed that higher UPF consumption was associated with a significantly faster decline in executive and global cognitive function.
 

Epigenetic changes

While these and other studies suggest a link between UPF consumption and brain health, they are designed to demonstrate correlation. To date, no human study has proven that eating highly processed foods directly causes a decline in mental health or cognition.

Animal studies could provide that causal link. Earlier this year, researchers at Florida State University in Tallahassee reported learning and memory deficits in two groups of male mice that completed a maze test after being fed water mixed with aspartame for about 20% of their adult lives, compared with a group of mice that drank water only. Animals that ingested aspartame could finish the test, but it took them longer, and they needed help.

The amount of aspartame used in the study was just 7% and 15% of the FDA’s recommended maximum intake of aspartame (equivalent to two to four 8-ounce diet sodas daily).

Most intriguing was that offspring of the mice in the aspartame groups demonstrated the same levels of cognitive decline and anxiety as their fathers, even though they had never ingested the artificial sweetener. Researchers theorize that in addition to changes in brain gene expression, aspartame also caused epigenetic changes in germ cells.

“Epigenetic changes in germ cells due to environmental exposures are both good and bad,” lead investigator Pradeep G. Bhide, PhD, professor of developmental neuroscience and director of the Center for Brain Repair at FSU, told this news organization. “They are bad because the next generation is affected. But they’re good because as long as the exposure no longer occurs, 2 or 3 generations later, that’s gone.”

The mice, which lacked taste receptors for aspartame, were the same age and weight in all three groups. Because the only difference was exposure to the artificial sweetener, Dr. Bhide says it suggests a causal link.

“Extrapolation of data from well-controlled laboratory experiments in mice to humans is always risky,” Dr. Bhide said. “The extrapolations give us insights into what could happen rather than what will happen.”
 

Potential mechanisms

Although scientists can’t say for certain how UPFs affect brain health, there are several theories. UPFs may influence an inflammatory immune response, which has been linked to depression and dementia. Consumption of highly processed foods may also disrupt the gut microbiome, Dr. Chan said, which, in turn, may increase depression risk.

“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” he said.

In addition, with UPFs that contain aspartame, there could be a more direct link to brain function. In the gastrointestinal track, the sweetener is quickly broken down into methanol, aspartic acid, and phenylalanine. All three enter the bloodstream, cross the blood-brain barrier, and are neuroactive.

“Phenylalanine is a precursor for neurotransmitters in the brain, and aspartic acid activates the glutamate excitatory neurotransmitter receptor,” Dr. Bhide said. “The effects we’ve seen could be due to these metabolites that have a direct effect on the brain function.”
 

Time to act?

Some researchers are building a case for classifying UPFs as addictive substances. Others are calling for additional research on UPF safety that is conducted outside the food industry.

There has also been some discussion of placing warning labels on UPFs. However, there is disagreement about what information should be included and how consumers might interpret it. The question of which food products are UPFs and which are not also isn’t settled. The NOVA system may be widely used, but it still has its detractors who believe it misclassifies some healthy foods as ultraprocessed.

Dr. Chan and other experts say the research conducted thus far requires additional corroboration to inform appropriate public health interventions. That would likely take the form of a large, randomized trial with one group of participants eating a healthy diet and the other consuming large amounts of UPFs.

“This type of study is extremely challenging given the number of people that would have to be willing to participate and be willing to eat a very specific diet over a long period of time,” Dr. Chan said. “I am also not sure it would be ethical to assign people to such a diet, given what we already know about the potential health effects of UPFs.”

Dr. Thiagarajan and others have called on funding agencies to direct more grant monies toward studies of UPFs to better understand their effect on brain health.

“Given the magnitude of the problem and given that there is a fair bit of evidence that points to a potential causal link, then we damn well better put money into this and get to the bottom of it,” she said.

Others are looking to the FDA to increase the agency’s scrutiny of food additives. While some additives such as artificial sweeteners have a place in diets of people with diabetes or obesity, Dr. Bhide suggests it may be wise for healthy individuals to reduce their daily intake of UPFs.

“Our data raise this to a different level because of the transgenerational transmission, which has never been shown before,” he said. “We are saying that the FDA should look in preclinical models at germ cells and maybe transgenerational transmission before approving any food additive.”

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

Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) make up nearly three-quarters of the entire U.S. food supply and about 60% of Americans’ daily caloric intake. A significant body of research has tied consumption of these foods – awash in added sugar, salt, fat, artificial colors, or preservatives – to cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
 

Now, a growing number of studies also link them to poor brain health, including an increased risk of dementia, depression, and anxiety, and some experts are calling for public health policies aimed at reducing UPF consumption.

But what’s the science behind the link between UPFs and brain health and what does it mean for clinicians and their patients?
 

Under srutiny

A mainstay of diets in countries around the world, UPFs have come under increasing scrutiny because of their link to major diseases. The ingredients in UPFs add little or no nutritional value. Their primary function is to increase a product’s shelf life and palatability. Some recent evidence suggests these foods may be as addictive as tobacco. In addition, two pooled analysis studies using the Yale Food Addiction Scale showed that 14% of adults and 12% of children in the United States may have a UPF addiction.

The most widely used measure of what is, and what is not, a UPF was developed in 2009 by researchers in Brazil. The NOVA food classification system assigns food and beverages to one of four groups:

• Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, milk, and meat.
• Processed culinary ingredients, including white sugar, butter, and oils derived from seeds, nuts, and fruits.
• Processed foods, such as tomato paste, bacon, canned tuna, and wine.
• Ultraprocessed foods, such as soda, ice cream, breakfast cereal, and prepackaged meals.

Those sounding the alarm about the potential harmful effects of UPFs are particularly concerned about their consumption by young people. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed that from 1999 to 2018, highly processed foods accounted for the majority of energy intake in those aged 2-19 years.

One of the most commonly used additives in UPFs, the artificial sweetener aspartame, garnered headlines this summer when the World Health Organization classified it as a likely carcinogen in humans. Aspartame is used in thousands of products, from soda to chewing gum to chewable vitamins.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration strongly disagreed with the WHO’s position and is sticking by its recommended daily limit of 50 mg/kg of body weight – equivalent to 75 packets of the sweetener Equal – as safe for human consumption.

“Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply,” FDA officials said in a statement, adding that the agency found “significant shortcomings” in the studies the WHO used to justify the new classification. “FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions.”

Increased attention to consumption of UPFs in general and aspartame particularly in recent years has yielded several studies pointing to the foods’ association with compromised brain health.
 

Link to depression, dementia

A recent report on UPF consumption and mental well-being among nearly 300,000 people across 70 countries showed that 53% of those who consumed UPFs several times a day were distressed or were struggling with their mental well-being, compared with 18% of those who rarely or never consumed UPFs.

Part of the Global Mind Project run by the nonprofit Sapien Labs in Arlington, Va., the report also showed that individuals with the highest rates of UPF consumption reported higher levels of confusion, slowed thinking, unwanted or obsessive thoughts, irritability, and feelings of sadness.

“There seems to be a much broader effect than just depression symptoms,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, founder and chief scientist of Sapien Labs and coauthor of the report, said in an interview.

The report, which has not been peer reviewed, comes on the heels of several other studies, including one from the Nurses Health Study II that showed that participants who consumed more than eight servings of UPFs daily had about a 50% higher depression risk, compared with those who consumed half that much.

“We found that UPFs in general, and artificial sweeteners and beverages in particular, were associated with increased risk,” said lead investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

“This was an interesting finding that correlates with data from animal studies that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” he told this news organization.

Cognition may also be affected. An analysis of more than 72,000 people in the UK Biobank showed that those who consumed a high levels of UPFs were 50% more likely to develop dementia than those who consumed fewer processed foods. For every 10% increase in UPF consumption, the odds of developing any kind of dementia increased by 25%.

Another study of nearly 11,000 people showed that higher UPF consumption was associated with a significantly faster decline in executive and global cognitive function.
 

Epigenetic changes

While these and other studies suggest a link between UPF consumption and brain health, they are designed to demonstrate correlation. To date, no human study has proven that eating highly processed foods directly causes a decline in mental health or cognition.

Animal studies could provide that causal link. Earlier this year, researchers at Florida State University in Tallahassee reported learning and memory deficits in two groups of male mice that completed a maze test after being fed water mixed with aspartame for about 20% of their adult lives, compared with a group of mice that drank water only. Animals that ingested aspartame could finish the test, but it took them longer, and they needed help.

The amount of aspartame used in the study was just 7% and 15% of the FDA’s recommended maximum intake of aspartame (equivalent to two to four 8-ounce diet sodas daily).

Most intriguing was that offspring of the mice in the aspartame groups demonstrated the same levels of cognitive decline and anxiety as their fathers, even though they had never ingested the artificial sweetener. Researchers theorize that in addition to changes in brain gene expression, aspartame also caused epigenetic changes in germ cells.

“Epigenetic changes in germ cells due to environmental exposures are both good and bad,” lead investigator Pradeep G. Bhide, PhD, professor of developmental neuroscience and director of the Center for Brain Repair at FSU, told this news organization. “They are bad because the next generation is affected. But they’re good because as long as the exposure no longer occurs, 2 or 3 generations later, that’s gone.”

The mice, which lacked taste receptors for aspartame, were the same age and weight in all three groups. Because the only difference was exposure to the artificial sweetener, Dr. Bhide says it suggests a causal link.

“Extrapolation of data from well-controlled laboratory experiments in mice to humans is always risky,” Dr. Bhide said. “The extrapolations give us insights into what could happen rather than what will happen.”
 

Potential mechanisms

Although scientists can’t say for certain how UPFs affect brain health, there are several theories. UPFs may influence an inflammatory immune response, which has been linked to depression and dementia. Consumption of highly processed foods may also disrupt the gut microbiome, Dr. Chan said, which, in turn, may increase depression risk.

“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” he said.

In addition, with UPFs that contain aspartame, there could be a more direct link to brain function. In the gastrointestinal track, the sweetener is quickly broken down into methanol, aspartic acid, and phenylalanine. All three enter the bloodstream, cross the blood-brain barrier, and are neuroactive.

“Phenylalanine is a precursor for neurotransmitters in the brain, and aspartic acid activates the glutamate excitatory neurotransmitter receptor,” Dr. Bhide said. “The effects we’ve seen could be due to these metabolites that have a direct effect on the brain function.”
 

Time to act?

Some researchers are building a case for classifying UPFs as addictive substances. Others are calling for additional research on UPF safety that is conducted outside the food industry.

There has also been some discussion of placing warning labels on UPFs. However, there is disagreement about what information should be included and how consumers might interpret it. The question of which food products are UPFs and which are not also isn’t settled. The NOVA system may be widely used, but it still has its detractors who believe it misclassifies some healthy foods as ultraprocessed.

Dr. Chan and other experts say the research conducted thus far requires additional corroboration to inform appropriate public health interventions. That would likely take the form of a large, randomized trial with one group of participants eating a healthy diet and the other consuming large amounts of UPFs.

“This type of study is extremely challenging given the number of people that would have to be willing to participate and be willing to eat a very specific diet over a long period of time,” Dr. Chan said. “I am also not sure it would be ethical to assign people to such a diet, given what we already know about the potential health effects of UPFs.”

Dr. Thiagarajan and others have called on funding agencies to direct more grant monies toward studies of UPFs to better understand their effect on brain health.

“Given the magnitude of the problem and given that there is a fair bit of evidence that points to a potential causal link, then we damn well better put money into this and get to the bottom of it,” she said.

Others are looking to the FDA to increase the agency’s scrutiny of food additives. While some additives such as artificial sweeteners have a place in diets of people with diabetes or obesity, Dr. Bhide suggests it may be wise for healthy individuals to reduce their daily intake of UPFs.

“Our data raise this to a different level because of the transgenerational transmission, which has never been shown before,” he said. “We are saying that the FDA should look in preclinical models at germ cells and maybe transgenerational transmission before approving any food additive.”

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

Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) make up nearly three-quarters of the entire U.S. food supply and about 60% of Americans’ daily caloric intake. A significant body of research has tied consumption of these foods – awash in added sugar, salt, fat, artificial colors, or preservatives – to cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
 

Now, a growing number of studies also link them to poor brain health, including an increased risk of dementia, depression, and anxiety, and some experts are calling for public health policies aimed at reducing UPF consumption.

But what’s the science behind the link between UPFs and brain health and what does it mean for clinicians and their patients?
 

Under srutiny

A mainstay of diets in countries around the world, UPFs have come under increasing scrutiny because of their link to major diseases. The ingredients in UPFs add little or no nutritional value. Their primary function is to increase a product’s shelf life and palatability. Some recent evidence suggests these foods may be as addictive as tobacco. In addition, two pooled analysis studies using the Yale Food Addiction Scale showed that 14% of adults and 12% of children in the United States may have a UPF addiction.

The most widely used measure of what is, and what is not, a UPF was developed in 2009 by researchers in Brazil. The NOVA food classification system assigns food and beverages to one of four groups:

• Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, milk, and meat.
• Processed culinary ingredients, including white sugar, butter, and oils derived from seeds, nuts, and fruits.
• Processed foods, such as tomato paste, bacon, canned tuna, and wine.
• Ultraprocessed foods, such as soda, ice cream, breakfast cereal, and prepackaged meals.

Those sounding the alarm about the potential harmful effects of UPFs are particularly concerned about their consumption by young people. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed that from 1999 to 2018, highly processed foods accounted for the majority of energy intake in those aged 2-19 years.

One of the most commonly used additives in UPFs, the artificial sweetener aspartame, garnered headlines this summer when the World Health Organization classified it as a likely carcinogen in humans. Aspartame is used in thousands of products, from soda to chewing gum to chewable vitamins.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration strongly disagreed with the WHO’s position and is sticking by its recommended daily limit of 50 mg/kg of body weight – equivalent to 75 packets of the sweetener Equal – as safe for human consumption.

“Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply,” FDA officials said in a statement, adding that the agency found “significant shortcomings” in the studies the WHO used to justify the new classification. “FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions.”

Increased attention to consumption of UPFs in general and aspartame particularly in recent years has yielded several studies pointing to the foods’ association with compromised brain health.
 

Link to depression, dementia

A recent report on UPF consumption and mental well-being among nearly 300,000 people across 70 countries showed that 53% of those who consumed UPFs several times a day were distressed or were struggling with their mental well-being, compared with 18% of those who rarely or never consumed UPFs.

Part of the Global Mind Project run by the nonprofit Sapien Labs in Arlington, Va., the report also showed that individuals with the highest rates of UPF consumption reported higher levels of confusion, slowed thinking, unwanted or obsessive thoughts, irritability, and feelings of sadness.

“There seems to be a much broader effect than just depression symptoms,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, founder and chief scientist of Sapien Labs and coauthor of the report, said in an interview.

The report, which has not been peer reviewed, comes on the heels of several other studies, including one from the Nurses Health Study II that showed that participants who consumed more than eight servings of UPFs daily had about a 50% higher depression risk, compared with those who consumed half that much.

“We found that UPFs in general, and artificial sweeteners and beverages in particular, were associated with increased risk,” said lead investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

“This was an interesting finding that correlates with data from animal studies that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” he told this news organization.

Cognition may also be affected. An analysis of more than 72,000 people in the UK Biobank showed that those who consumed a high levels of UPFs were 50% more likely to develop dementia than those who consumed fewer processed foods. For every 10% increase in UPF consumption, the odds of developing any kind of dementia increased by 25%.

Another study of nearly 11,000 people showed that higher UPF consumption was associated with a significantly faster decline in executive and global cognitive function.
 

Epigenetic changes

While these and other studies suggest a link between UPF consumption and brain health, they are designed to demonstrate correlation. To date, no human study has proven that eating highly processed foods directly causes a decline in mental health or cognition.

Animal studies could provide that causal link. Earlier this year, researchers at Florida State University in Tallahassee reported learning and memory deficits in two groups of male mice that completed a maze test after being fed water mixed with aspartame for about 20% of their adult lives, compared with a group of mice that drank water only. Animals that ingested aspartame could finish the test, but it took them longer, and they needed help.

The amount of aspartame used in the study was just 7% and 15% of the FDA’s recommended maximum intake of aspartame (equivalent to two to four 8-ounce diet sodas daily).

Most intriguing was that offspring of the mice in the aspartame groups demonstrated the same levels of cognitive decline and anxiety as their fathers, even though they had never ingested the artificial sweetener. Researchers theorize that in addition to changes in brain gene expression, aspartame also caused epigenetic changes in germ cells.

“Epigenetic changes in germ cells due to environmental exposures are both good and bad,” lead investigator Pradeep G. Bhide, PhD, professor of developmental neuroscience and director of the Center for Brain Repair at FSU, told this news organization. “They are bad because the next generation is affected. But they’re good because as long as the exposure no longer occurs, 2 or 3 generations later, that’s gone.”

The mice, which lacked taste receptors for aspartame, were the same age and weight in all three groups. Because the only difference was exposure to the artificial sweetener, Dr. Bhide says it suggests a causal link.

“Extrapolation of data from well-controlled laboratory experiments in mice to humans is always risky,” Dr. Bhide said. “The extrapolations give us insights into what could happen rather than what will happen.”
 

Potential mechanisms

Although scientists can’t say for certain how UPFs affect brain health, there are several theories. UPFs may influence an inflammatory immune response, which has been linked to depression and dementia. Consumption of highly processed foods may also disrupt the gut microbiome, Dr. Chan said, which, in turn, may increase depression risk.

“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” he said.

In addition, with UPFs that contain aspartame, there could be a more direct link to brain function. In the gastrointestinal track, the sweetener is quickly broken down into methanol, aspartic acid, and phenylalanine. All three enter the bloodstream, cross the blood-brain barrier, and are neuroactive.

“Phenylalanine is a precursor for neurotransmitters in the brain, and aspartic acid activates the glutamate excitatory neurotransmitter receptor,” Dr. Bhide said. “The effects we’ve seen could be due to these metabolites that have a direct effect on the brain function.”
 

Time to act?

Some researchers are building a case for classifying UPFs as addictive substances. Others are calling for additional research on UPF safety that is conducted outside the food industry.

There has also been some discussion of placing warning labels on UPFs. However, there is disagreement about what information should be included and how consumers might interpret it. The question of which food products are UPFs and which are not also isn’t settled. The NOVA system may be widely used, but it still has its detractors who believe it misclassifies some healthy foods as ultraprocessed.

Dr. Chan and other experts say the research conducted thus far requires additional corroboration to inform appropriate public health interventions. That would likely take the form of a large, randomized trial with one group of participants eating a healthy diet and the other consuming large amounts of UPFs.

“This type of study is extremely challenging given the number of people that would have to be willing to participate and be willing to eat a very specific diet over a long period of time,” Dr. Chan said. “I am also not sure it would be ethical to assign people to such a diet, given what we already know about the potential health effects of UPFs.”

Dr. Thiagarajan and others have called on funding agencies to direct more grant monies toward studies of UPFs to better understand their effect on brain health.

“Given the magnitude of the problem and given that there is a fair bit of evidence that points to a potential causal link, then we damn well better put money into this and get to the bottom of it,” she said.

Others are looking to the FDA to increase the agency’s scrutiny of food additives. While some additives such as artificial sweeteners have a place in diets of people with diabetes or obesity, Dr. Bhide suggests it may be wise for healthy individuals to reduce their daily intake of UPFs.

“Our data raise this to a different level because of the transgenerational transmission, which has never been shown before,” he said. “We are saying that the FDA should look in preclinical models at germ cells and maybe transgenerational transmission before approving any food additive.”

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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