Categories
Vasculopathy

Are antiplatelets and anticoagulants safe and beneficial in people with cavernomas?

Long-term antithrombotic therapy and risk of intracranial haemorrhage from cerebral cavernous malformations: a population-based cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis.

Zuurbier SM, Hickman CR, Tolias CS, et al; Scottish Audit of Intracranial Vascular Malformations Steering Committee.

Lancet Neurol 2019; 18:935-941.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Antithrombotic (anticoagulant or antiplatelet) therapy is withheld from some patients with cerebral cavernous malformations, because of uncertainty around the safety of these drugs in such patients. We aimed to establish whether antithrombotic therapy is associated with an increased risk of intracranial haemorrhage in adults with cerebral cavernous malformations.

METHODS:

In this population-based, cohort study, we used data from the Scottish Audit of Intracranial Vascular Malformations, which prospectively identified individuals aged 16 years and older living in Scotland who were first diagnosed with a cerebral cavernous malformation during 1999-2003 or 2006-10. We compared the association between use of antithrombotic therapy after first presentation and the occurrence of intracranial haemorrhage or persistent or progressive focal neurological deficit due to the cerebral cavernous malformations during up to 15 years of prospective follow-up with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression assessed in all individuals identified in the database. We also did a systematic review and meta-analysis, in which we searched Ovid MEDLINE and Embase from database inception to Feb 1, 2019, to identify comparative studies to calculate the intracranial haemorrhage incidence rate ratio according to antithrombotic therapy use. We then generated a pooled estimate using the inverse variance method and a random effects model.

FINDINGS:

We assessed 300 of 306 individuals with a cerebral cavernous malformation who were eligible for study. 61 used antithrombotic therapy (ten [16%] of 61 used anticoagulation) for a mean duration of 7·4 years (SD 5·4) during follow-up. Antithrombotic therapy use was associated with a lower risk of subsequent intracranial haemorrhage or focal neurological deficit (one [2%] of 61 vs 29 [12%] of 239, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·12, 95% CI 0·02-0·88; p=0·037). In a meta-analysis of six cohort studies including 1342 patients, antithrombotic therapy use was associated with a lower risk of intracranial haemorrhage (eight [3%] of 253 vs 152 [14%] of 1089; incidence rate ratio 0·25, 95% CI 0·13-0·51; p<0·0001; I2=0%).

INTERPRETATION:

Antithrombotic therapy use is associated with a lower risk of intracranial haemorrhage or focal neurological deficit from cerebral cavernous malformations than avoidance of antithrombotic therapy. These findings provide reassurance about safety for clinical practice and require further investigation in a randomised controlled trial.

 

See also

Bervini D, Jaeggi C, Mordasini P, Schucht P, Raabe A. Antithrombotic medication and bleeding risk in patients with cerebral cavernous malformations: a cohort study. J Neurosurg 2018; doi: 10.3171/2018.1.JNS172547 (Epub ahead of print).

Both papers are cited in the neurochecklist:

Cerebral cavernous malformations (cavernomas): clinical features

Abstract link 1

Abstract link 2

By Karlo J Lizarraga and Antonio AF De Salles – https://jmedicalcasereports.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1752-1947-5-469, CC BY 2.5, Link
Categories
Vasculopathy

What factors predict bleeding from cerebral amyloid angiopathy?

The Edinburgh CT and genetic diagnostic criteria for lobar intracerebral haemorrhage associated with cerebral amyloid angiopathy: model development and diagnostic test accuracy study.

Rodrigues MA, Samarasekera N, Lerpiniere C, et al.

Lancet Neurol 2018; 17:232-240.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Identification of lobar spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage associated with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is important because it is associated with a higher risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage than arteriolosclerosis-associated intracerebral haemorrhage. We aimed to develop a prediction model for the identification of CAA-associated lobar intracerebral haemorrhage using CT features and genotype.

METHODS:

We identified adults with first-ever intracerebral haemorrhage diagnosed by CT, who died and underwent research autopsy as part of the Lothian IntraCerebral Haemorrhage, Pathology, Imaging and Neurological Outcome (LINCHPIN) study, a prospective, population-based, inception cohort. We determined APOE genotype and radiologists rated CT imaging appearances. Radiologists were not aware of clinical, genetic, and histopathological features. A neuropathologist rated brain tissue for small vessel diseases, including CAA, and was masked to clinical, radiographic, and genetic features. We used CT and APOE genotype data in a logistic regression model, which we internally validated using bootstrapping, to predict the risk of CAA-associated lobar intracerebral haemorrhage, derive diagnostic criteria, and estimate diagnostic accuracy.

FINDINGS:

Among 110 adults (median age 83 years [IQR 76-87], 49 [45%] men) included in the LINCHPIN study between June 1, 2010 and Feb 10, 2016, intracerebral haemorrhage was lobar in 62 (56%) participants, deep in 41 (37%), and infratentorial in seven (6%). Of the 62 participants with lobar intracerebral haemorrhage, 36 (58%) were associated with moderate or severe CAA compared with 26 (42%) that were associated with absent or mild CAA, and were independently associated with subarachnoid haemorrhage (32 [89%] of 36 vs 11 [42%] of 26; p=0·014), intracerebral haemorrhage with finger-like projections (14 [39%] of 36 vs 0; p=0·043), and APOE ɛ4 possession (18 [50%] of 36 vs 2 [8%] of 26; p=0·0020). A prediction model for CAA-associated lobar intracerebral haemorrhage using these three variables had excellent discrimination (c statistic 0·92, 95% CI 0·86-0·98), confirmed by internal validation. For the rule-out criteria, neither subarachnoid haemorrhage nor APOE ɛ4 possession had 100% sensitivity (95% CI 88-100). For the rule-in criteria, subarachnoid haemorrhage and either APOE ɛ4 possession or finger-like projections had 96% specificity (95% CI 78-100).

INTERPRETATION:

The CT and APOE genotype prediction model for CAA-associated lobar intracerebral haemorrhage shows excellent discrimination in this cohort, but requires external validation. The Edinburgh rule-in and rule-out diagnostic criteria might inform prognostic and therapeutic decisions that depend on identification of CAA-associated lobar intracerebral haemorrhage.

This article is now cited in the neurochecklist:

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA): clinical features

Abstract link

Oxygen pathways in the brain. Viktor Brezinsky on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/82295498@N07/8100351180
Categories
Multiple sclerosis

Does simvastatin improve cognitive function in MS?

Effect of high-dose simvastatin on cognitive, neuropsychiatric, and health-related quality-of-life measures in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: secondary analyses from the MS-STAT randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

Chan D, Binks S, Nicholas JM, et al.

Lancet Neurol 2017; 16:591-600.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

In the 24-month MS-STAT phase 2 trial, we showed that high-dose simvastatin significantly reduced the annualised rate of whole brain atrophy in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). We now describe the results of the MS-STAT cognitive substudy, in which we investigated the treatment effect on cognitiveneuropsychiatric, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcome measures.

METHODS:

We did a secondary analysis of MS-STAT, a 24-month, double-blind, controlled trial of patients with SPMS done at three neuroscience centres in the UK between Jan 28, 2008, and Nov 4, 2011. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 80 mg simvastatin(n=70) or placebo (n=70). The cognitive assessments done were the National Adult Reading Test, Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Graded Naming Test, Birt Memory and Information Processing Battery (BMIPB), Visual Object and Space Perception battery (cube analysis), Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), and Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test. Neuropsychiatric status was assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire. HRQoL was assessed using the self-reported 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) version 2. Assessments were done at study entry, 12 months, and 24 months. Patients, treating physicians, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. MS-STAT is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00647348.

FINDINGS:

Baseline assessment revealed impairments in 60 (45%) of 133 patients on the test of frontal lobe function (FAB), and in between 13 (10%) and 43 (33%) of 130 patients in tests of non-verbal and verbal memory (BMIPB). Over the entire trial, we noted significant worsening on tests of verbal memory (T score decline of 5·7 points, 95% CI 3·6-7·8; p<0·0001) and non-verbal memory (decline of 6·8 points, 4·8-8·7; p<0·0001). At 24 months, the Frontal Assessment Battery score was 1·2 points higher in the simvastatin-treated group than in the placebo group (95% CI 0·2-2·3). The simvastatin group also had a 2·5 points better mean physical component score of the SF-36 (95% CI 0·3-4·8; p=0·028). A treatment effect was not noted for any other outcomes.

INTERPRETATION:

To our knowledge, this SPMS cohort is the largest studied to date with comprehensive longitudinal cognitive, neuropsychiatric, and HRQoL assessments. We found evidence of a positive effect of simvastatin on frontal lobe function and a physical quality-of-life measure. Although we found no effect of simvastatin on other outcome measures, these potential effects warrant confirmation and underline the importance of fully assessing cognition and quality of life in progressive multiple sclerosis treatment trials.

This reference is included in the neurochecklist:

Multiple sclerosis (MS): emerging treatments

Abstract link

 

By Solidach – With software of which I am the product manager, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link
Categories
Epilepsy

Is cannabidiol beneficial in the treatment of epilepsy?

Cannabidiol in patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy: an open label interventional trial

Devinsky O, Marsh E, Friedman D, et al.

Lancet Neurol 2016; 15:270-278.

Abstract

Background:

Almost a third of patients with epilepsy have a treatment-resistant form, which is associated with severe morbidity and increased mortality. Cannabis-based treatments for epilepsy have generated much interest, but scientific data are scarce. We aimed to establish whether addition of cannabidiol to existing anti-epileptic regimens would be safe, tolerated, and efficacious in children and young adults with treatment-resistant epilepsy.

Methods:

In this open-label trial, patients (aged 1-30 years) with severe, intractable, childhood-onset, treatment-resistant epilepsy, who were receiving stable doses of antiepileptic drugs before study entry, were enrolled in an expanded-access programme at 11 epilepsy centres across the USA. Patients were given oral cannabidiol at 2-5 mg/kg per day, up-titrated until intolerance or to a maximum dose of 25 mg/kg or 50 mg/kg per day (dependent on study site). The primary objective was to establish the safety and tolerability of cannabidiol and the primary efficacy endpoint was median percentage change in the mean monthly frequency of motor seizures at 12 weeks. The efficacy analysis was by modified intention to treat. Comparisons of the percentage change in frequency of motor seizures were done with a Mann-Whitney U test.

Results:

Between Jan 15, 2014, and Jan 15, 2015, 214 patients were enrolled; 162 (76%) patients who had at least 12 weeks of follow-up after the first dose of cannabidiol were included in the safety and tolerability analysis, and 137 (64%) patients were included in the efficacy analysis. In the safety group, 33 (20%) patients had Dravet syndrome and 31 (19%) patients had Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. The remaining patients had intractable epilepsies of different causes and type. Adverse events were reported in 128 (79%) of the 162 patients within the safety group. Adverse events reported in more than 10% of patients were somnolence (n=41 [25%]), decreased appetite (n=31 [19%]), diarrhoea (n=31 [19%]), fatigue (n=21 [13%]), and convulsion (n=18 [11%]). Five (3%) patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. Serious adverse events were reported in 48 (30%) patients, including one death-a sudden unexpected death in epilepsy regarded as unrelated to study drug. 20 (12%) patients had severe adverse events possibly related to cannabidiol use, the most common of which was status epilepticus (n=9 [6%]). The median monthly frequency of motor seizures was 30.0 (IQR 11.0-96.0) at baseline and 15.8 (5.6-57.6) over the 12 week treatment period. The median reduction in monthly motor seizures was 36.5% (IQR 0-64.7).

Interpretation:

Our findings suggest that cannabidiol might reduce seizure frequency and might have an adequate safety profile in children and young adults with highly treatment-resistant epilepsy. Randomised controlled trials are warranted to characterise the safety profile and true efficacy of this compound.

The following is a related reference:

Devinsky O, Cross JH, Laux L, et al; Cannabidiol in Dravet Syndrome Study Group. Trial of cannabidiol for drug-resistant seizures in Dravet syndrome. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:2011-2020.

These references are cited in the neurochecklists:

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs): emerging drugs

Dravet syndrome: differentials and management

 

Abstract link 1

Abstract link 2

By User:Jennifer MartinOwn work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link
Categories
Dementia

Is a vaccine for Alzheimer’s disease really on the horizon?

Safety and immunogenicity of the tau vaccine AADvac1 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 trial.

Novak P, Schmidt R, Kontsekova E, et al.

Lancet Neurol 2017; 16:123-134.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Neurofibrillary pathology composed of tau protein is a main correlate of cognitive impairment in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Immunotherapy targeting pathological tau proteins is therefore a promising strategy for disease-modifying treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. We have developed an active vaccine, AADvac1, against pathological tau proteins and assessed it in a phase 1 trial.

METHODS:

We did a first-in-man, phase 1, 12 week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of AADvac1 with a 12 week open-label extension in patients aged 50-85 years with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease at four centres in Austria. We randomly assigned patients with a computer-generated sequence in a 4:1 ratio overall to receive AADvac1 or placebo. They received three subcutaneous doses of AADvac1 or placebo from masked vaccine kits at monthly intervals, and then entered the open-label phase, in which all patients were allocated to AADvac1 treatment and received another three doses at monthly intervals. Patients, carers, and all involved with the trial were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all-cause treatment-emergent adverse events, with separate analyses for injection site reactions and other adverse events. We include all patients who received at least one dose of AADvac1 in the safety assessment. Patients who had a positive IgG titre against the tau peptide component of AADvac1 at least once during the study were classified as responders. The first-in-man study is registered with EU Clinical Trials Register, number EudraCT 2012-003916-29, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01850238; the follow-up study, which is ongoing, is registered with EU Clinical Trials Register, number EudraCT 2013-004499-36, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02031198.

FINDINGS:

This study was done between June 9, 2013, and March 26, 2015. 30 patients were randomly assigned in the double-blind phase: 24 patients to the AADvac1 group and six to the placebo group. A total of 30 patients received AADvac1. Two patients withdrew because of serious adverse events. The most common adverse events were injection site reactions after administration (reported in 16 [53%] vaccinated patients [92 individual events]). No cases of meningoencephalitis or vasogenic oedema occurred after administration. One patient with pre-existing microhaemorrhages had newly occurring microhaemorrhages. Of 30 patients given AADvac1, 29 developed an IgG immune response. A geometric mean IgG antibody titre of 1:31415 was achieved. Baseline values of CD3+ CD4+ lymphocytes correlated with achieved antibody titres.

INTERPRETATION:

AADvac1 had a favourable safety profile and excellent immunogenicity in this first-in-man study. Further trials are needed to corroborate the safety assessment and to establish proof of clinical efficacy of AADvac1.

This reference is now included in the neurochecklist:

Alzheimer’s disease (AD): management

Abstract link

Dementia Wordle. Cristina Della Rosa on Flikr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/cristinadellarosa/18968810438
Categories
Parkinson's disease

What are the emerging drug treatments for Parkinson’s disease (1)?

Opicapone as an adjunct to levodopa in patients with Parkinson’s disease and end-of-dose motor fluctuations: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

Ferreira JJ, Lees A, Rocha JF, et al; Bi-Park 1 investigators.

Lancet Neurol 2016; 15:154-165

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Opicapone is a novel, once-daily, potent third-generation catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitor. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of opicapone as an adjunct to levodopa compared with placebo or entacapone in patients with Parkinson’s disease and motor fluctuations.

METHODS:

We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled trial of opicapone as an adjunct to levodopa in patients with Parkinson’s disease with end-of-dose motor fluctuations. Patients aged 30-83 years were enrolled at 106 specialist centres across 19 European countries and Russia and were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) by a proprietary computer-generated sequence to oral treatment with opicapone (5 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg once daily), placebo, or entacapone (200 mg with every levodopa intake) for 14-15 weeks. Patients and investigators (ie, outcome assessors) were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to end of study treatment in absolute time in the off state, as assessed by daily paper patient diaries; the primary analysis followed a hierarchical procedure for each opicapone dose in which superiority compared with placebo in the full analysis set was first tested and then, if positive, non-inferiority to entacapone was tested in the per-protocol set with a margin of 30 min. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2010-021860-13, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01568073.

FINDINGS:

Between March 31, 2011, and Nov 30, 2013, of 679 patients screened, 600 were randomly assigned. 590 patients were included in the full analysis set (120 in the placebo group, 120 in the entacapone group, 119 in the opicapone 5 mg group, 116 in the opicapone 25 mg group, and 115 in the opicapone 50 mg group) and 537 in the per-protocol set (112 in the placebo group, 104 in the entacapone group, 110 in the opicapone 5 mg group, 105 in the opicapone 25 mg group, and 106 in the opicapone 50 mg group). The mean change in time in the off state was -56·0 min (SE 13·4; 95% CI -82·3 to -29·7) for placebo, -96·3 min (13·4; -122·6 to -70·0) for entacapone, -91·3 min (13·5; -117·7 to -64·8) for opicapone 5 mg, -85·9 min (13·7; -112·8 to -59·1) for opicapone 25 mg, and -116·8 min (14·0; -144·2 to -89·4) for opicapone 50 mg. Treatment with opicapone 50 mg was superior to placebo (mean difference in change from baseline -60·8 min, 95% CI -97·2 to -24·4; p=0·0015) and non-inferior to entacapone (-26·2 min, -63·8 to 11·4; p=0·0051). Treatment with opicapone 5 mg (p=0·056) or 25 mg (p=0·080) was not significantly different from treatment with placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 60 (50%) of 121 patients in the placebo group, 69 (57%) of 122 in the entacapone group, 63 (52%) of 122 in the opicapone 5 mg group, 65 (55%) of 119 in the opicapone 25 mg group, and 62 (54%) of 115 in the opicapone 50 mg group. The most common adverse events were dyskinesia (in five patients in the placebo group, ten in the entacapone group, 17 in the opicapone 5 mg group, nine in the opicapone 25 mg group, and 18 in the opicapone 50 mg group), insomnia (in one, seven, two, seven, and seven patients, respectively), and constipation (in three, five, four, none, and seven patients, respectively). Serious adverse events were reported in six patients in the placebo group, eight in the entacapone group, four each in the opicapone 5 mg and opicapone 50 mg groups, and one in the opicapone 25 mg group.

INTERPRETATION:

The addition of opicapone 50 mg to levodopa treatment in patients with Parkinson’s disease and end-of-dose motor fluctuations could enables a simplified drug regimen that allows physicians to individually tailor the existing levodopa daily regimen, by potentially reducing the total daily levodopa dose, increasing the dosing interval, and ultimately reducing the number of intakes, thereby maximising its benefit.

This reference is now included in the neurochecklist:

Parkinson’s disease (PD): emerging treatments

screen-shot-2016-12-24-at-23-32-53

Abstract link

Public Domain, Link
Public Domain, Link