User login
FDA Approves First Drug for MASH
, along with diet and exercise.
Resmetirom is a once-daily, oral thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist. The FDA granted the drug breakthrough therapy designation and priority review.
The approval is based on the phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH trial, in which resmetirom was superior to placebo at achieving resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and improving liver fibrosis in both 80-mg and 100-mg doses.
The trial used the earlier nomenclature of NASH and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). An international consensus group has since changed these terms to MASH and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), respectively. (Note that the terms NASH and NAFLD will be used to discuss the trial results in this article to align with the trial’s original language.)
The results were published online February 6 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“The approval of the first medication for NASH is a true game-changer for healthcare providers, the research community and, most importantly, patients living with this serious liver condition,” lead MAESTRO-NASH investigator Stephen Harrison, MD, gastroenterologist, hepatologist, and chairman of Pinnacle Clinical Research and Summit Clinical Research, San Antonio, Texas, said in a news release. 
“Based on the robust efficacy and safety data generated in two large Phase 3 MAESTRO studies, I believe Rezdiffra will become the foundational therapy for patients with NASH with moderate to advanced liver fibrosis. Importantly, we continue to study Rezdiffra to determine if the positive results observed in the MAESTRO studies will lead to reduced risk of progression to cirrhosis, liver failure, need for liver transplant and premature mortality,” Dr. Harrison added.
Addressing an Unmet Need
MASH is a progressive liver disease and the leading cause of liver-related mortality. The disease affects an estimated 1.5 million adults in the United States, of which, roughly 525,000 have MASH with significant fibrosis. Until now, there was no FDA-approved medication.
In the ongoing MAESTRO-NASH, 996 adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH and significant stage 2-3 fibrosis were randomly assigned to receive oral once-daily resmetirom (80 mg or 100 mg) or placebo.
Patients were followed for 52 weeks, at which point, they were assessed for the dual primary endpoints of NASH resolution (including a reduction in the NAFLD activity score by ≥ 2 points) with no worsening of fibrosis and an improvement (reduction) in fibrosis by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score.
Patients receiving resmetirom had a significant improvement across both doses and both primary endpoints.
At 52 weeks, NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis was achieved in 25.9% and 29.9% of the patients in the 80-mg and 100-mg groups, respectively, compared with 9.7% on placebo.
Fibrosis improved by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score in 24.2% and 25.9% of patients in the 80-mg and 100-mg groups, respectively, compared with 14.2% on placebo.
The trial also met multiple secondary endpoints, including statistically significant reduction from baseline in liver enzymes (alanine transaminase, aspartate aminotransferase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with resmetirom compared with placebo.
Improvement in fibrosis biomarkers and relevant imaging tests were also observed in resmetirom treatment groups compared with placebo.
The most common adverse events included diarrhea and nausea, which typically began early in treatment and were mild to moderate in severity. Pruritus, abdominal pain, vomiting, constipation, and dizziness were also reported.
Resmetirom is expected to be available to patients in the United States in April and will be distributed through a limited specialty pharmacy network.
Full prescribing information is available online. Prescribing information does not include a liver biopsy requirement for diagnosis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, along with diet and exercise.
Resmetirom is a once-daily, oral thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist. The FDA granted the drug breakthrough therapy designation and priority review.
The approval is based on the phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH trial, in which resmetirom was superior to placebo at achieving resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and improving liver fibrosis in both 80-mg and 100-mg doses.
The trial used the earlier nomenclature of NASH and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). An international consensus group has since changed these terms to MASH and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), respectively. (Note that the terms NASH and NAFLD will be used to discuss the trial results in this article to align with the trial’s original language.)
The results were published online February 6 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“The approval of the first medication for NASH is a true game-changer for healthcare providers, the research community and, most importantly, patients living with this serious liver condition,” lead MAESTRO-NASH investigator Stephen Harrison, MD, gastroenterologist, hepatologist, and chairman of Pinnacle Clinical Research and Summit Clinical Research, San Antonio, Texas, said in a news release.
“Based on the robust efficacy and safety data generated in two large Phase 3 MAESTRO studies, I believe Rezdiffra will become the foundational therapy for patients with NASH with moderate to advanced liver fibrosis. Importantly, we continue to study Rezdiffra to determine if the positive results observed in the MAESTRO studies will lead to reduced risk of progression to cirrhosis, liver failure, need for liver transplant and premature mortality,” Dr. Harrison added.
Addressing an Unmet Need
MASH is a progressive liver disease and the leading cause of liver-related mortality. The disease affects an estimated 1.5 million adults in the United States, of which, roughly 525,000 have MASH with significant fibrosis. Until now, there was no FDA-approved medication.
In the ongoing MAESTRO-NASH, 996 adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH and significant stage 2-3 fibrosis were randomly assigned to receive oral once-daily resmetirom (80 mg or 100 mg) or placebo.
Patients were followed for 52 weeks, at which point, they were assessed for the dual primary endpoints of NASH resolution (including a reduction in the NAFLD activity score by ≥ 2 points) with no worsening of fibrosis and an improvement (reduction) in fibrosis by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score.
Patients receiving resmetirom had a significant improvement across both doses and both primary endpoints.
At 52 weeks, NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis was achieved in 25.9% and 29.9% of the patients in the 80-mg and 100-mg groups, respectively, compared with 9.7% on placebo.
Fibrosis improved by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score in 24.2% and 25.9% of patients in the 80-mg and 100-mg groups, respectively, compared with 14.2% on placebo.
The trial also met multiple secondary endpoints, including statistically significant reduction from baseline in liver enzymes (alanine transaminase, aspartate aminotransferase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with resmetirom compared with placebo.
Improvement in fibrosis biomarkers and relevant imaging tests were also observed in resmetirom treatment groups compared with placebo.
The most common adverse events included diarrhea and nausea, which typically began early in treatment and were mild to moderate in severity. Pruritus, abdominal pain, vomiting, constipation, and dizziness were also reported.
Resmetirom is expected to be available to patients in the United States in April and will be distributed through a limited specialty pharmacy network.
Full prescribing information is available online. Prescribing information does not include a liver biopsy requirement for diagnosis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, along with diet and exercise.
Resmetirom is a once-daily, oral thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist. The FDA granted the drug breakthrough therapy designation and priority review.
The approval is based on the phase 3 MAESTRO-NASH trial, in which resmetirom was superior to placebo at achieving resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and improving liver fibrosis in both 80-mg and 100-mg doses.
The trial used the earlier nomenclature of NASH and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). An international consensus group has since changed these terms to MASH and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), respectively. (Note that the terms NASH and NAFLD will be used to discuss the trial results in this article to align with the trial’s original language.)
The results were published online February 6 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“The approval of the first medication for NASH is a true game-changer for healthcare providers, the research community and, most importantly, patients living with this serious liver condition,” lead MAESTRO-NASH investigator Stephen Harrison, MD, gastroenterologist, hepatologist, and chairman of Pinnacle Clinical Research and Summit Clinical Research, San Antonio, Texas, said in a news release.
“Based on the robust efficacy and safety data generated in two large Phase 3 MAESTRO studies, I believe Rezdiffra will become the foundational therapy for patients with NASH with moderate to advanced liver fibrosis. Importantly, we continue to study Rezdiffra to determine if the positive results observed in the MAESTRO studies will lead to reduced risk of progression to cirrhosis, liver failure, need for liver transplant and premature mortality,” Dr. Harrison added.
Addressing an Unmet Need
MASH is a progressive liver disease and the leading cause of liver-related mortality. The disease affects an estimated 1.5 million adults in the United States, of which, roughly 525,000 have MASH with significant fibrosis. Until now, there was no FDA-approved medication.
In the ongoing MAESTRO-NASH, 996 adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH and significant stage 2-3 fibrosis were randomly assigned to receive oral once-daily resmetirom (80 mg or 100 mg) or placebo.
Patients were followed for 52 weeks, at which point, they were assessed for the dual primary endpoints of NASH resolution (including a reduction in the NAFLD activity score by ≥ 2 points) with no worsening of fibrosis and an improvement (reduction) in fibrosis by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score.
Patients receiving resmetirom had a significant improvement across both doses and both primary endpoints.
At 52 weeks, NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis was achieved in 25.9% and 29.9% of the patients in the 80-mg and 100-mg groups, respectively, compared with 9.7% on placebo.
Fibrosis improved by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score in 24.2% and 25.9% of patients in the 80-mg and 100-mg groups, respectively, compared with 14.2% on placebo.
The trial also met multiple secondary endpoints, including statistically significant reduction from baseline in liver enzymes (alanine transaminase, aspartate aminotransferase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with resmetirom compared with placebo.
Improvement in fibrosis biomarkers and relevant imaging tests were also observed in resmetirom treatment groups compared with placebo.
The most common adverse events included diarrhea and nausea, which typically began early in treatment and were mild to moderate in severity. Pruritus, abdominal pain, vomiting, constipation, and dizziness were also reported.
Resmetirom is expected to be available to patients in the United States in April and will be distributed through a limited specialty pharmacy network.
Full prescribing information is available online. Prescribing information does not include a liver biopsy requirement for diagnosis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Intermittent Fasting Linked to Higher CVD Death Risk
A new study raises a cautionary note on time-restricted eating (TRE), a type of intermittent fasting that is gaining popularity.
This was the case in the overall sample and in those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cancer.
Lead author Victor Wenze Zhong, PhD, cautioned that the findings “require replication and we cannot demonstrate 8-hour TRE causes cardiovascular death in this observational study.
“However, it’s important for patients, particularly those with existing heart conditions or cancer, to be aware of the positive association between an 8-hour eating window and cardiovascular death,” Dr. Zhong, professor and chair, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, told this news organization.
The results (Abstract P192) were presented March 18 at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health Scientific Sessions 2024.
‘Provocative’ Results
Short-term randomized controlled trials have suggested that 8-hour TRE may improve cardiometabolic risk profiles, but the potential long-term effects of this eating pattern are unknown.
The observation that TRE may have short-term benefits but long-term adverse effects is “interesting and provocative” and needs further study, Christopher D. Gardner, PhD, professor of medicine at Stanford University in California, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in a conference statement, and he agreed that much more research is needed.
The researchers analyzed data on dietary patterns for 20,078 adults (mean age, 48 years; 50% men; 73% non-Hispanic White) who participated in the 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). All of them completed two 24-hour dietary recall questionnaires within the first year of enrollment. Deaths through the end of 2019 were determined via the National Death Index.
During a median follow-up of 8 years, there were 2797 deaths due to any cause, including 840 CV deaths and 643 cancer deaths.
In the overall sample, compared with an eating duration of 12-16 hours, 8-hour TRE was significantly associated with an increased risk for CV mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.20-3.03).
This association was also observed in adults with CVD (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.14-3.78) and adults with cancer (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.44-6.41).
Other eating durations were not associated with CV mortality, except for eating duration of 8 to less than 10 hours in people with CVD (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.67).
No significant associations were found between eating duration and all-cause or cancer mortality in the overall sample and CVD/cancer subsamples, except that eating duration of more than 16 hours was associated with a lower risk for cancer mortality in people with cancer (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.95).
Quality More Important Than Timing
Dr. Zhong noted that the study doesn’t address the underlying mechanisms driving the observed association between 8-hour TRE and CV death.
“However, we did observe that people who restricted eating to a period less than 8 hours per day had less lean muscle mass compared with those with typical eating duration of 12-16 hours. Loss of lean body mass has been linked to higher risk of cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. Zhong said.
“Based on the evidence as of now, focusing on what people eat appears to be more important than focusing on the time when they eat. There are certain dietary approaches with compelling health benefits to choose, such as DASH diet and Mediterranean diet,” Dr. Zhong said.
Intermittent fasting is “certainly an interesting concept and one on which the potential mechanisms underlying the improvements in short outcome studies and preclinical studies in animals are strongly being pursued,” Sean P. Heffron, MD, cardiologist at the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.
Dr. Heffron expressed skepticism about the study results calling them “far from complete” and noted that data on diet was based on only 2-day diet records without correction for confounding variables.
Dr. Heffron also noted that the restricted diet group has more smokers and more men. “I would “strongly anticipate that once appropriate corrections are made, the findings will no longer persist in statistical significance,” Dr. Heffron said.
He emphasized the need for more rigorous research before making clinical recommendations. When patients ask about intermittent fasting, Dr. Heffron said he tells them, “If it works for you, that’s fine,” but he doesn’t provide a recommendation for or against it.
Funding for the study was provided by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and the National Science Foundation of China. Zhong, Dr. Heffron and Dr. Gardner have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study raises a cautionary note on time-restricted eating (TRE), a type of intermittent fasting that is gaining popularity.
This was the case in the overall sample and in those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cancer.
Lead author Victor Wenze Zhong, PhD, cautioned that the findings “require replication and we cannot demonstrate 8-hour TRE causes cardiovascular death in this observational study.
“However, it’s important for patients, particularly those with existing heart conditions or cancer, to be aware of the positive association between an 8-hour eating window and cardiovascular death,” Dr. Zhong, professor and chair, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, told this news organization.
The results (Abstract P192) were presented March 18 at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health Scientific Sessions 2024.
‘Provocative’ Results
Short-term randomized controlled trials have suggested that 8-hour TRE may improve cardiometabolic risk profiles, but the potential long-term effects of this eating pattern are unknown.
The observation that TRE may have short-term benefits but long-term adverse effects is “interesting and provocative” and needs further study, Christopher D. Gardner, PhD, professor of medicine at Stanford University in California, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in a conference statement, and he agreed that much more research is needed.
The researchers analyzed data on dietary patterns for 20,078 adults (mean age, 48 years; 50% men; 73% non-Hispanic White) who participated in the 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). All of them completed two 24-hour dietary recall questionnaires within the first year of enrollment. Deaths through the end of 2019 were determined via the National Death Index.
During a median follow-up of 8 years, there were 2797 deaths due to any cause, including 840 CV deaths and 643 cancer deaths.
In the overall sample, compared with an eating duration of 12-16 hours, 8-hour TRE was significantly associated with an increased risk for CV mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.20-3.03).
This association was also observed in adults with CVD (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.14-3.78) and adults with cancer (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.44-6.41).
Other eating durations were not associated with CV mortality, except for eating duration of 8 to less than 10 hours in people with CVD (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.67).
No significant associations were found between eating duration and all-cause or cancer mortality in the overall sample and CVD/cancer subsamples, except that eating duration of more than 16 hours was associated with a lower risk for cancer mortality in people with cancer (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.95).
Quality More Important Than Timing
Dr. Zhong noted that the study doesn’t address the underlying mechanisms driving the observed association between 8-hour TRE and CV death.
“However, we did observe that people who restricted eating to a period less than 8 hours per day had less lean muscle mass compared with those with typical eating duration of 12-16 hours. Loss of lean body mass has been linked to higher risk of cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. Zhong said.
“Based on the evidence as of now, focusing on what people eat appears to be more important than focusing on the time when they eat. There are certain dietary approaches with compelling health benefits to choose, such as DASH diet and Mediterranean diet,” Dr. Zhong said.
Intermittent fasting is “certainly an interesting concept and one on which the potential mechanisms underlying the improvements in short outcome studies and preclinical studies in animals are strongly being pursued,” Sean P. Heffron, MD, cardiologist at the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.
Dr. Heffron expressed skepticism about the study results calling them “far from complete” and noted that data on diet was based on only 2-day diet records without correction for confounding variables.
Dr. Heffron also noted that the restricted diet group has more smokers and more men. “I would “strongly anticipate that once appropriate corrections are made, the findings will no longer persist in statistical significance,” Dr. Heffron said.
He emphasized the need for more rigorous research before making clinical recommendations. When patients ask about intermittent fasting, Dr. Heffron said he tells them, “If it works for you, that’s fine,” but he doesn’t provide a recommendation for or against it.
Funding for the study was provided by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and the National Science Foundation of China. Zhong, Dr. Heffron and Dr. Gardner have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study raises a cautionary note on time-restricted eating (TRE), a type of intermittent fasting that is gaining popularity.
This was the case in the overall sample and in those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cancer.
Lead author Victor Wenze Zhong, PhD, cautioned that the findings “require replication and we cannot demonstrate 8-hour TRE causes cardiovascular death in this observational study.
“However, it’s important for patients, particularly those with existing heart conditions or cancer, to be aware of the positive association between an 8-hour eating window and cardiovascular death,” Dr. Zhong, professor and chair, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, told this news organization.
The results (Abstract P192) were presented March 18 at the American Heart Association (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health Scientific Sessions 2024.
‘Provocative’ Results
Short-term randomized controlled trials have suggested that 8-hour TRE may improve cardiometabolic risk profiles, but the potential long-term effects of this eating pattern are unknown.
The observation that TRE may have short-term benefits but long-term adverse effects is “interesting and provocative” and needs further study, Christopher D. Gardner, PhD, professor of medicine at Stanford University in California, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in a conference statement, and he agreed that much more research is needed.
The researchers analyzed data on dietary patterns for 20,078 adults (mean age, 48 years; 50% men; 73% non-Hispanic White) who participated in the 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). All of them completed two 24-hour dietary recall questionnaires within the first year of enrollment. Deaths through the end of 2019 were determined via the National Death Index.
During a median follow-up of 8 years, there were 2797 deaths due to any cause, including 840 CV deaths and 643 cancer deaths.
In the overall sample, compared with an eating duration of 12-16 hours, 8-hour TRE was significantly associated with an increased risk for CV mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.20-3.03).
This association was also observed in adults with CVD (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.14-3.78) and adults with cancer (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.44-6.41).
Other eating durations were not associated with CV mortality, except for eating duration of 8 to less than 10 hours in people with CVD (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03-2.67).
No significant associations were found between eating duration and all-cause or cancer mortality in the overall sample and CVD/cancer subsamples, except that eating duration of more than 16 hours was associated with a lower risk for cancer mortality in people with cancer (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.95).
Quality More Important Than Timing
Dr. Zhong noted that the study doesn’t address the underlying mechanisms driving the observed association between 8-hour TRE and CV death.
“However, we did observe that people who restricted eating to a period less than 8 hours per day had less lean muscle mass compared with those with typical eating duration of 12-16 hours. Loss of lean body mass has been linked to higher risk of cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. Zhong said.
“Based on the evidence as of now, focusing on what people eat appears to be more important than focusing on the time when they eat. There are certain dietary approaches with compelling health benefits to choose, such as DASH diet and Mediterranean diet,” Dr. Zhong said.
Intermittent fasting is “certainly an interesting concept and one on which the potential mechanisms underlying the improvements in short outcome studies and preclinical studies in animals are strongly being pursued,” Sean P. Heffron, MD, cardiologist at the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.
Dr. Heffron expressed skepticism about the study results calling them “far from complete” and noted that data on diet was based on only 2-day diet records without correction for confounding variables.
Dr. Heffron also noted that the restricted diet group has more smokers and more men. “I would “strongly anticipate that once appropriate corrections are made, the findings will no longer persist in statistical significance,” Dr. Heffron said.
He emphasized the need for more rigorous research before making clinical recommendations. When patients ask about intermittent fasting, Dr. Heffron said he tells them, “If it works for you, that’s fine,” but he doesn’t provide a recommendation for or against it.
Funding for the study was provided by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and the National Science Foundation of China. Zhong, Dr. Heffron and Dr. Gardner have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Non-Radical Surgery a Win-Win for Early Cervical Cancer
according to results of the GOG-278 trial.
In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.
“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.
Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”
GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.
The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.
Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.
Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.
In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.
He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
‘Impressive’ Data
Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”
She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.
Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.
The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.
Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to results of the GOG-278 trial.
In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.
“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.
Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”
GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.
The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.
Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.
Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.
In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.
He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
‘Impressive’ Data
Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”
She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.
Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.
The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.
Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to results of the GOG-278 trial.
In fact, patients’ quality of life was improved after surgery in both groups, and their concerns about cancer recurrence decreased, especially for those undergoing simple hysterectomy, said Allan Covens, MD, in his late-breaking abstract presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO)’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.
“Cone biopsy patients reported less concerns about reproductive fertility after surgery and over time compared to preop assessments,” he added.
Due to screening in developed countries, a large proportion of cervical cancers are discovered at an early stage. Treatment of these cancers with radical surgery is associated with high cure rates but significant adverse effects on quality of life, said Dr. Covens, who is with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
He and his colleagues wanted to see if non-radical surgery could be safely used instead. “Multiple case series have indicated that non-radical surgery is associated with less morbidity and improved quality of life,” he explained. “If this can be proven in a prospective evaluation, it will change future practice.”
GOG-278 was a prospective cohort study of women with stage IA1 (lymph-vascular space invasion+) and IA2-IB1 (≤ 2 cm) carcinoma of the cervix who underwent non-radical surgery (simple hysterectomy or fertility-preserving cone biopsy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Criteria included ≤ 10 mm stromal invasion and negative margins on the final cone biopsy.
The primary objectives were to assess changes in functional outcomes of quality of life (bladder/bowel function, sexual function, cancer worry, and reproductive concerns), using validated instruments. Findings were based on 55 patients who underwent cone biopsy and 113 who underwent simple hysterectomy.
Both simple hysterectomy and cone biopsy were associated with “small” declines in sexual function and bladder/bowel function at 4-6 weeks after surgery, but function “quickly” recovered to baseline by 6 months, Dr. Covens reported.
Twelve patients reported a diagnosis of lymphedema, with a Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire score change of 4 or higher on at least two consecutive evaluations from baseline. This occurred in six cone biopsy and six simple hysterectomy patients.
In a separate presentation, Dr. Covens reported secondary oncologic outcomes from GOG-278, which suggest that non-radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer is safe, with low perioperative morbidity, although longer follow-up is needed.
He also reported 16 pregnancies in 15 patients who had undergone cone biopsies; 12 of these were successful, and there were four early pregnancy losses.
‘Impressive’ Data
Study discussant Kristin Bixel, MD, with The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, said the data are “impressive” and clearly show that non-radical surgery has “minimal impact on bladder/bowel function, with no long-term differences from baseline.”
She added that the incidence of lymphedema was “honestly significantly lower than what I typically counsel patients about” and wondered if the percentage of patients with lymphedema would increase over time.
Dr. Bixel particularly noted the decrease in cancer worry scores after surgery, as sometimes patients who have less radical procedures fear that this comes with an increased risk for recurrence.
The “growing body of data suggests that less radical surgery is safe and effective for early-stage low-risk cervical cancer and highlights the potential reproductive success,” she concluded.
Funding for the study was provided by grants from NRG Oncology. Dr. Covens had no disclosures. Dr. Bixel has received research funding from the Intuitive Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SGO 2024
QOL Not Harmed With Add-On Pembrolizumab in Cervical Cancer
according to patient-reported outcome analyses from the KEYNOTE-A18 trial.
Progression-free survival data from the trial, reported at the 2023 meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, showed a 30% reduction in the risk for progression (P =.002) with the addition of pembrolizumab vs placebo, as well as favorable overall survival trends, reported Leslie Randall, MD, with VCU Health in Richmond, Virginia. Now the new analyses bring the “voices of the patients from this large phase 3 study.”
“I think the data can put us at ease and give patients a measure of comfort because there was no detriment in the quality of life,” said Dr. Randall, who presented the data on March 17 at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) 2024 conference.
The phase 3 KEYNOTE-A18 trial enrolled 1060 patients new to treatment who had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease. They were randomly allocated to receive pembrolizumab or placebo plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Patient-reported outcome instruments used in the study were the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-item quality-of-life (QOL) core questionnaire (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer–specific module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS).
Prespecified secondary study endpoints were changes from baseline to week 36 in QLQ-C30 global health status/QOL (GHS/QOL) and physical functioning, and the QLQ-CX24 symptom-experience scale.
At baseline, patient-reported outcome scores were similar between treatment groups. Patients in both treatment groups had an initial decrease in QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL and physical functioning subscale and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores at weeks 3 and 6, but these improved relative to baseline at week 12 and subsequent weeks.
A similar number of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had improved or stable scores for QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL (76% vs 75%), QLQ-C30 physical functioning (77% vs 77%), QLQ-CX24 symptom experience (85% vs 85%) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (73% vs 76%).
Across all QOL instruments evaluated, there were no meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes among patients who received pembrolizumab compared with those who received placebo, said Dr. Randall.
The improvement in progression-free survival, coupled with the patient-reported outcomes showing no additional harms to quality of life, support pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy as a “new standard of care” for patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer, she told attendees.
“We have had stunning success in cervical cancer treatments over the past 10-15 years, and now we see that the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy not only improves outcome but very importantly does not significantly impact the quality of life in our patients,” said study discussant R. Wendel Naumann, MD, Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Funding for KEYNOTE-A18 was provided by Merck. Dr. Randall has disclosed relationships with Seagen/Genmab, Merck, GSK, ImmunoGen, AstraZeneca, and On Target Laboratories. Dr. Naumann has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to patient-reported outcome analyses from the KEYNOTE-A18 trial.
Progression-free survival data from the trial, reported at the 2023 meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, showed a 30% reduction in the risk for progression (P =.002) with the addition of pembrolizumab vs placebo, as well as favorable overall survival trends, reported Leslie Randall, MD, with VCU Health in Richmond, Virginia. Now the new analyses bring the “voices of the patients from this large phase 3 study.”
“I think the data can put us at ease and give patients a measure of comfort because there was no detriment in the quality of life,” said Dr. Randall, who presented the data on March 17 at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) 2024 conference.
The phase 3 KEYNOTE-A18 trial enrolled 1060 patients new to treatment who had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease. They were randomly allocated to receive pembrolizumab or placebo plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Patient-reported outcome instruments used in the study were the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-item quality-of-life (QOL) core questionnaire (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer–specific module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS).
Prespecified secondary study endpoints were changes from baseline to week 36 in QLQ-C30 global health status/QOL (GHS/QOL) and physical functioning, and the QLQ-CX24 symptom-experience scale.
At baseline, patient-reported outcome scores were similar between treatment groups. Patients in both treatment groups had an initial decrease in QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL and physical functioning subscale and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores at weeks 3 and 6, but these improved relative to baseline at week 12 and subsequent weeks.
A similar number of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had improved or stable scores for QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL (76% vs 75%), QLQ-C30 physical functioning (77% vs 77%), QLQ-CX24 symptom experience (85% vs 85%) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (73% vs 76%).
Across all QOL instruments evaluated, there were no meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes among patients who received pembrolizumab compared with those who received placebo, said Dr. Randall.
The improvement in progression-free survival, coupled with the patient-reported outcomes showing no additional harms to quality of life, support pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy as a “new standard of care” for patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer, she told attendees.
“We have had stunning success in cervical cancer treatments over the past 10-15 years, and now we see that the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy not only improves outcome but very importantly does not significantly impact the quality of life in our patients,” said study discussant R. Wendel Naumann, MD, Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Funding for KEYNOTE-A18 was provided by Merck. Dr. Randall has disclosed relationships with Seagen/Genmab, Merck, GSK, ImmunoGen, AstraZeneca, and On Target Laboratories. Dr. Naumann has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
according to patient-reported outcome analyses from the KEYNOTE-A18 trial.
Progression-free survival data from the trial, reported at the 2023 meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology, showed a 30% reduction in the risk for progression (P =.002) with the addition of pembrolizumab vs placebo, as well as favorable overall survival trends, reported Leslie Randall, MD, with VCU Health in Richmond, Virginia. Now the new analyses bring the “voices of the patients from this large phase 3 study.”
“I think the data can put us at ease and give patients a measure of comfort because there was no detriment in the quality of life,” said Dr. Randall, who presented the data on March 17 at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) 2024 conference.
The phase 3 KEYNOTE-A18 trial enrolled 1060 patients new to treatment who had either stage 1B2-2B disease with lymph node involvement or stage 3-4A disease. They were randomly allocated to receive pembrolizumab or placebo plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Patient-reported outcome instruments used in the study were the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-item quality-of-life (QOL) core questionnaire (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer–specific module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (VAS).
Prespecified secondary study endpoints were changes from baseline to week 36 in QLQ-C30 global health status/QOL (GHS/QOL) and physical functioning, and the QLQ-CX24 symptom-experience scale.
At baseline, patient-reported outcome scores were similar between treatment groups. Patients in both treatment groups had an initial decrease in QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL and physical functioning subscale and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores at weeks 3 and 6, but these improved relative to baseline at week 12 and subsequent weeks.
A similar number of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups had improved or stable scores for QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL (76% vs 75%), QLQ-C30 physical functioning (77% vs 77%), QLQ-CX24 symptom experience (85% vs 85%) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (73% vs 76%).
Across all QOL instruments evaluated, there were no meaningful differences in patient-reported outcomes among patients who received pembrolizumab compared with those who received placebo, said Dr. Randall.
The improvement in progression-free survival, coupled with the patient-reported outcomes showing no additional harms to quality of life, support pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy as a “new standard of care” for patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer, she told attendees.
“We have had stunning success in cervical cancer treatments over the past 10-15 years, and now we see that the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy not only improves outcome but very importantly does not significantly impact the quality of life in our patients,” said study discussant R. Wendel Naumann, MD, Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Funding for KEYNOTE-A18 was provided by Merck. Dr. Randall has disclosed relationships with Seagen/Genmab, Merck, GSK, ImmunoGen, AstraZeneca, and On Target Laboratories. Dr. Naumann has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Neurological Disorders Now Top Global Cause of Illness, Disability
, a new comprehensive analysis showed.
In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.
Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.
“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release.
The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.
The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
The Top 10
The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.
Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.
In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.
The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.
“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.
The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.
Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.
“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.
“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
Prioritize Prevention
The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.
It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.
“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.
It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”
“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.
In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.
“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”
The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new comprehensive analysis showed.
In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.
Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.
“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release.
The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.
The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
The Top 10
The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.
Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.
In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.
The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.
“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.
The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.
Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.
“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.
“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
Prioritize Prevention
The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.
It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.
“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.
It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”
“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.
In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.
“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”
The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new comprehensive analysis showed.
In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.
Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.
“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release.
The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.
The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
The Top 10
The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.
Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.
In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.
The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.
“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.
The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.
Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.
“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.
“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
Prioritize Prevention
The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.
It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.
“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.
It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”
“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.
In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.
“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”
The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET NEUROLOGY
Cognitive Deficits After Most Severe COVID Cases Associated With 9-Point IQ Drop
A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable.
In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.
However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.
“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization.
The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.
“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”
The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Lingering Brain Fog
Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear.
To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.
Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.
The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants.
Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found.
Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report.
Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg., in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted.
They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated.
The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization.
Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time.
“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said.
Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?
These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, in an accompanying editorial.
In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life.
“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”
“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said.
It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.
In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings.
Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients.
Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post COVID.
Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable.
In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.
However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.
“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization.
The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.
“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”
The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Lingering Brain Fog
Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear.
To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.
Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.
The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants.
Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found.
Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report.
Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg., in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted.
They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated.
The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization.
Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time.
“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said.
Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?
These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, in an accompanying editorial.
In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life.
“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”
“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said.
It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.
In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings.
Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients.
Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post COVID.
Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable.
In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.
However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.
“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization.
The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.
“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”
The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Lingering Brain Fog
Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear.
To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.
Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.
The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants.
Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found.
Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report.
Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg., in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted.
They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated.
The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization.
Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time.
“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said.
Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?
These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, in an accompanying editorial.
In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life.
“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”
“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said.
It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.
In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings.
Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients.
Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post COVID.
Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Essential Tremor Tied to a Threefold Increased Risk for Dementia
, new research showed.
In a prospective, longitudinal study, incidence of dementia was nearly 20% among older adults with ET. However, the rates were lower than those in adults with Parkinson’s disease.
The study is “the most complete exposition of the longitudinal trajectory of cognitive impairment in an ET cohort,” said the authors, led by Elan D. Louis, MD, MSc, from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas.
The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Mild Cognitive Impairment Prevalence Nearly Double
For the study, 222 adults with ET with an average age of 79 years at baseline underwent detailed cognitive assessments and were followed for an average of 5 years.
At baseline, 168 people had normal cognitive skills, 35 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 19 had dementia. During the follow-up, 59 individuals developed MCI and 41 developed dementia.
During the follow-up, the cumulative prevalence of dementia was 18.5%, and the average annual conversion rate of MCI to dementia was 12.2% — nearly threefold higher than rates in the general population and roughly one-half the magnitude of those reported for adults with Parkinson’s disease.
The cumulative prevalence of MCI (26.6%) was nearly double that of the general population but less than that in patients with Parkinson’s disease.
“Our data indicate that the prevalence of and conversion rates to dementia in ET fall between those associated with the natural course of aging and the more pronounced rates observed in individuals with Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract.
Far From Trivial
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, said, “The days of viewing ET as just a ‘nuisance tremor’ are over. This study shatters the notion that essential tremor is a trivial condition.”
“Moving forward, the research agenda must further elucidate the link between ET and dementia and develop neuroprotective strategies. But this study represents a seismic shift in how we understand essential tremor,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“The benign label no longer applies given the cognitive risks ET patients face. Our clinical practice and communication with patients must adapt accordingly,” he added.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Drs. Louis and Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
In a prospective, longitudinal study, incidence of dementia was nearly 20% among older adults with ET. However, the rates were lower than those in adults with Parkinson’s disease.
The study is “the most complete exposition of the longitudinal trajectory of cognitive impairment in an ET cohort,” said the authors, led by Elan D. Louis, MD, MSc, from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas.
The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Mild Cognitive Impairment Prevalence Nearly Double
For the study, 222 adults with ET with an average age of 79 years at baseline underwent detailed cognitive assessments and were followed for an average of 5 years.
At baseline, 168 people had normal cognitive skills, 35 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 19 had dementia. During the follow-up, 59 individuals developed MCI and 41 developed dementia.
During the follow-up, the cumulative prevalence of dementia was 18.5%, and the average annual conversion rate of MCI to dementia was 12.2% — nearly threefold higher than rates in the general population and roughly one-half the magnitude of those reported for adults with Parkinson’s disease.
The cumulative prevalence of MCI (26.6%) was nearly double that of the general population but less than that in patients with Parkinson’s disease.
“Our data indicate that the prevalence of and conversion rates to dementia in ET fall between those associated with the natural course of aging and the more pronounced rates observed in individuals with Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract.
Far From Trivial
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, said, “The days of viewing ET as just a ‘nuisance tremor’ are over. This study shatters the notion that essential tremor is a trivial condition.”
“Moving forward, the research agenda must further elucidate the link between ET and dementia and develop neuroprotective strategies. But this study represents a seismic shift in how we understand essential tremor,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“The benign label no longer applies given the cognitive risks ET patients face. Our clinical practice and communication with patients must adapt accordingly,” he added.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Drs. Louis and Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research showed.
In a prospective, longitudinal study, incidence of dementia was nearly 20% among older adults with ET. However, the rates were lower than those in adults with Parkinson’s disease.
The study is “the most complete exposition of the longitudinal trajectory of cognitive impairment in an ET cohort,” said the authors, led by Elan D. Louis, MD, MSc, from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas.
The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
Mild Cognitive Impairment Prevalence Nearly Double
For the study, 222 adults with ET with an average age of 79 years at baseline underwent detailed cognitive assessments and were followed for an average of 5 years.
At baseline, 168 people had normal cognitive skills, 35 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 19 had dementia. During the follow-up, 59 individuals developed MCI and 41 developed dementia.
During the follow-up, the cumulative prevalence of dementia was 18.5%, and the average annual conversion rate of MCI to dementia was 12.2% — nearly threefold higher than rates in the general population and roughly one-half the magnitude of those reported for adults with Parkinson’s disease.
The cumulative prevalence of MCI (26.6%) was nearly double that of the general population but less than that in patients with Parkinson’s disease.
“Our data indicate that the prevalence of and conversion rates to dementia in ET fall between those associated with the natural course of aging and the more pronounced rates observed in individuals with Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract.
Far From Trivial
Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher based in Miami, Florida, said, “The days of viewing ET as just a ‘nuisance tremor’ are over. This study shatters the notion that essential tremor is a trivial condition.”
“Moving forward, the research agenda must further elucidate the link between ET and dementia and develop neuroprotective strategies. But this study represents a seismic shift in how we understand essential tremor,” Dr. Lakhan said.
“The benign label no longer applies given the cognitive risks ET patients face. Our clinical practice and communication with patients must adapt accordingly,” he added.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Drs. Louis and Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAN 2024
Medtronic’s Duet EDMS Catheter Tubing Under Class I Recall
If this happens, potential harm to patients may include infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, overdrainage of CSF, and abnormality of the ventricles. Uncontrolled overdrainage of CSF could lead to neurological injury or death if the disconnection is undetected.
The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall — the most serious type — due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, there have been 26 reported injuries and no deaths related to this issue.
The recall includes 45,176 devices distributed in the United States between May 3, 2021, and January 9, 2024, with model numbers 46913, 46914, 46915, 46916, and 46917.
The Duet EDMS is used for temporary CSF drainage or sampling in patients who have surgery for open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) or descending thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or patients who have TAA/TAAA repair surgery and develop symptoms such as paraplegia.
Medtronic has sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to identify, quarantine, and return any unused recalled products.
Customers are also advised to check all Duet EDMS components for damage and ensure that all connections are secure and leak-free.
If a patient is currently connected to an impacted Duet EDMS and a leak or disconnection is detected, the device should be changed to a new alternative device utilizing a sterile technique.
It is not recommended that a Duet system device that is connected to a patient and working as intended be removed or replaced.
Customers in the United States with questions about this recall should contact Medtronic at 1-800-874-5797.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
If this happens, potential harm to patients may include infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, overdrainage of CSF, and abnormality of the ventricles. Uncontrolled overdrainage of CSF could lead to neurological injury or death if the disconnection is undetected.
The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall — the most serious type — due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, there have been 26 reported injuries and no deaths related to this issue.
The recall includes 45,176 devices distributed in the United States between May 3, 2021, and January 9, 2024, with model numbers 46913, 46914, 46915, 46916, and 46917.
The Duet EDMS is used for temporary CSF drainage or sampling in patients who have surgery for open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) or descending thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or patients who have TAA/TAAA repair surgery and develop symptoms such as paraplegia.
Medtronic has sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to identify, quarantine, and return any unused recalled products.
Customers are also advised to check all Duet EDMS components for damage and ensure that all connections are secure and leak-free.
If a patient is currently connected to an impacted Duet EDMS and a leak or disconnection is detected, the device should be changed to a new alternative device utilizing a sterile technique.
It is not recommended that a Duet system device that is connected to a patient and working as intended be removed or replaced.
Customers in the United States with questions about this recall should contact Medtronic at 1-800-874-5797.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
If this happens, potential harm to patients may include infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, overdrainage of CSF, and abnormality of the ventricles. Uncontrolled overdrainage of CSF could lead to neurological injury or death if the disconnection is undetected.
The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall — the most serious type — due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, there have been 26 reported injuries and no deaths related to this issue.
The recall includes 45,176 devices distributed in the United States between May 3, 2021, and January 9, 2024, with model numbers 46913, 46914, 46915, 46916, and 46917.
The Duet EDMS is used for temporary CSF drainage or sampling in patients who have surgery for open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) or descending thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or patients who have TAA/TAAA repair surgery and develop symptoms such as paraplegia.
Medtronic has sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to identify, quarantine, and return any unused recalled products.
Customers are also advised to check all Duet EDMS components for damage and ensure that all connections are secure and leak-free.
If a patient is currently connected to an impacted Duet EDMS and a leak or disconnection is detected, the device should be changed to a new alternative device utilizing a sterile technique.
It is not recommended that a Duet system device that is connected to a patient and working as intended be removed or replaced.
Customers in the United States with questions about this recall should contact Medtronic at 1-800-874-5797.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Data Support Viagra for Alzheimer’s Prevention
The large real-world analysis of patient data from two databases showed a 30%-54% reduced prevalence in Alzheimer’s disease among patients who took sildenafil (Viagra) than those who did not, after adjusting for potential confounding factors.
This observation was further supported by mechanistic studies showing decreased neurotoxic protein levels in brain cells exposed to the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i).
“Our findings provide further weight to repurposing this existing FDA-approved drug as a novel treatment for Alzheimer’s, which is in great need of new therapies,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, who led the research, said in a news release.
“We used artificial intelligence to integrate data across multiple domains which all indicated sildenafil’s potential against this devastating neurological disease,” Dr. Cheng noted.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Neuroprotective?
Using real-world patient data from the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database (2012-2017) and the Clinformatics database (2007-2020), the researchers conducted propensity score-stratified analyses after adjusting for gender, age, race, and comorbidities.
They searched for all individuals with pharmacy claims for sildenafil or four comparator drugs — bumetanide, furosemide, spironolactone, and nifedipine. Results showed that sildenafil use was associated with reduced likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease relative to the control drugs.
For example, sildenafil use was associated with a 54% reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in MarketScan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66) and a 30% reduced prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in Clinformatics (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00) compared with spironolactone.
The findings support a study published earlier this year that found a potential protective effect of PDE5i treatment on Alzheimer’s disease risk.
However, this research and the current study are contradicted by another paper published in Brain Communications in late 2022 which showed no such link between ED meds and reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk.
The investigators also found that sildenafil reduces tau hyperphosphorylation (pTau181 and pTau205) in a dose-dependent manner in both familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease patient induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neurons.
They further demonstrated through RNA-sequencing data analysis that sildenafil specifically targets Alzheimer’s disease related genes and pathobiological pathways, mechanistically supporting the beneficial effect of sildenafil in Alzheimer’s disease.
“We believe our findings provide the evidence needed for clinical trials to further examine the potential effectiveness of sildenafil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Cheng said.
The study was primarily supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Dr. Cheng had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The large real-world analysis of patient data from two databases showed a 30%-54% reduced prevalence in Alzheimer’s disease among patients who took sildenafil (Viagra) than those who did not, after adjusting for potential confounding factors.
This observation was further supported by mechanistic studies showing decreased neurotoxic protein levels in brain cells exposed to the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i).
“Our findings provide further weight to repurposing this existing FDA-approved drug as a novel treatment for Alzheimer’s, which is in great need of new therapies,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, who led the research, said in a news release.
“We used artificial intelligence to integrate data across multiple domains which all indicated sildenafil’s potential against this devastating neurological disease,” Dr. Cheng noted.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Neuroprotective?
Using real-world patient data from the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database (2012-2017) and the Clinformatics database (2007-2020), the researchers conducted propensity score-stratified analyses after adjusting for gender, age, race, and comorbidities.
They searched for all individuals with pharmacy claims for sildenafil or four comparator drugs — bumetanide, furosemide, spironolactone, and nifedipine. Results showed that sildenafil use was associated with reduced likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease relative to the control drugs.
For example, sildenafil use was associated with a 54% reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in MarketScan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66) and a 30% reduced prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in Clinformatics (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00) compared with spironolactone.
The findings support a study published earlier this year that found a potential protective effect of PDE5i treatment on Alzheimer’s disease risk.
However, this research and the current study are contradicted by another paper published in Brain Communications in late 2022 which showed no such link between ED meds and reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk.
The investigators also found that sildenafil reduces tau hyperphosphorylation (pTau181 and pTau205) in a dose-dependent manner in both familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease patient induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neurons.
They further demonstrated through RNA-sequencing data analysis that sildenafil specifically targets Alzheimer’s disease related genes and pathobiological pathways, mechanistically supporting the beneficial effect of sildenafil in Alzheimer’s disease.
“We believe our findings provide the evidence needed for clinical trials to further examine the potential effectiveness of sildenafil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Cheng said.
The study was primarily supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Dr. Cheng had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The large real-world analysis of patient data from two databases showed a 30%-54% reduced prevalence in Alzheimer’s disease among patients who took sildenafil (Viagra) than those who did not, after adjusting for potential confounding factors.
This observation was further supported by mechanistic studies showing decreased neurotoxic protein levels in brain cells exposed to the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i).
“Our findings provide further weight to repurposing this existing FDA-approved drug as a novel treatment for Alzheimer’s, which is in great need of new therapies,” Feixiong Cheng, PhD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, who led the research, said in a news release.
“We used artificial intelligence to integrate data across multiple domains which all indicated sildenafil’s potential against this devastating neurological disease,” Dr. Cheng noted.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Neuroprotective?
Using real-world patient data from the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database (2012-2017) and the Clinformatics database (2007-2020), the researchers conducted propensity score-stratified analyses after adjusting for gender, age, race, and comorbidities.
They searched for all individuals with pharmacy claims for sildenafil or four comparator drugs — bumetanide, furosemide, spironolactone, and nifedipine. Results showed that sildenafil use was associated with reduced likelihood of Alzheimer’s disease relative to the control drugs.
For example, sildenafil use was associated with a 54% reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in MarketScan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66) and a 30% reduced prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in Clinformatics (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00) compared with spironolactone.
The findings support a study published earlier this year that found a potential protective effect of PDE5i treatment on Alzheimer’s disease risk.
However, this research and the current study are contradicted by another paper published in Brain Communications in late 2022 which showed no such link between ED meds and reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk.
The investigators also found that sildenafil reduces tau hyperphosphorylation (pTau181 and pTau205) in a dose-dependent manner in both familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease patient induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived neurons.
They further demonstrated through RNA-sequencing data analysis that sildenafil specifically targets Alzheimer’s disease related genes and pathobiological pathways, mechanistically supporting the beneficial effect of sildenafil in Alzheimer’s disease.
“We believe our findings provide the evidence needed for clinical trials to further examine the potential effectiveness of sildenafil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Cheng said.
The study was primarily supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Dr. Cheng had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMER’S RESEARCH
Frexalimab Promising for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis
At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.
The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.
The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
‘Unambiguous Benefit’
Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.
“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.
The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.
Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).
All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.
The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.
At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.
The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.
On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.
The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.
Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
Phase 3 Trials Underway
The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.
There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.
No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.
Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.
Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’
In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”
If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”
Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”
“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”
“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.
While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.
The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.
The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
‘Unambiguous Benefit’
Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.
“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.
The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.
Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).
All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.
The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.
At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.
The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.
On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.
The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.
Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
Phase 3 Trials Underway
The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.
There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.
No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.
Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.
Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’
In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”
If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”
Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”
“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”
“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.
While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At week 12, there was an 89% reduction in new gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 brain lesions — a standard measure of active inflammation in MS – in the high-dose frexalimab group and a 79% reduction in the low-dose treatment group compared with placebo, meeting the study’s primary endpoint.
The effects of frexalimab were sustained over time, “especially at the high dose of frexalimab where 96% of patients were free of new active lesions after 24 weeks of treatment,” first author Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, University of Lille, CHU Lille, France, said in a news release.
The full results were published online on in The New England Journal of Medicine, following presentation of preliminary data at the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers 2023 Annual Meeting.
‘Unambiguous Benefit’
Frexalimab blocks the costimulatory CD40/CD40L pathway, which regulates both adaptive and innate immune responses, and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of MS.
“Through this unique upstream mechanism of action, frexalimab has the potential to address both acute and chronic neuroinflammation in MS, without causing lymphocyte depletion,” a Sanofi press statement noted.
The phase 2 study enrolled 129 adults (mean age, 36 years; 66% women) with relapsing MS, 30% of whom had Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline.
Participants received 1200 mg of frexalimab administered intravenously every 4 weeks (with an 1800-mg loading dose; n = 52), 300 mg of frexalimab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks (with a 600-mg loading dose; n = 51), or matching placebos for each active treatment (n = 12 and n = 14, respectively).
All but four patients completed the 12-week double-blind period and entered the open-label period.
The primary end point was the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions seen on MRI at week 12 relative to week 8.
At week 12, the adjusted mean number of new Gd-enhancing T1 lesions was 0.2 and 0.3 in the high- and low-dose frexalimab groups, respectively, compared with 1.4 in the pooled placebo group.
The rate ratios, as compared with placebo, were 0.11 in the high-dose group and 0.21 in the low-dose group, corresponding to 89% and 79% reductions in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively.
On the secondary endpoint of number of new/enlarging T2-weighted lesions at week 12, rate ratios in the high- and low-dose groups were 0.08 and 0.14, respectively, corresponding to 92% and 86% reduction in the high- and low-dose treatment groups vs placebo.
The effects were sustained over time across both active treatment groups.
Frexalimab also lowered plasma levels of neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of neuroaxonal damage in MS, as well as plasma levels of CXCL13, a biomarker of inflammatory activity.
Phase 3 Trials Underway
The authors noted that the trial was too brief and small to draw conclusions regarding clinical outcomes. However, during the 12-week double-blind period, no relapses occurred in the high-dose frexalimab group, whereas relapses occurred in roughly 4% of those in the low-dose frexalimab group and the pooled placebo group.
There was no change from baseline to 12 weeks in median scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale in any study group.
No serious or severe adverse events or deaths were reported during the double-blind period. There were no thromboembolic events — a concern with first-generation anti–CD40L antibodies.
Depletion of lymphocytes was not observed. More infections were observed with frexalimab than with placebo, but no serious infections occurred during 24 weeks of frexalimab treatment. The most common adverse events were COVID-19 and headache. All cases of COVID-19 were uncomplicated and mild to moderate in severity.
Bolstered by the promising phase 2 data, Sanofi has initiated two phase 3 studies assessing frexalimab in relapsing MS and non-relapsing secondary progressive MS.
‘A High Bar for Any New Treatment’
In an accompanying editorial, Stephen L. Hauser, MD, with UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, San Francisco, California, wrote that the results “appear clear, although the clinical significance is uncertain — clear because there was an unambiguous benefit with regard to short-term MRI outcomes in patients who received frexalimab as compared with those who received placebo and because a generally low level of MRI activity persisted during an additional 12-week open-label extension period.”
If the findings hold with longer-term use, Dr. Hauser continued, “it seems likely that there will be a protective effect of frexalimab therapy with regard to relapses of multiple sclerosis.”
Dr. Hauser noted, however, that the “striking clinical benefits and safety profile of the available high-efficacy therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis create a high bar for any new treatment.”
“In this trial, the MRI outcomes with frexalimab therapy were impressive but appear to be less complete than those with anti-CD20 agents, although trials of different agents cannot be directly compared.”
“Even if future studies show frexalimab to be competitive with currently available therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis, the paramount need is for more effective therapy against progression,” Dr. Hauser wrote.
While the current trial was neither designed nor powered to assess benefits against progressive MS, “progression is where the true clinical value of frexalimab, and its place in the therapeutic armamentarium against multiple sclerosis, will need to be defined,” Dr. Hauser concluded.
The study was supported by Sanofi. Disclosures for authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE