Neurology Reviews

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

High levels of xylitol, a low-calorie sweetener used in many reduced-sugar foods as well as gum and toothpaste, are linked to an increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, and death, says a new study published in the European Heart Journal.

The research team studied more than 3000 people in the US and Europe over 3 years and found that people with the highest amount of xylitol in their plasma were more likely to have a problem with their heart or blood vessels.

To show the early effects of xylitol, researchers studied platelet activity in volunteers who consumed a xylitol-sweetened drink and a glucose-sweetened drink. The xylitol levels went up by 1000 times in people after the xylitol drink but not after the glucose-sweetened drink.

Xylitol is naturally found in small amounts in fruit and vegetables, and it’s been used more as a sugar substitute over the past decade in processed foods, toothpaste, chewing gum, and other products.

“This study again shows the immediate need for investigating sugar alcohols and artificial sweeteners, especially as they continue to be recommended in combating conditions like obesity or diabetes,” Stanley Hazen, MD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, said in a news release.

“It does not mean throw out your toothpaste if it has xylitol in it, but we should be aware that consumption of a product containing high levels could increase the risk of blood clot-related events.”

A similar link between erythritol, another sugar substance, and problems with the heart and blood vessels was found last year by the same research team, the release said.

In a response to the study, the Calorie Control Council, a trade association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry, said xylitol has been approved for decades by government agencies. The study results may not apply to the general population because some people in the study already had a higher risk of having problems with their heart and blood vessels, it said.

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

High levels of xylitol, a low-calorie sweetener used in many reduced-sugar foods as well as gum and toothpaste, are linked to an increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, and death, says a new study published in the European Heart Journal.

The research team studied more than 3000 people in the US and Europe over 3 years and found that people with the highest amount of xylitol in their plasma were more likely to have a problem with their heart or blood vessels.

To show the early effects of xylitol, researchers studied platelet activity in volunteers who consumed a xylitol-sweetened drink and a glucose-sweetened drink. The xylitol levels went up by 1000 times in people after the xylitol drink but not after the glucose-sweetened drink.

Xylitol is naturally found in small amounts in fruit and vegetables, and it’s been used more as a sugar substitute over the past decade in processed foods, toothpaste, chewing gum, and other products.

“This study again shows the immediate need for investigating sugar alcohols and artificial sweeteners, especially as they continue to be recommended in combating conditions like obesity or diabetes,” Stanley Hazen, MD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, said in a news release.

“It does not mean throw out your toothpaste if it has xylitol in it, but we should be aware that consumption of a product containing high levels could increase the risk of blood clot-related events.”

A similar link between erythritol, another sugar substance, and problems with the heart and blood vessels was found last year by the same research team, the release said.

In a response to the study, the Calorie Control Council, a trade association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry, said xylitol has been approved for decades by government agencies. The study results may not apply to the general population because some people in the study already had a higher risk of having problems with their heart and blood vessels, it said.

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

High levels of xylitol, a low-calorie sweetener used in many reduced-sugar foods as well as gum and toothpaste, are linked to an increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, and death, says a new study published in the European Heart Journal.

The research team studied more than 3000 people in the US and Europe over 3 years and found that people with the highest amount of xylitol in their plasma were more likely to have a problem with their heart or blood vessels.

To show the early effects of xylitol, researchers studied platelet activity in volunteers who consumed a xylitol-sweetened drink and a glucose-sweetened drink. The xylitol levels went up by 1000 times in people after the xylitol drink but not after the glucose-sweetened drink.

Xylitol is naturally found in small amounts in fruit and vegetables, and it’s been used more as a sugar substitute over the past decade in processed foods, toothpaste, chewing gum, and other products.

“This study again shows the immediate need for investigating sugar alcohols and artificial sweeteners, especially as they continue to be recommended in combating conditions like obesity or diabetes,” Stanley Hazen, MD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, said in a news release.

“It does not mean throw out your toothpaste if it has xylitol in it, but we should be aware that consumption of a product containing high levels could increase the risk of blood clot-related events.”

A similar link between erythritol, another sugar substance, and problems with the heart and blood vessels was found last year by the same research team, the release said.

In a response to the study, the Calorie Control Council, a trade association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry, said xylitol has been approved for decades by government agencies. The study results may not apply to the general population because some people in the study already had a higher risk of having problems with their heart and blood vessels, it said.

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

When combined with clinical scores, a “game-changing” blood test can expedite the diagnosis and treatment of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke, potentially saving many lives, new data suggested.

Using cutoff levels of two blood biomarkers, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP; 213 pg/mL) and D-dimer (600 ng/mL), and the field assessment stroke triage for emergency destination (FAST-ED) (score, > 2), investigators were able to detect LVOs with 81% sensitivity and 93% specificity less than 6 hours from the onset of symptoms.

GFAP has previously been linked to brain bleeds and traumatic brain injury.

The test also ruled out all patients with brain bleeds, and investigators noted that it could also be used to detect intracerebral hemorrhage.

“We have developed a game-changing, accessible tool that could help ensure that more people suffering from stroke are in the right place at the right time to receive critical, life-restoring care,” senior author Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD, MPH, a clinical fellow in the department of neurosurgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in a press release.

The findings were published online on May 17 in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology.
 

Early Identification Crucial

Acute LVO stroke is one of the most treatable stroke types because of the availability of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). However, EVT requires specialized equipment and teams that represent a small subset of accredited stroke centers and an even smaller subset of emergency medical facilities, so early identification of LVO is crucial, the investigators noted.

Dr. Bernstock and his team developed the TIME trial to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the blood biomarkers and scale cutoff values for identifying LVO vs non-LVO stroke.

As part of the observational prospective cohort trial, investigators included consecutive patients admitted to the Brandon Regional Hospital Emergency Department in Brandon, Florida, between May 2021 and August 2022 if they were referred for a suspected stroke and the time from symptom onset was under 18 hours.

Patients were excluded if they received thrombolytic therapy before blood was collected or if it was anticipated that blood collection would be difficult.

Investigators gathered information on patients’ clinical data, hematology results, time since last known well, and imaging findings to construct a clinical diagnosis (LVO, non-LVO, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack [TIA]).

In addition to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, patients were assessed with the FAST-ED, the Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE), the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool, and the Emergency Medical Stroke Assessment.

Of 323 patients in the final study sample, 29 (9%) had LVO ischemic stroke, and 48 (15%) had non-LVO ischemic stroke. Another 13 (4%) had hemorrhagic stroke, 12 had TIA (3.7%), and the largest proportion of patients had stroke mimic (n = 220; 68%), which included encephalopathy, hyperglycemia, hypertensive emergency, migraine, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and undetermined.
 

The Case for Biomarkers

When investigators looked at those with LVO ischemic stroke, they found the concentration of plasma D-dimer was significantly higher than that in patients with non-LVO suspected stroke (LVO suspected stroke, 1213 ng/mL; interquartile range [IQR], 733-1609 vs non-LVO suspected stroke, 617 ng/mL; IQR, 377-1345; P < .001).

In addition, GFAP was significantly increased in the plasma of patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs all other patients with suspected stroke (hemorrhagic stroke, 1464 pg/mL; IQR, 292-2580 vs nonhemorrhagic suspected stroke, 48 pg/mL; IQR, 12-98; P < .005).

Combinations of the blood biomarkers with the scales FAST-ED or RACE showed the best performance for LVO detection, with a specificity of 94% (for either scale combination) and a sensitivity of 71% for both scales.

When investigators analyzed data for just those patients identified within 6 hours of symptom onset, the combination of biomarkers plus FAST-ED resulted in a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 81%.

Given that clinical stroke scales in patients with hemorrhagic stroke frequently suggest LVO and that these patients are not candidates for EVT, a tool capable of ruling out hemorrhage and identifying only nonhemorrhagic ischemic LVO is essential, the investigators noted.

“In stroke care, time is brain,” Dr. Bernstock said. “The sooner a patient is put on the right care pathway, the better they are going to do. Whether that means ruling out bleeds or ruling in something that needs an intervention, being able to do this in a prehospital setting with the technology that we built is going to be truly transformative.”

The study was funded by the Innovate UK grant and private funding. Dr. Bernstock has positions and equity in Pockit Diagnostics Ltd. and Treovir Inc. and is on the boards of Centile Bio and NeuroX1. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When combined with clinical scores, a “game-changing” blood test can expedite the diagnosis and treatment of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke, potentially saving many lives, new data suggested.

Using cutoff levels of two blood biomarkers, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP; 213 pg/mL) and D-dimer (600 ng/mL), and the field assessment stroke triage for emergency destination (FAST-ED) (score, > 2), investigators were able to detect LVOs with 81% sensitivity and 93% specificity less than 6 hours from the onset of symptoms.

GFAP has previously been linked to brain bleeds and traumatic brain injury.

The test also ruled out all patients with brain bleeds, and investigators noted that it could also be used to detect intracerebral hemorrhage.

“We have developed a game-changing, accessible tool that could help ensure that more people suffering from stroke are in the right place at the right time to receive critical, life-restoring care,” senior author Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD, MPH, a clinical fellow in the department of neurosurgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in a press release.

The findings were published online on May 17 in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology.
 

Early Identification Crucial

Acute LVO stroke is one of the most treatable stroke types because of the availability of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). However, EVT requires specialized equipment and teams that represent a small subset of accredited stroke centers and an even smaller subset of emergency medical facilities, so early identification of LVO is crucial, the investigators noted.

Dr. Bernstock and his team developed the TIME trial to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the blood biomarkers and scale cutoff values for identifying LVO vs non-LVO stroke.

As part of the observational prospective cohort trial, investigators included consecutive patients admitted to the Brandon Regional Hospital Emergency Department in Brandon, Florida, between May 2021 and August 2022 if they were referred for a suspected stroke and the time from symptom onset was under 18 hours.

Patients were excluded if they received thrombolytic therapy before blood was collected or if it was anticipated that blood collection would be difficult.

Investigators gathered information on patients’ clinical data, hematology results, time since last known well, and imaging findings to construct a clinical diagnosis (LVO, non-LVO, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack [TIA]).

In addition to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, patients were assessed with the FAST-ED, the Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE), the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool, and the Emergency Medical Stroke Assessment.

Of 323 patients in the final study sample, 29 (9%) had LVO ischemic stroke, and 48 (15%) had non-LVO ischemic stroke. Another 13 (4%) had hemorrhagic stroke, 12 had TIA (3.7%), and the largest proportion of patients had stroke mimic (n = 220; 68%), which included encephalopathy, hyperglycemia, hypertensive emergency, migraine, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and undetermined.
 

The Case for Biomarkers

When investigators looked at those with LVO ischemic stroke, they found the concentration of plasma D-dimer was significantly higher than that in patients with non-LVO suspected stroke (LVO suspected stroke, 1213 ng/mL; interquartile range [IQR], 733-1609 vs non-LVO suspected stroke, 617 ng/mL; IQR, 377-1345; P < .001).

In addition, GFAP was significantly increased in the plasma of patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs all other patients with suspected stroke (hemorrhagic stroke, 1464 pg/mL; IQR, 292-2580 vs nonhemorrhagic suspected stroke, 48 pg/mL; IQR, 12-98; P < .005).

Combinations of the blood biomarkers with the scales FAST-ED or RACE showed the best performance for LVO detection, with a specificity of 94% (for either scale combination) and a sensitivity of 71% for both scales.

When investigators analyzed data for just those patients identified within 6 hours of symptom onset, the combination of biomarkers plus FAST-ED resulted in a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 81%.

Given that clinical stroke scales in patients with hemorrhagic stroke frequently suggest LVO and that these patients are not candidates for EVT, a tool capable of ruling out hemorrhage and identifying only nonhemorrhagic ischemic LVO is essential, the investigators noted.

“In stroke care, time is brain,” Dr. Bernstock said. “The sooner a patient is put on the right care pathway, the better they are going to do. Whether that means ruling out bleeds or ruling in something that needs an intervention, being able to do this in a prehospital setting with the technology that we built is going to be truly transformative.”

The study was funded by the Innovate UK grant and private funding. Dr. Bernstock has positions and equity in Pockit Diagnostics Ltd. and Treovir Inc. and is on the boards of Centile Bio and NeuroX1. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When combined with clinical scores, a “game-changing” blood test can expedite the diagnosis and treatment of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke, potentially saving many lives, new data suggested.

Using cutoff levels of two blood biomarkers, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP; 213 pg/mL) and D-dimer (600 ng/mL), and the field assessment stroke triage for emergency destination (FAST-ED) (score, > 2), investigators were able to detect LVOs with 81% sensitivity and 93% specificity less than 6 hours from the onset of symptoms.

GFAP has previously been linked to brain bleeds and traumatic brain injury.

The test also ruled out all patients with brain bleeds, and investigators noted that it could also be used to detect intracerebral hemorrhage.

“We have developed a game-changing, accessible tool that could help ensure that more people suffering from stroke are in the right place at the right time to receive critical, life-restoring care,” senior author Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD, MPH, a clinical fellow in the department of neurosurgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in a press release.

The findings were published online on May 17 in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology.
 

Early Identification Crucial

Acute LVO stroke is one of the most treatable stroke types because of the availability of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). However, EVT requires specialized equipment and teams that represent a small subset of accredited stroke centers and an even smaller subset of emergency medical facilities, so early identification of LVO is crucial, the investigators noted.

Dr. Bernstock and his team developed the TIME trial to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the blood biomarkers and scale cutoff values for identifying LVO vs non-LVO stroke.

As part of the observational prospective cohort trial, investigators included consecutive patients admitted to the Brandon Regional Hospital Emergency Department in Brandon, Florida, between May 2021 and August 2022 if they were referred for a suspected stroke and the time from symptom onset was under 18 hours.

Patients were excluded if they received thrombolytic therapy before blood was collected or if it was anticipated that blood collection would be difficult.

Investigators gathered information on patients’ clinical data, hematology results, time since last known well, and imaging findings to construct a clinical diagnosis (LVO, non-LVO, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack [TIA]).

In addition to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, patients were assessed with the FAST-ED, the Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE), the Cincinnati Stroke Triage Assessment Tool, and the Emergency Medical Stroke Assessment.

Of 323 patients in the final study sample, 29 (9%) had LVO ischemic stroke, and 48 (15%) had non-LVO ischemic stroke. Another 13 (4%) had hemorrhagic stroke, 12 had TIA (3.7%), and the largest proportion of patients had stroke mimic (n = 220; 68%), which included encephalopathy, hyperglycemia, hypertensive emergency, migraine, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and undetermined.
 

The Case for Biomarkers

When investigators looked at those with LVO ischemic stroke, they found the concentration of plasma D-dimer was significantly higher than that in patients with non-LVO suspected stroke (LVO suspected stroke, 1213 ng/mL; interquartile range [IQR], 733-1609 vs non-LVO suspected stroke, 617 ng/mL; IQR, 377-1345; P < .001).

In addition, GFAP was significantly increased in the plasma of patients with hemorrhagic stroke vs all other patients with suspected stroke (hemorrhagic stroke, 1464 pg/mL; IQR, 292-2580 vs nonhemorrhagic suspected stroke, 48 pg/mL; IQR, 12-98; P < .005).

Combinations of the blood biomarkers with the scales FAST-ED or RACE showed the best performance for LVO detection, with a specificity of 94% (for either scale combination) and a sensitivity of 71% for both scales.

When investigators analyzed data for just those patients identified within 6 hours of symptom onset, the combination of biomarkers plus FAST-ED resulted in a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 81%.

Given that clinical stroke scales in patients with hemorrhagic stroke frequently suggest LVO and that these patients are not candidates for EVT, a tool capable of ruling out hemorrhage and identifying only nonhemorrhagic ischemic LVO is essential, the investigators noted.

“In stroke care, time is brain,” Dr. Bernstock said. “The sooner a patient is put on the right care pathway, the better they are going to do. Whether that means ruling out bleeds or ruling in something that needs an intervention, being able to do this in a prehospital setting with the technology that we built is going to be truly transformative.”

The study was funded by the Innovate UK grant and private funding. Dr. Bernstock has positions and equity in Pockit Diagnostics Ltd. and Treovir Inc. and is on the boards of Centile Bio and NeuroX1. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Reports from older adults and their partners of early memory issues are associated with higher levels of tau neurofibrillary tangles in the brain, new research suggests. 

The findings show that in addition to beta-amyloid, tau is implicated in cognitive decline even in the absence of overt clinical symptoms.

“Understanding the earliest signs of Alzheimer’s disease is even more important now that new disease-modifying drugs are becoming available,” study author 

Rebecca E. Amariglio, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor in neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release. “Our study found early suspicions of memory problems by both participants and the people who knew them well were linked to higher levels of tau tangles in the brain.”

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Subjective Cognitive Decline

Beta-amyloid plaque accumulations and tau neurofibrillary tangles both underlie the clinical continuum of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Previous studies have investigated beta-amyloid burden and self- and partner-reported cognitive decline, but fewer have examined regional tau.

Subjective cognitive decline may be an early sign of AD, but self-awareness declines as individuals become increasingly symptomatic. So, a report from a partner about the participant’s level of cognitive functioning is often required in studies of mild cognitive impairment and dementia. The relevance of this model during the preclinical stage is less clear.

For the multicohort, cross-sectional study, investigators studied 675 cognitively unimpaired older adults (mean age, 72 years; 59% female), including persons with nonelevated beta-amyloid levels and those with elevated beta-amyloid levels, as determined by PET. 

Participants brought a spouse, adult child, or other study partner with them to answer questions about the participant’s cognitive abilities and their ability to complete daily tasks. About 65% of participants lived with their partners and both completed the Cognitive Function Index (CFI) to assess cognitive decline, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive decline. 

Covariates included age, sex, education, and cohort as well as objective cognitive performance.
 

The Value of Partner Reporting

Investigators found that higher tau levels were associated with greater self- and partner-reported cognitive decline (P < .001 for both).

Significant associations between self- and partner-reported CFI measures were driven by elevated beta-amyloid levels, with continuous beta-amyloid levels showing an independent effect on CFI in addition to tau. 

“Our findings suggest that asking older people who have elevated Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers about subjective cognitive decline may be valuable for early detection,” Dr. Amariglio said.

Limitations include the fact that most participants were White and highly educated. Future studies should include participants from more diverse racial and ethnic groups and people with diverse levels of education, researchers noted.

“Although this study was cross-sectional, findings suggest that among older CU individuals who at risk for AD dementia, capturing self-report and study partner report of cognitive function may be valuable for understanding the relationship between early pathophysiologic progression and the emergence of functional impairment,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded in part by the National Institute on Aging, Eli Lily, and the Alzheimer’s Association, among others. Dr. Amariglio receives research funding from the National Institute on Aging. Complete study funding and other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

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

Reports from older adults and their partners of early memory issues are associated with higher levels of tau neurofibrillary tangles in the brain, new research suggests. 

The findings show that in addition to beta-amyloid, tau is implicated in cognitive decline even in the absence of overt clinical symptoms.

“Understanding the earliest signs of Alzheimer’s disease is even more important now that new disease-modifying drugs are becoming available,” study author 

Rebecca E. Amariglio, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor in neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release. “Our study found early suspicions of memory problems by both participants and the people who knew them well were linked to higher levels of tau tangles in the brain.”

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Subjective Cognitive Decline

Beta-amyloid plaque accumulations and tau neurofibrillary tangles both underlie the clinical continuum of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Previous studies have investigated beta-amyloid burden and self- and partner-reported cognitive decline, but fewer have examined regional tau.

Subjective cognitive decline may be an early sign of AD, but self-awareness declines as individuals become increasingly symptomatic. So, a report from a partner about the participant’s level of cognitive functioning is often required in studies of mild cognitive impairment and dementia. The relevance of this model during the preclinical stage is less clear.

For the multicohort, cross-sectional study, investigators studied 675 cognitively unimpaired older adults (mean age, 72 years; 59% female), including persons with nonelevated beta-amyloid levels and those with elevated beta-amyloid levels, as determined by PET. 

Participants brought a spouse, adult child, or other study partner with them to answer questions about the participant’s cognitive abilities and their ability to complete daily tasks. About 65% of participants lived with their partners and both completed the Cognitive Function Index (CFI) to assess cognitive decline, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive decline. 

Covariates included age, sex, education, and cohort as well as objective cognitive performance.
 

The Value of Partner Reporting

Investigators found that higher tau levels were associated with greater self- and partner-reported cognitive decline (P < .001 for both).

Significant associations between self- and partner-reported CFI measures were driven by elevated beta-amyloid levels, with continuous beta-amyloid levels showing an independent effect on CFI in addition to tau. 

“Our findings suggest that asking older people who have elevated Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers about subjective cognitive decline may be valuable for early detection,” Dr. Amariglio said.

Limitations include the fact that most participants were White and highly educated. Future studies should include participants from more diverse racial and ethnic groups and people with diverse levels of education, researchers noted.

“Although this study was cross-sectional, findings suggest that among older CU individuals who at risk for AD dementia, capturing self-report and study partner report of cognitive function may be valuable for understanding the relationship between early pathophysiologic progression and the emergence of functional impairment,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded in part by the National Institute on Aging, Eli Lily, and the Alzheimer’s Association, among others. Dr. Amariglio receives research funding from the National Institute on Aging. Complete study funding and other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

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

Reports from older adults and their partners of early memory issues are associated with higher levels of tau neurofibrillary tangles in the brain, new research suggests. 

The findings show that in addition to beta-amyloid, tau is implicated in cognitive decline even in the absence of overt clinical symptoms.

“Understanding the earliest signs of Alzheimer’s disease is even more important now that new disease-modifying drugs are becoming available,” study author 

Rebecca E. Amariglio, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor in neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release. “Our study found early suspicions of memory problems by both participants and the people who knew them well were linked to higher levels of tau tangles in the brain.”

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Subjective Cognitive Decline

Beta-amyloid plaque accumulations and tau neurofibrillary tangles both underlie the clinical continuum of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Previous studies have investigated beta-amyloid burden and self- and partner-reported cognitive decline, but fewer have examined regional tau.

Subjective cognitive decline may be an early sign of AD, but self-awareness declines as individuals become increasingly symptomatic. So, a report from a partner about the participant’s level of cognitive functioning is often required in studies of mild cognitive impairment and dementia. The relevance of this model during the preclinical stage is less clear.

For the multicohort, cross-sectional study, investigators studied 675 cognitively unimpaired older adults (mean age, 72 years; 59% female), including persons with nonelevated beta-amyloid levels and those with elevated beta-amyloid levels, as determined by PET. 

Participants brought a spouse, adult child, or other study partner with them to answer questions about the participant’s cognitive abilities and their ability to complete daily tasks. About 65% of participants lived with their partners and both completed the Cognitive Function Index (CFI) to assess cognitive decline, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive decline. 

Covariates included age, sex, education, and cohort as well as objective cognitive performance.
 

The Value of Partner Reporting

Investigators found that higher tau levels were associated with greater self- and partner-reported cognitive decline (P < .001 for both).

Significant associations between self- and partner-reported CFI measures were driven by elevated beta-amyloid levels, with continuous beta-amyloid levels showing an independent effect on CFI in addition to tau. 

“Our findings suggest that asking older people who have elevated Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers about subjective cognitive decline may be valuable for early detection,” Dr. Amariglio said.

Limitations include the fact that most participants were White and highly educated. Future studies should include participants from more diverse racial and ethnic groups and people with diverse levels of education, researchers noted.

“Although this study was cross-sectional, findings suggest that among older CU individuals who at risk for AD dementia, capturing self-report and study partner report of cognitive function may be valuable for understanding the relationship between early pathophysiologic progression and the emergence of functional impairment,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded in part by the National Institute on Aging, Eli Lily, and the Alzheimer’s Association, among others. Dr. Amariglio receives research funding from the National Institute on Aging. Complete study funding and other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

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

The records came in by fax. A patient who’d recently moved here and needed to connect with a local neurologist.

When I had time, I flipped through the records. He needed ongoing treatment for a rare neurological disease that I’d heard of, but wasn’t otherwise familiar with. It didn’t even exist in the textbooks or conferences when I was in residency. I’d never seen a case of it, just read about it here and there in journals.

I looked it up, reviewed current treatment options, monitoring, and other knowledge about it, then stared at the notes for a minute. Finally, after thinking it over, I attached a sticky note for my secretary that, if the person called, to redirect them to one of the local subspecialty neurology centers.

I have nothing against this patient, but realistically he would be better served seeing someone with time to keep up on advancements in esoteric disorders, not a general neurologist like myself.

Isn’t that why we have subspecialty centers?

Some of it is also me. There was a time in my career when keeping up on newly discovered disorders and their treatments was, well, cool. But after 25 years in practice, that changes.

In the daily trenches of general neurology, one can only be on top of so much. You have to prioritize the things you’re most likely to see. It’s important to be at least somewhat aware of new developments (such as in this case) as you may encounter them, and need to know when it’s something you can handle and when to send it elsewhere.

Driving home that afternoon I thought, “I’m an old dog. I don’t want to learn new tricks.” Maybe that’s all it is. There are other neurologists my age and older who thrive on the challenge of learning about and treating new and rare disorders that were unknown when they started out. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But I’ve never pretended to be an academic or sub-sub-specialist. My patients depend on me to stay up to date on the large number of commonly seen neurological disorders, and I do my best to do that.

It ain’t easy being an old dog.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The records came in by fax. A patient who’d recently moved here and needed to connect with a local neurologist.

When I had time, I flipped through the records. He needed ongoing treatment for a rare neurological disease that I’d heard of, but wasn’t otherwise familiar with. It didn’t even exist in the textbooks or conferences when I was in residency. I’d never seen a case of it, just read about it here and there in journals.

I looked it up, reviewed current treatment options, monitoring, and other knowledge about it, then stared at the notes for a minute. Finally, after thinking it over, I attached a sticky note for my secretary that, if the person called, to redirect them to one of the local subspecialty neurology centers.

I have nothing against this patient, but realistically he would be better served seeing someone with time to keep up on advancements in esoteric disorders, not a general neurologist like myself.

Isn’t that why we have subspecialty centers?

Some of it is also me. There was a time in my career when keeping up on newly discovered disorders and their treatments was, well, cool. But after 25 years in practice, that changes.

In the daily trenches of general neurology, one can only be on top of so much. You have to prioritize the things you’re most likely to see. It’s important to be at least somewhat aware of new developments (such as in this case) as you may encounter them, and need to know when it’s something you can handle and when to send it elsewhere.

Driving home that afternoon I thought, “I’m an old dog. I don’t want to learn new tricks.” Maybe that’s all it is. There are other neurologists my age and older who thrive on the challenge of learning about and treating new and rare disorders that were unknown when they started out. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But I’ve never pretended to be an academic or sub-sub-specialist. My patients depend on me to stay up to date on the large number of commonly seen neurological disorders, and I do my best to do that.

It ain’t easy being an old dog.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The records came in by fax. A patient who’d recently moved here and needed to connect with a local neurologist.

When I had time, I flipped through the records. He needed ongoing treatment for a rare neurological disease that I’d heard of, but wasn’t otherwise familiar with. It didn’t even exist in the textbooks or conferences when I was in residency. I’d never seen a case of it, just read about it here and there in journals.

I looked it up, reviewed current treatment options, monitoring, and other knowledge about it, then stared at the notes for a minute. Finally, after thinking it over, I attached a sticky note for my secretary that, if the person called, to redirect them to one of the local subspecialty neurology centers.

I have nothing against this patient, but realistically he would be better served seeing someone with time to keep up on advancements in esoteric disorders, not a general neurologist like myself.

Isn’t that why we have subspecialty centers?

Some of it is also me. There was a time in my career when keeping up on newly discovered disorders and their treatments was, well, cool. But after 25 years in practice, that changes.

In the daily trenches of general neurology, one can only be on top of so much. You have to prioritize the things you’re most likely to see. It’s important to be at least somewhat aware of new developments (such as in this case) as you may encounter them, and need to know when it’s something you can handle and when to send it elsewhere.

Driving home that afternoon I thought, “I’m an old dog. I don’t want to learn new tricks.” Maybe that’s all it is. There are other neurologists my age and older who thrive on the challenge of learning about and treating new and rare disorders that were unknown when they started out. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But I’ve never pretended to be an academic or sub-sub-specialist. My patients depend on me to stay up to date on the large number of commonly seen neurological disorders, and I do my best to do that.

It ain’t easy being an old dog.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

TOPLINE:

Inebilizumab-cdon, a monoclonal antibody that depletes B cells, reduces the risk for flares without showing any new safety signals in patients with immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) who have multiorgan disease and are on glucocorticoid therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• IgG4-RD is an immune-mediated, fibroinflammatory condition that affects multiple organs, causing irreversible organ damage. MITIGATE is the first multinational, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with IgG4-RD.
• Researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of inebilizumab in 135 adult patients at risk for flares due to a history of multiorgan disease and active disease requiring treatment with glucocorticoids.
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive 300-mg intravenous inebilizumab or placebo on day 1, day 15, and week 26.
• The primary endpoint was the time to the first treated and adjudicated IgG4-RD flare within 52 weeks.
• The secondary endpoints included the annualized flare rate, flare-free and treatment-free complete remission, and flare-free and corticosteroid-free complete remission.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the placebo, inebilizumab reduced the risk for IgG4-RD flares by 87% during the 52-week trial period (hazard ratio, 0.13; P < .0001).
• All the secondary endpoints showed improvement following treatment with inebilizumab.
• The most common adverse reactions with inebilizumab, as observed in a previous trial for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, were urinary tract infection and arthralgia.
• There were no new safety signals in the MITIGATE trial.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data mark a major milestone for the IgG4-RD community and provide substantial insight into not only how inebilizumab can help manage IgG4-RD but also key insights into the nature of this condition,” John Stone, MD, MPH, principal investigator, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

Dr. Stone, a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and the Edward A. Fox Chair in Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led this study.

LIMITATIONS:

This press release did not discuss any limitations of the current study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma and Hansoh Pharma and sponsored by Amgen. The author disclosures were not available.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inebilizumab-cdon, a monoclonal antibody that depletes B cells, reduces the risk for flares without showing any new safety signals in patients with immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) who have multiorgan disease and are on glucocorticoid therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• IgG4-RD is an immune-mediated, fibroinflammatory condition that affects multiple organs, causing irreversible organ damage. MITIGATE is the first multinational, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with IgG4-RD.
• Researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of inebilizumab in 135 adult patients at risk for flares due to a history of multiorgan disease and active disease requiring treatment with glucocorticoids.
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive 300-mg intravenous inebilizumab or placebo on day 1, day 15, and week 26.
• The primary endpoint was the time to the first treated and adjudicated IgG4-RD flare within 52 weeks.
• The secondary endpoints included the annualized flare rate, flare-free and treatment-free complete remission, and flare-free and corticosteroid-free complete remission.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the placebo, inebilizumab reduced the risk for IgG4-RD flares by 87% during the 52-week trial period (hazard ratio, 0.13; P < .0001).
• All the secondary endpoints showed improvement following treatment with inebilizumab.
• The most common adverse reactions with inebilizumab, as observed in a previous trial for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, were urinary tract infection and arthralgia.
• There were no new safety signals in the MITIGATE trial.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data mark a major milestone for the IgG4-RD community and provide substantial insight into not only how inebilizumab can help manage IgG4-RD but also key insights into the nature of this condition,” John Stone, MD, MPH, principal investigator, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

Dr. Stone, a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and the Edward A. Fox Chair in Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led this study.

LIMITATIONS:

This press release did not discuss any limitations of the current study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma and Hansoh Pharma and sponsored by Amgen. The author disclosures were not available.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Inebilizumab-cdon, a monoclonal antibody that depletes B cells, reduces the risk for flares without showing any new safety signals in patients with immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) who have multiorgan disease and are on glucocorticoid therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• IgG4-RD is an immune-mediated, fibroinflammatory condition that affects multiple organs, causing irreversible organ damage. MITIGATE is the first multinational, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with IgG4-RD.
• Researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of inebilizumab in 135 adult patients at risk for flares due to a history of multiorgan disease and active disease requiring treatment with glucocorticoids.
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive 300-mg intravenous inebilizumab or placebo on day 1, day 15, and week 26.
• The primary endpoint was the time to the first treated and adjudicated IgG4-RD flare within 52 weeks.
• The secondary endpoints included the annualized flare rate, flare-free and treatment-free complete remission, and flare-free and corticosteroid-free complete remission.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the placebo, inebilizumab reduced the risk for IgG4-RD flares by 87% during the 52-week trial period (hazard ratio, 0.13; P < .0001).
• All the secondary endpoints showed improvement following treatment with inebilizumab.
• The most common adverse reactions with inebilizumab, as observed in a previous trial for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, were urinary tract infection and arthralgia.
• There were no new safety signals in the MITIGATE trial.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data mark a major milestone for the IgG4-RD community and provide substantial insight into not only how inebilizumab can help manage IgG4-RD but also key insights into the nature of this condition,” John Stone, MD, MPH, principal investigator, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

Dr. Stone, a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and the Edward A. Fox Chair in Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, led this study.

LIMITATIONS:

This press release did not discuss any limitations of the current study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma and Hansoh Pharma and sponsored by Amgen. The author disclosures were not available.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five commonly prescribed drugs may be associated with a lower risk for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), a drug-wide association study suggested.

The blood pressure drug lisinopril; the cholesterol drug simvastatin; the diabetes drug metformin; and the drug tamsulosin, prescribed for an enlarged prostate, were all associated with decreased aSAH risk, investigators found.

Conversely, four other drugs were associated with an increased risk for this severely morbid, often deadly, condition.

“The motivation for this study was the fact that we can currently prevent bleeding from intracranial aneurysms only by invasive treatment of those aneurysms with inherent complication risks,” said study investigator Ynte Ruigrok, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. “Drugs to reduce or eliminate this risk are not yet available. This study is a first step in identifying such drugs.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Surprising Results

For the study, the researchers used the Secure Anonymized Information Linkage data bank in Wales to identify 4879 patients with aSAH between January 2000 and December 2019 and 43,911 patients without aSAH matched on age, sex, and year of database entry. Clustering resulted in 2023 unique drugs, of which 205 were commonly prescribed.

After adjusting for other factors such as high blood pressure, alcohol abuse, smoking, and a total number of health conditions, the results yielded two surprises, Dr. Ruigrok observed.

The first was a significant decrease in aSAH risk for current use of lisinopril, compared with nonuse (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90), and a nonsignificant decrease with current use of amlodipine (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04).

“Hypertension is a major risk factor for occurrence and bleeding from aneurysms. If there is indeed a specific blood pressure–lowering drug that not only has a blood pressure–lowering effect but also has additional protection against aSAH, then perhaps that drug should become the drug of choice in aneurysm patients in the future,” he said.

Notably, recent use of both drugs, defined as between 1 year and 3 months before the index date, was associated with an increased risk for aSAH. This trend was not found for other antihypertensives and was significant for amlodipine but not lisinopril.

The reasons are unclear, but “we trust the findings on lisinopril more,” Dr. Ruigrok said. “The findings on amlodipine may be due to confounding by indication, specifically caused by hypertension. Therefore, it is important to validate our findings in an independent research cohort, and we are in the process of doing so.”

The study’s second surprise was the antidiabetic drug metformin and cholesterol-lowering drug simvastatin were also associated with reduced aSAH risk, Dr. Ruigrok noted.

“We already knew from previous studies that diabetes and high cholesterol are protective factors for aSAH,” he said. “Our results suggest that perhaps not the conditions themselves are protective for aSAH but rather the drugs used to treat these conditions with are.”

The risk for a ruptured brain aneurysm among current users was 42% lower with metformin (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78), 22% lower with simvastatin (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96), and 45% lower with tamsulosin (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.93).

An increased risk for aSAH was found only in current users of warfarin (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79), venlafaxine (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.01-2.75), prochlorperazine (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.45-3.18), and co-codamol (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10-1.56).

Other drugs within the classes of vitamin K antagonists, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, conventional antipsychotics, and compound analgesics did not show an association with aSAH.

The study was limited by the use of drug prescriptions, and patients may not take their drugs or use them incorrectly, noted the researchers, led by Jos P. Kanning, MSc, also with University Medical Center Utrecht.

The study was supported by the European Research Council. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five commonly prescribed drugs may be associated with a lower risk for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), a drug-wide association study suggested.

The blood pressure drug lisinopril; the cholesterol drug simvastatin; the diabetes drug metformin; and the drug tamsulosin, prescribed for an enlarged prostate, were all associated with decreased aSAH risk, investigators found.

Conversely, four other drugs were associated with an increased risk for this severely morbid, often deadly, condition.

“The motivation for this study was the fact that we can currently prevent bleeding from intracranial aneurysms only by invasive treatment of those aneurysms with inherent complication risks,” said study investigator Ynte Ruigrok, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. “Drugs to reduce or eliminate this risk are not yet available. This study is a first step in identifying such drugs.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Surprising Results

For the study, the researchers used the Secure Anonymized Information Linkage data bank in Wales to identify 4879 patients with aSAH between January 2000 and December 2019 and 43,911 patients without aSAH matched on age, sex, and year of database entry. Clustering resulted in 2023 unique drugs, of which 205 were commonly prescribed.

After adjusting for other factors such as high blood pressure, alcohol abuse, smoking, and a total number of health conditions, the results yielded two surprises, Dr. Ruigrok observed.

The first was a significant decrease in aSAH risk for current use of lisinopril, compared with nonuse (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90), and a nonsignificant decrease with current use of amlodipine (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04).

“Hypertension is a major risk factor for occurrence and bleeding from aneurysms. If there is indeed a specific blood pressure–lowering drug that not only has a blood pressure–lowering effect but also has additional protection against aSAH, then perhaps that drug should become the drug of choice in aneurysm patients in the future,” he said.

Notably, recent use of both drugs, defined as between 1 year and 3 months before the index date, was associated with an increased risk for aSAH. This trend was not found for other antihypertensives and was significant for amlodipine but not lisinopril.

The reasons are unclear, but “we trust the findings on lisinopril more,” Dr. Ruigrok said. “The findings on amlodipine may be due to confounding by indication, specifically caused by hypertension. Therefore, it is important to validate our findings in an independent research cohort, and we are in the process of doing so.”

The study’s second surprise was the antidiabetic drug metformin and cholesterol-lowering drug simvastatin were also associated with reduced aSAH risk, Dr. Ruigrok noted.

“We already knew from previous studies that diabetes and high cholesterol are protective factors for aSAH,” he said. “Our results suggest that perhaps not the conditions themselves are protective for aSAH but rather the drugs used to treat these conditions with are.”

The risk for a ruptured brain aneurysm among current users was 42% lower with metformin (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78), 22% lower with simvastatin (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96), and 45% lower with tamsulosin (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.93).

An increased risk for aSAH was found only in current users of warfarin (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79), venlafaxine (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.01-2.75), prochlorperazine (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.45-3.18), and co-codamol (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10-1.56).

Other drugs within the classes of vitamin K antagonists, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, conventional antipsychotics, and compound analgesics did not show an association with aSAH.

The study was limited by the use of drug prescriptions, and patients may not take their drugs or use them incorrectly, noted the researchers, led by Jos P. Kanning, MSc, also with University Medical Center Utrecht.

The study was supported by the European Research Council. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five commonly prescribed drugs may be associated with a lower risk for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), a drug-wide association study suggested.

The blood pressure drug lisinopril; the cholesterol drug simvastatin; the diabetes drug metformin; and the drug tamsulosin, prescribed for an enlarged prostate, were all associated with decreased aSAH risk, investigators found.

Conversely, four other drugs were associated with an increased risk for this severely morbid, often deadly, condition.

“The motivation for this study was the fact that we can currently prevent bleeding from intracranial aneurysms only by invasive treatment of those aneurysms with inherent complication risks,” said study investigator Ynte Ruigrok, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology and neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. “Drugs to reduce or eliminate this risk are not yet available. This study is a first step in identifying such drugs.”

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Surprising Results

For the study, the researchers used the Secure Anonymized Information Linkage data bank in Wales to identify 4879 patients with aSAH between January 2000 and December 2019 and 43,911 patients without aSAH matched on age, sex, and year of database entry. Clustering resulted in 2023 unique drugs, of which 205 were commonly prescribed.

After adjusting for other factors such as high blood pressure, alcohol abuse, smoking, and a total number of health conditions, the results yielded two surprises, Dr. Ruigrok observed.

The first was a significant decrease in aSAH risk for current use of lisinopril, compared with nonuse (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90), and a nonsignificant decrease with current use of amlodipine (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04).

“Hypertension is a major risk factor for occurrence and bleeding from aneurysms. If there is indeed a specific blood pressure–lowering drug that not only has a blood pressure–lowering effect but also has additional protection against aSAH, then perhaps that drug should become the drug of choice in aneurysm patients in the future,” he said.

Notably, recent use of both drugs, defined as between 1 year and 3 months before the index date, was associated with an increased risk for aSAH. This trend was not found for other antihypertensives and was significant for amlodipine but not lisinopril.

The reasons are unclear, but “we trust the findings on lisinopril more,” Dr. Ruigrok said. “The findings on amlodipine may be due to confounding by indication, specifically caused by hypertension. Therefore, it is important to validate our findings in an independent research cohort, and we are in the process of doing so.”

The study’s second surprise was the antidiabetic drug metformin and cholesterol-lowering drug simvastatin were also associated with reduced aSAH risk, Dr. Ruigrok noted.

“We already knew from previous studies that diabetes and high cholesterol are protective factors for aSAH,” he said. “Our results suggest that perhaps not the conditions themselves are protective for aSAH but rather the drugs used to treat these conditions with are.”

The risk for a ruptured brain aneurysm among current users was 42% lower with metformin (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78), 22% lower with simvastatin (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.96), and 45% lower with tamsulosin (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.93).

An increased risk for aSAH was found only in current users of warfarin (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79), venlafaxine (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.01-2.75), prochlorperazine (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.45-3.18), and co-codamol (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10-1.56).

Other drugs within the classes of vitamin K antagonists, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, conventional antipsychotics, and compound analgesics did not show an association with aSAH.

The study was limited by the use of drug prescriptions, and patients may not take their drugs or use them incorrectly, noted the researchers, led by Jos P. Kanning, MSc, also with University Medical Center Utrecht.

The study was supported by the European Research Council. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There is a significant association between higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia in patients who sought medical care for migraine, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

“[T]he burden and impact of migraine on the individual both during and between attacks were identified through supervised machine learning models to be strongly associated with seeking care,” Sait Ashina, MD, of the department of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Ashina and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study of 61,826 patients from the web-based ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME) study with migraine who visited a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency setting for headache between 2018 and 2020.

The patients recruited for OBSERVE were a mean of 41.7 years old and had experienced migraines for an average of 19.0 years; 59.4% had between 0 and 3 average headache days per month, 74.5% were women, 78.8% were White, and 85.4% had health insurance; and they were demographically representative of the US population.

Researchers used a machine learning model, which consisted of random forest and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithms, to identify the relationship between patients who sought care for migraine and 54 different clinical, sociodemographic, and migraine-associated factors, which included age, years with migraine, symptom scores, pain intensity scores, disability score, comorbidities, vomiting, presence and severity of allodynia, and other factors.

The results showed 31,529 patients (51.0%) had an in-person or e-visit encounter with a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency care location within 12 months of the survey, and were mostly White (76.5%) women (73.3%) with health insurance (88.9%). Of the patients who sought care, 52.8% had severe interictal burden measured by Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4 score, compared with 23.1% of patients who did not seek care. Compared with patients who did not seek care, those who did visit a health care setting for migraine had a higher percentage of severe migraine-related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (36.7% vs 14.6%) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia as measured by the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (21.0% vs 7.4%).

In a multivariable logistic regression model analysis, Dr. Ashina and colleagues said the factors most associated with seeking care included severe interictal burden (odds ratio [OR], 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-2.8), severe migraine-related disability (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 2.0-2.3), and severe ictal allodynia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.8), compared with less severe factors.

The researchers said their results have “significant implications for public health and advocacy efforts.”

“As seen through three decades of epidemiological research in the United States, rates of care-seeking have not improved dramatically over time despite significant additions to scientific knowledge and the therapeutic armamentarium, leaving a significant unmet need. This is also important from a clinical perspective,” they explained. “Health care professionals in primary care and internal medicine most likely see patients with migraine who do not discuss it during visits. This underscores the importance of maintaining vigilance for migraine, especially among those who may experience greater disability, impact, and interictal burden.”
 

Asking the Right Questions

Asked to comment on the research, Robert P. Cowan, MD, a neurologist and professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine department of neurology and neurological sciences in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview that the value of the paper is in what it does not say about the main reasons patients seek care.

“Most clinicians readily acknowledge that the average number of migraine headache days per month is, at best, a weak predictor of which patients seek care and when,” he said.

Dr. Cowan said that most patients are referred to him by other providers, and when he asks them why they did not seek care for migraine sooner, the answer is usually because the migraine was not severe enough or because over-the-counter medication had previously worked for them. He noted that change in frequency is, in his experience, a primary reason why patients will seek care. “[F]or new (or increasing) headache, it is the concern that the headaches are something more ‘serious,’ and once that is ruled out, the conversation often stops,” he said. “For long-standing migraine sufferers, it is the perception that the headache is a ‘fact of life’ and does not rise to the bar of seeking medical advice.”

The questions a survey or a provider asks matters, Dr. Cowan said. “Often, when we ask a patient how many headache (or migraine) days per month, the answer is in single digits. But if we follow-up with a question about the number of headache-free days [per] month, the answer is ‘never’ or ‘hardly ever,’” he explained. “The point here is that what questions a survey (or a provider) asks introduces a clear bias. The use of machine learning instruments, especially when utilizing supervised learning, only reinforces and amplifies the bias of the designers of the categories.”

Epidemiologic studies are interesting but “often ask the wrong questions,” Dr. Cowan said. “I am less worried about the ... 49% of migraine or possible migraine patients who do not seek care and do [not] progress to more disabling ‘chronic’ migraine than I am with identifying the subpopulations of migraine patients who seek care from providers who do not have adequate tools to match patients to the best treatments.”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, consultancies, employment, honoraria, research support, speakers bureau positions, stock ownership, and teaching services with AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Allay Lamp, Allergan, Amgen, Axon, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Collegium, CoolTech, Currax, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (Promius), electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, Impel NeuroPharma, Informa, Eli Lilly and Company, Lundbeck, Mainistee, Merck, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Satsuma, Supernus, Percept, Teva, Theranica, UpsherSmith, the US Food and Drug Administration, Vector, Vedanta Research, and Wolff’s Headache. The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Cowan reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

There is a significant association between higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia in patients who sought medical care for migraine, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

“[T]he burden and impact of migraine on the individual both during and between attacks were identified through supervised machine learning models to be strongly associated with seeking care,” Sait Ashina, MD, of the department of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Ashina and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study of 61,826 patients from the web-based ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME) study with migraine who visited a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency setting for headache between 2018 and 2020.

The patients recruited for OBSERVE were a mean of 41.7 years old and had experienced migraines for an average of 19.0 years; 59.4% had between 0 and 3 average headache days per month, 74.5% were women, 78.8% were White, and 85.4% had health insurance; and they were demographically representative of the US population.

Researchers used a machine learning model, which consisted of random forest and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithms, to identify the relationship between patients who sought care for migraine and 54 different clinical, sociodemographic, and migraine-associated factors, which included age, years with migraine, symptom scores, pain intensity scores, disability score, comorbidities, vomiting, presence and severity of allodynia, and other factors.

The results showed 31,529 patients (51.0%) had an in-person or e-visit encounter with a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency care location within 12 months of the survey, and were mostly White (76.5%) women (73.3%) with health insurance (88.9%). Of the patients who sought care, 52.8% had severe interictal burden measured by Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4 score, compared with 23.1% of patients who did not seek care. Compared with patients who did not seek care, those who did visit a health care setting for migraine had a higher percentage of severe migraine-related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (36.7% vs 14.6%) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia as measured by the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (21.0% vs 7.4%).

In a multivariable logistic regression model analysis, Dr. Ashina and colleagues said the factors most associated with seeking care included severe interictal burden (odds ratio [OR], 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-2.8), severe migraine-related disability (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 2.0-2.3), and severe ictal allodynia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.8), compared with less severe factors.

The researchers said their results have “significant implications for public health and advocacy efforts.”

“As seen through three decades of epidemiological research in the United States, rates of care-seeking have not improved dramatically over time despite significant additions to scientific knowledge and the therapeutic armamentarium, leaving a significant unmet need. This is also important from a clinical perspective,” they explained. “Health care professionals in primary care and internal medicine most likely see patients with migraine who do not discuss it during visits. This underscores the importance of maintaining vigilance for migraine, especially among those who may experience greater disability, impact, and interictal burden.”
 

Asking the Right Questions

Asked to comment on the research, Robert P. Cowan, MD, a neurologist and professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine department of neurology and neurological sciences in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview that the value of the paper is in what it does not say about the main reasons patients seek care.

“Most clinicians readily acknowledge that the average number of migraine headache days per month is, at best, a weak predictor of which patients seek care and when,” he said.

Dr. Cowan said that most patients are referred to him by other providers, and when he asks them why they did not seek care for migraine sooner, the answer is usually because the migraine was not severe enough or because over-the-counter medication had previously worked for them. He noted that change in frequency is, in his experience, a primary reason why patients will seek care. “[F]or new (or increasing) headache, it is the concern that the headaches are something more ‘serious,’ and once that is ruled out, the conversation often stops,” he said. “For long-standing migraine sufferers, it is the perception that the headache is a ‘fact of life’ and does not rise to the bar of seeking medical advice.”

The questions a survey or a provider asks matters, Dr. Cowan said. “Often, when we ask a patient how many headache (or migraine) days per month, the answer is in single digits. But if we follow-up with a question about the number of headache-free days [per] month, the answer is ‘never’ or ‘hardly ever,’” he explained. “The point here is that what questions a survey (or a provider) asks introduces a clear bias. The use of machine learning instruments, especially when utilizing supervised learning, only reinforces and amplifies the bias of the designers of the categories.”

Epidemiologic studies are interesting but “often ask the wrong questions,” Dr. Cowan said. “I am less worried about the ... 49% of migraine or possible migraine patients who do not seek care and do [not] progress to more disabling ‘chronic’ migraine than I am with identifying the subpopulations of migraine patients who seek care from providers who do not have adequate tools to match patients to the best treatments.”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, consultancies, employment, honoraria, research support, speakers bureau positions, stock ownership, and teaching services with AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Allay Lamp, Allergan, Amgen, Axon, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Collegium, CoolTech, Currax, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (Promius), electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, Impel NeuroPharma, Informa, Eli Lilly and Company, Lundbeck, Mainistee, Merck, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Satsuma, Supernus, Percept, Teva, Theranica, UpsherSmith, the US Food and Drug Administration, Vector, Vedanta Research, and Wolff’s Headache. The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Cowan reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

There is a significant association between higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia in patients who sought medical care for migraine, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

“[T]he burden and impact of migraine on the individual both during and between attacks were identified through supervised machine learning models to be strongly associated with seeking care,” Sait Ashina, MD, of the department of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Ashina and colleagues performed a cross-sectional study of 61,826 patients from the web-based ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME) study with migraine who visited a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency setting for headache between 2018 and 2020.

The patients recruited for OBSERVE were a mean of 41.7 years old and had experienced migraines for an average of 19.0 years; 59.4% had between 0 and 3 average headache days per month, 74.5% were women, 78.8% were White, and 85.4% had health insurance; and they were demographically representative of the US population.

Researchers used a machine learning model, which consisted of random forest and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithms, to identify the relationship between patients who sought care for migraine and 54 different clinical, sociodemographic, and migraine-associated factors, which included age, years with migraine, symptom scores, pain intensity scores, disability score, comorbidities, vomiting, presence and severity of allodynia, and other factors.

The results showed 31,529 patients (51.0%) had an in-person or e-visit encounter with a primary care, specialty care, or urgent care, or emergency care location within 12 months of the survey, and were mostly White (76.5%) women (73.3%) with health insurance (88.9%). Of the patients who sought care, 52.8% had severe interictal burden measured by Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4 score, compared with 23.1% of patients who did not seek care. Compared with patients who did not seek care, those who did visit a health care setting for migraine had a higher percentage of severe migraine-related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (36.7% vs 14.6%) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia as measured by the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (21.0% vs 7.4%).

In a multivariable logistic regression model analysis, Dr. Ashina and colleagues said the factors most associated with seeking care included severe interictal burden (odds ratio [OR], 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-2.8), severe migraine-related disability (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 2.0-2.3), and severe ictal allodynia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.8), compared with less severe factors.

The researchers said their results have “significant implications for public health and advocacy efforts.”

“As seen through three decades of epidemiological research in the United States, rates of care-seeking have not improved dramatically over time despite significant additions to scientific knowledge and the therapeutic armamentarium, leaving a significant unmet need. This is also important from a clinical perspective,” they explained. “Health care professionals in primary care and internal medicine most likely see patients with migraine who do not discuss it during visits. This underscores the importance of maintaining vigilance for migraine, especially among those who may experience greater disability, impact, and interictal burden.”
 

Asking the Right Questions

Asked to comment on the research, Robert P. Cowan, MD, a neurologist and professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine department of neurology and neurological sciences in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview that the value of the paper is in what it does not say about the main reasons patients seek care.

“Most clinicians readily acknowledge that the average number of migraine headache days per month is, at best, a weak predictor of which patients seek care and when,” he said.

Dr. Cowan said that most patients are referred to him by other providers, and when he asks them why they did not seek care for migraine sooner, the answer is usually because the migraine was not severe enough or because over-the-counter medication had previously worked for them. He noted that change in frequency is, in his experience, a primary reason why patients will seek care. “[F]or new (or increasing) headache, it is the concern that the headaches are something more ‘serious,’ and once that is ruled out, the conversation often stops,” he said. “For long-standing migraine sufferers, it is the perception that the headache is a ‘fact of life’ and does not rise to the bar of seeking medical advice.”

The questions a survey or a provider asks matters, Dr. Cowan said. “Often, when we ask a patient how many headache (or migraine) days per month, the answer is in single digits. But if we follow-up with a question about the number of headache-free days [per] month, the answer is ‘never’ or ‘hardly ever,’” he explained. “The point here is that what questions a survey (or a provider) asks introduces a clear bias. The use of machine learning instruments, especially when utilizing supervised learning, only reinforces and amplifies the bias of the designers of the categories.”

Epidemiologic studies are interesting but “often ask the wrong questions,” Dr. Cowan said. “I am less worried about the ... 49% of migraine or possible migraine patients who do not seek care and do [not] progress to more disabling ‘chronic’ migraine than I am with identifying the subpopulations of migraine patients who seek care from providers who do not have adequate tools to match patients to the best treatments.”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board memberships, consultancies, employment, honoraria, research support, speakers bureau positions, stock ownership, and teaching services with AbbVie, Aeon, Alder, Allay Lamp, Allergan, Amgen, Axon, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Collegium, CoolTech, Currax, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (Promius), electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, Impel NeuroPharma, Informa, Eli Lilly and Company, Lundbeck, Mainistee, Merck, National Headache Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Satsuma, Supernus, Percept, Teva, Theranica, UpsherSmith, the US Food and Drug Administration, Vector, Vedanta Research, and Wolff’s Headache. The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Cowan reports no relevant conflicts of interest.