Neurosurgery & Trauma

Medtronic Neurosurgery has recalled Duet External Drainage and Monitoring System (EDMS) catheter tubing because the catheter may disconnect from the patient line stopcock connectors.

If this happens, potential harm to patients may include infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, overdrainage of CSF, and abnormality of the ventricles. Uncontrolled overdrainage of CSF could lead to neurological injury or death if the disconnection is undetected.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall — the most serious type — due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, there have been 26 reported injuries and no deaths related to this issue. 

The recall includes 45,176 devices distributed in the United States between May 3, 2021, and January 9, 2024, with model numbers 46913, 46914, 46915, 46916, and 46917.

The Duet EDMS is used for temporary CSF drainage or sampling in patients who have surgery for open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) or descending thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or patients who have TAA/TAAA repair surgery and develop symptoms such as paraplegia.

Medtronic has sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to identify, quarantine, and return any unused recalled products. 

Customers are also advised to check all Duet EDMS components for damage and ensure that all connections are secure and leak-free. 

If a patient is currently connected to an impacted Duet EDMS and a leak or disconnection is detected, the device should be changed to a new alternative device utilizing a sterile technique. 

It is not recommended that a Duet system device that is connected to a patient and working as intended be removed or replaced.

Customers in the United States with questions about this recall should contact Medtronic at 1-800-874-5797.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medtronic Neurosurgery has recalled Duet External Drainage and Monitoring System (EDMS) catheter tubing because the catheter may disconnect from the patient line stopcock connectors.

If this happens, potential harm to patients may include infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, overdrainage of CSF, and abnormality of the ventricles. Uncontrolled overdrainage of CSF could lead to neurological injury or death if the disconnection is undetected.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall — the most serious type — due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, there have been 26 reported injuries and no deaths related to this issue. 

The recall includes 45,176 devices distributed in the United States between May 3, 2021, and January 9, 2024, with model numbers 46913, 46914, 46915, 46916, and 46917.

The Duet EDMS is used for temporary CSF drainage or sampling in patients who have surgery for open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) or descending thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or patients who have TAA/TAAA repair surgery and develop symptoms such as paraplegia.

Medtronic has sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to identify, quarantine, and return any unused recalled products. 

Customers are also advised to check all Duet EDMS components for damage and ensure that all connections are secure and leak-free. 

If a patient is currently connected to an impacted Duet EDMS and a leak or disconnection is detected, the device should be changed to a new alternative device utilizing a sterile technique. 

It is not recommended that a Duet system device that is connected to a patient and working as intended be removed or replaced.

Customers in the United States with questions about this recall should contact Medtronic at 1-800-874-5797.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medtronic Neurosurgery has recalled Duet External Drainage and Monitoring System (EDMS) catheter tubing because the catheter may disconnect from the patient line stopcock connectors.

If this happens, potential harm to patients may include infections, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, overdrainage of CSF, and abnormality of the ventricles. Uncontrolled overdrainage of CSF could lead to neurological injury or death if the disconnection is undetected.

The Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall — the most serious type — due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, there have been 26 reported injuries and no deaths related to this issue. 

The recall includes 45,176 devices distributed in the United States between May 3, 2021, and January 9, 2024, with model numbers 46913, 46914, 46915, 46916, and 46917.

The Duet EDMS is used for temporary CSF drainage or sampling in patients who have surgery for open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) or descending thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or patients who have TAA/TAAA repair surgery and develop symptoms such as paraplegia.

Medtronic has sent an urgent medical device recall letter to all affected customers asking them to identify, quarantine, and return any unused recalled products. 

Customers are also advised to check all Duet EDMS components for damage and ensure that all connections are secure and leak-free. 

If a patient is currently connected to an impacted Duet EDMS and a leak or disconnection is detected, the device should be changed to a new alternative device utilizing a sterile technique. 

It is not recommended that a Duet system device that is connected to a patient and working as intended be removed or replaced.

Customers in the United States with questions about this recall should contact Medtronic at 1-800-874-5797.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with Cushing disease have an increased risk for new-onset autoimmune disease in the 3 years after surgical remission, according to a new retrospective study published on February 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Outcomes for patients with Cushing disease were compared against those with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs). New-onset autoimmune disease occurred in 10.4% with Cushing disease and 1.6% among patients with NFPA (hazard ratio, 7.80; 95% CI, 2.88-21.10).

“Understanding and recognizing new and recurrent autoimmune disease in this setting is important to avoid misclassifying such patients with glucocorticoid withdrawal syndrome, which could result in failure to treat underlying autoimmune disease, as well as erroneous diagnosis of steroid withdrawal cases,” wrote Dennis Delasi Nyanyo of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Given the general population’s annual incidence of major autoimmune diseases, estimated at about 100 cases per 100,000 people, and the 3-year incidence of 10.4% found in this study’s cohort, “our findings suggest that Cushing disease remission may trigger development of autoimmune disease,” the authors wrote.
 

Monitor Patients With Family History of Autoimmune Disease?

The study results were not necessarily surprising to Anthony P. Heaney, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, because past research has raised similar questions. The authors’ suggestion that the rapid postsurgical drop in cortisol that occurs as a result of treating Cushing disease becomes some sort of autoimmune trigger is interesting but remains speculative, Dr. Heaney pointed out.

If future evidence supports that possibility, “it would suggest, in terms of managing those patients in the postoperative setting, that there may be some merit to giving them higher concentrations of glucocorticoids for a short period of time,” Dr. Heaney said, thereby bringing their levels down more gradually rather than taking them off a cliff, in a sense. Or, if more evidence bears out the authors’ hypothesis, another approach might be treating patients with medicine to bring down the cortisol before surgery, though there are challenges to that approach, Dr. Heaney said.

At the same time, those who developed new autoimmune disease remain a small subset of patients with Cushing disease, so such approaches may become only potentially appropriate to consider in patients with risk factors, such as a family history of autoimmune disease.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery for either Cushing disease or NFPA at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2005 and 2019.

The study involved 194 patients with Cushing disease who had postsurgical remission and at least one follow-up visit with a pituitary expert and 92 patients with NFPA who were matched to patients with Cushing disease based on age and sex. The authors regarded autoimmune disease diagnosed within 36 months of the surgery to be temporally associated with Cushing disease remission. Among the autoimmune diseases considered were “rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune thyroiditis, celiac disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, autoimmune neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and ulcerative colitis.”

Patients differed in average body mass index and tumor size, but family history of autoimmune disease was similar in both groups. Average BMI was 34.5 in the Cushing group and 29.5 in the NFPA group. Average tumor size was 5.7 mm in the Cushing group and 21.3 mm in the NFPA group.

Before surgery, 2.9% of patients with Cushing disease and 15.4% of patients with NFPA had central hypothyroidism, and 8% in the Cushing group and 56.8% in the NFPA group had hyperprolactinemia. Central adrenal insufficiency occurred in 11% with NFPA and in all with Cushing disease, by definition.

After surgery, 93.8% in the Cushing group and 16.5% in the NFPA group had adrenal insufficiency. In addition, patients with Cushing disease had lower postsurgical nadir serum cortisol levels (63.8 nmol/L) than those with NFPA (282.3 nmol/L).

Of the 17 patients with Cushing disease — all women — who developed autoimmune disease within 3 years, 6 had a personal history of autoimmune disease and 7 had a family history of it. In addition, 41.2% of them had adrenal insufficiency when they developed the new autoimmune disease. Among the diseases were six autoimmune thyroiditis cases, three Sjögren syndrome cases, and two autoimmune seronegative spondyloarthropathy.

Dr. Heaney said he found it interesting that more than half of the new autoimmune diseases in patients with Cushing disease were related to the thyroid. “In this kind of setting, where you have a patient who has been producing too much steroid over a period of time and then you take that away, it’s almost like you release a brake on the TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone],” Dr. Heaney said. “So, there’s probably some rebound in TSH that occurs, and that could be driving the thyroiditis, to some extent, that we see in these patients.”

Only one patient with NFPA developed new-onset autoimmune disease, a woman who developed Graves disease 22 months after surgery. When the researchers excluded patients in both groups with central hypothyroidism, new-onset autoimmune disease was still significantly higher (11.4%) in the Cushing group than in the NFPA group (1.9%; HR, 7.02; 95% CI, 2.54-19.39).
 

Could Postoperative Adrenal Insufficiency Contribute to Risk?

Within the Cushing cohort, those who developed autoimmune disease had a lower BMI (31.8 vs 34.8) and larger tumor size (7.2 vs 5.6 mm) than those who didn’t develop new autoimmune disease. Patients who developed autoimmune disease also had a lower baseline urine free cortisol ratio (2.7 vs 6.3) before surgery and more family history of autoimmune disease (41.2% vs 20.9%) than those who didn’t develop one.

“The higher prevalence of adrenal insufficiency and the lower nadir serum cortisol levels in the Cushing disease group suggest that the postoperative adrenal insufficiency in the Cushing disease group might have contributed to autoimmune disease pathogenesis,” the authors wrote. “This finding is clinically significant because cortisol plays a pivotal role in modulating the immune system.”

Most postoperative management among patients with Cushing disease was similar, with all but one patient receiving 0.5 or 1 mg daily dexamethasone within the first week after surgery. (The one outlier received 5 mg daily prednisone.) However, fewer patients who developed autoimmune disease (17.6%) received supraphysiologic doses of glucocorticoid — equivalent to at least 25 mg hydrocortisone — compared with patients who didn’t develop autoimmune disease (41.8%).

“Although the daily average hydrocortisone equivalent replacement doses within the first month and during long-term follow-up were within the physiologic range in both subgroups, patients with Cushing disease who had autoimmune disease received slightly lower doses of glucocorticoid replacement within the first month after surgery,” the authors reported. “The immediate postoperative period might be a critical window where supraphysiologic glucocorticoids seem to be protective with regard to development of autoimmune disease,” they wrote, though they acknowledged the study’s retrospective design as a limitation in drawing that conclusion.

At the least, they suggested that new symptoms in patients with Cushing disease, particularly those with a family history of autoimmune disease, should prompt investigation of potential autoimmune disease.

Recordati Rare Diseases funded the study. The research was also conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst (the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center) as well as financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. One author reported holding stocks in Pfizer and Amgen, and another reported receiving consulting fees from Corcept. Dr. Heaney reported receiving institutional grants for trials from Corcept, Ascendis, Crinetics, and Sparrow Pharm; serving on the advisory board for Xeris, Recordati, Corcept, Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, and Crinetics; and serving as a speaker for Chiesi, Novo Nordisk, and Corcept.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with Cushing disease have an increased risk for new-onset autoimmune disease in the 3 years after surgical remission, according to a new retrospective study published on February 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Outcomes for patients with Cushing disease were compared against those with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs). New-onset autoimmune disease occurred in 10.4% with Cushing disease and 1.6% among patients with NFPA (hazard ratio, 7.80; 95% CI, 2.88-21.10).

“Understanding and recognizing new and recurrent autoimmune disease in this setting is important to avoid misclassifying such patients with glucocorticoid withdrawal syndrome, which could result in failure to treat underlying autoimmune disease, as well as erroneous diagnosis of steroid withdrawal cases,” wrote Dennis Delasi Nyanyo of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Given the general population’s annual incidence of major autoimmune diseases, estimated at about 100 cases per 100,000 people, and the 3-year incidence of 10.4% found in this study’s cohort, “our findings suggest that Cushing disease remission may trigger development of autoimmune disease,” the authors wrote.
 

Monitor Patients With Family History of Autoimmune Disease?

The study results were not necessarily surprising to Anthony P. Heaney, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, because past research has raised similar questions. The authors’ suggestion that the rapid postsurgical drop in cortisol that occurs as a result of treating Cushing disease becomes some sort of autoimmune trigger is interesting but remains speculative, Dr. Heaney pointed out.

If future evidence supports that possibility, “it would suggest, in terms of managing those patients in the postoperative setting, that there may be some merit to giving them higher concentrations of glucocorticoids for a short period of time,” Dr. Heaney said, thereby bringing their levels down more gradually rather than taking them off a cliff, in a sense. Or, if more evidence bears out the authors’ hypothesis, another approach might be treating patients with medicine to bring down the cortisol before surgery, though there are challenges to that approach, Dr. Heaney said.

At the same time, those who developed new autoimmune disease remain a small subset of patients with Cushing disease, so such approaches may become only potentially appropriate to consider in patients with risk factors, such as a family history of autoimmune disease.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery for either Cushing disease or NFPA at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2005 and 2019.

The study involved 194 patients with Cushing disease who had postsurgical remission and at least one follow-up visit with a pituitary expert and 92 patients with NFPA who were matched to patients with Cushing disease based on age and sex. The authors regarded autoimmune disease diagnosed within 36 months of the surgery to be temporally associated with Cushing disease remission. Among the autoimmune diseases considered were “rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune thyroiditis, celiac disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, autoimmune neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and ulcerative colitis.”

Patients differed in average body mass index and tumor size, but family history of autoimmune disease was similar in both groups. Average BMI was 34.5 in the Cushing group and 29.5 in the NFPA group. Average tumor size was 5.7 mm in the Cushing group and 21.3 mm in the NFPA group.

Before surgery, 2.9% of patients with Cushing disease and 15.4% of patients with NFPA had central hypothyroidism, and 8% in the Cushing group and 56.8% in the NFPA group had hyperprolactinemia. Central adrenal insufficiency occurred in 11% with NFPA and in all with Cushing disease, by definition.

After surgery, 93.8% in the Cushing group and 16.5% in the NFPA group had adrenal insufficiency. In addition, patients with Cushing disease had lower postsurgical nadir serum cortisol levels (63.8 nmol/L) than those with NFPA (282.3 nmol/L).

Of the 17 patients with Cushing disease — all women — who developed autoimmune disease within 3 years, 6 had a personal history of autoimmune disease and 7 had a family history of it. In addition, 41.2% of them had adrenal insufficiency when they developed the new autoimmune disease. Among the diseases were six autoimmune thyroiditis cases, three Sjögren syndrome cases, and two autoimmune seronegative spondyloarthropathy.

Dr. Heaney said he found it interesting that more than half of the new autoimmune diseases in patients with Cushing disease were related to the thyroid. “In this kind of setting, where you have a patient who has been producing too much steroid over a period of time and then you take that away, it’s almost like you release a brake on the TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone],” Dr. Heaney said. “So, there’s probably some rebound in TSH that occurs, and that could be driving the thyroiditis, to some extent, that we see in these patients.”

Only one patient with NFPA developed new-onset autoimmune disease, a woman who developed Graves disease 22 months after surgery. When the researchers excluded patients in both groups with central hypothyroidism, new-onset autoimmune disease was still significantly higher (11.4%) in the Cushing group than in the NFPA group (1.9%; HR, 7.02; 95% CI, 2.54-19.39).
 

Could Postoperative Adrenal Insufficiency Contribute to Risk?

Within the Cushing cohort, those who developed autoimmune disease had a lower BMI (31.8 vs 34.8) and larger tumor size (7.2 vs 5.6 mm) than those who didn’t develop new autoimmune disease. Patients who developed autoimmune disease also had a lower baseline urine free cortisol ratio (2.7 vs 6.3) before surgery and more family history of autoimmune disease (41.2% vs 20.9%) than those who didn’t develop one.

“The higher prevalence of adrenal insufficiency and the lower nadir serum cortisol levels in the Cushing disease group suggest that the postoperative adrenal insufficiency in the Cushing disease group might have contributed to autoimmune disease pathogenesis,” the authors wrote. “This finding is clinically significant because cortisol plays a pivotal role in modulating the immune system.”

Most postoperative management among patients with Cushing disease was similar, with all but one patient receiving 0.5 or 1 mg daily dexamethasone within the first week after surgery. (The one outlier received 5 mg daily prednisone.) However, fewer patients who developed autoimmune disease (17.6%) received supraphysiologic doses of glucocorticoid — equivalent to at least 25 mg hydrocortisone — compared with patients who didn’t develop autoimmune disease (41.8%).

“Although the daily average hydrocortisone equivalent replacement doses within the first month and during long-term follow-up were within the physiologic range in both subgroups, patients with Cushing disease who had autoimmune disease received slightly lower doses of glucocorticoid replacement within the first month after surgery,” the authors reported. “The immediate postoperative period might be a critical window where supraphysiologic glucocorticoids seem to be protective with regard to development of autoimmune disease,” they wrote, though they acknowledged the study’s retrospective design as a limitation in drawing that conclusion.

At the least, they suggested that new symptoms in patients with Cushing disease, particularly those with a family history of autoimmune disease, should prompt investigation of potential autoimmune disease.

Recordati Rare Diseases funded the study. The research was also conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst (the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center) as well as financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. One author reported holding stocks in Pfizer and Amgen, and another reported receiving consulting fees from Corcept. Dr. Heaney reported receiving institutional grants for trials from Corcept, Ascendis, Crinetics, and Sparrow Pharm; serving on the advisory board for Xeris, Recordati, Corcept, Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, and Crinetics; and serving as a speaker for Chiesi, Novo Nordisk, and Corcept.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with Cushing disease have an increased risk for new-onset autoimmune disease in the 3 years after surgical remission, according to a new retrospective study published on February 20 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Outcomes for patients with Cushing disease were compared against those with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs). New-onset autoimmune disease occurred in 10.4% with Cushing disease and 1.6% among patients with NFPA (hazard ratio, 7.80; 95% CI, 2.88-21.10).

“Understanding and recognizing new and recurrent autoimmune disease in this setting is important to avoid misclassifying such patients with glucocorticoid withdrawal syndrome, which could result in failure to treat underlying autoimmune disease, as well as erroneous diagnosis of steroid withdrawal cases,” wrote Dennis Delasi Nyanyo of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Given the general population’s annual incidence of major autoimmune diseases, estimated at about 100 cases per 100,000 people, and the 3-year incidence of 10.4% found in this study’s cohort, “our findings suggest that Cushing disease remission may trigger development of autoimmune disease,” the authors wrote.
 

Monitor Patients With Family History of Autoimmune Disease?

The study results were not necessarily surprising to Anthony P. Heaney, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, because past research has raised similar questions. The authors’ suggestion that the rapid postsurgical drop in cortisol that occurs as a result of treating Cushing disease becomes some sort of autoimmune trigger is interesting but remains speculative, Dr. Heaney pointed out.

If future evidence supports that possibility, “it would suggest, in terms of managing those patients in the postoperative setting, that there may be some merit to giving them higher concentrations of glucocorticoids for a short period of time,” Dr. Heaney said, thereby bringing their levels down more gradually rather than taking them off a cliff, in a sense. Or, if more evidence bears out the authors’ hypothesis, another approach might be treating patients with medicine to bring down the cortisol before surgery, though there are challenges to that approach, Dr. Heaney said.

At the same time, those who developed new autoimmune disease remain a small subset of patients with Cushing disease, so such approaches may become only potentially appropriate to consider in patients with risk factors, such as a family history of autoimmune disease.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery for either Cushing disease or NFPA at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2005 and 2019.

The study involved 194 patients with Cushing disease who had postsurgical remission and at least one follow-up visit with a pituitary expert and 92 patients with NFPA who were matched to patients with Cushing disease based on age and sex. The authors regarded autoimmune disease diagnosed within 36 months of the surgery to be temporally associated with Cushing disease remission. Among the autoimmune diseases considered were “rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune thyroiditis, celiac disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, autoimmune neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and ulcerative colitis.”

Patients differed in average body mass index and tumor size, but family history of autoimmune disease was similar in both groups. Average BMI was 34.5 in the Cushing group and 29.5 in the NFPA group. Average tumor size was 5.7 mm in the Cushing group and 21.3 mm in the NFPA group.

Before surgery, 2.9% of patients with Cushing disease and 15.4% of patients with NFPA had central hypothyroidism, and 8% in the Cushing group and 56.8% in the NFPA group had hyperprolactinemia. Central adrenal insufficiency occurred in 11% with NFPA and in all with Cushing disease, by definition.

After surgery, 93.8% in the Cushing group and 16.5% in the NFPA group had adrenal insufficiency. In addition, patients with Cushing disease had lower postsurgical nadir serum cortisol levels (63.8 nmol/L) than those with NFPA (282.3 nmol/L).

Of the 17 patients with Cushing disease — all women — who developed autoimmune disease within 3 years, 6 had a personal history of autoimmune disease and 7 had a family history of it. In addition, 41.2% of them had adrenal insufficiency when they developed the new autoimmune disease. Among the diseases were six autoimmune thyroiditis cases, three Sjögren syndrome cases, and two autoimmune seronegative spondyloarthropathy.

Dr. Heaney said he found it interesting that more than half of the new autoimmune diseases in patients with Cushing disease were related to the thyroid. “In this kind of setting, where you have a patient who has been producing too much steroid over a period of time and then you take that away, it’s almost like you release a brake on the TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone],” Dr. Heaney said. “So, there’s probably some rebound in TSH that occurs, and that could be driving the thyroiditis, to some extent, that we see in these patients.”

Only one patient with NFPA developed new-onset autoimmune disease, a woman who developed Graves disease 22 months after surgery. When the researchers excluded patients in both groups with central hypothyroidism, new-onset autoimmune disease was still significantly higher (11.4%) in the Cushing group than in the NFPA group (1.9%; HR, 7.02; 95% CI, 2.54-19.39).
 

Could Postoperative Adrenal Insufficiency Contribute to Risk?

Within the Cushing cohort, those who developed autoimmune disease had a lower BMI (31.8 vs 34.8) and larger tumor size (7.2 vs 5.6 mm) than those who didn’t develop new autoimmune disease. Patients who developed autoimmune disease also had a lower baseline urine free cortisol ratio (2.7 vs 6.3) before surgery and more family history of autoimmune disease (41.2% vs 20.9%) than those who didn’t develop one.

“The higher prevalence of adrenal insufficiency and the lower nadir serum cortisol levels in the Cushing disease group suggest that the postoperative adrenal insufficiency in the Cushing disease group might have contributed to autoimmune disease pathogenesis,” the authors wrote. “This finding is clinically significant because cortisol plays a pivotal role in modulating the immune system.”

Most postoperative management among patients with Cushing disease was similar, with all but one patient receiving 0.5 or 1 mg daily dexamethasone within the first week after surgery. (The one outlier received 5 mg daily prednisone.) However, fewer patients who developed autoimmune disease (17.6%) received supraphysiologic doses of glucocorticoid — equivalent to at least 25 mg hydrocortisone — compared with patients who didn’t develop autoimmune disease (41.8%).

“Although the daily average hydrocortisone equivalent replacement doses within the first month and during long-term follow-up were within the physiologic range in both subgroups, patients with Cushing disease who had autoimmune disease received slightly lower doses of glucocorticoid replacement within the first month after surgery,” the authors reported. “The immediate postoperative period might be a critical window where supraphysiologic glucocorticoids seem to be protective with regard to development of autoimmune disease,” they wrote, though they acknowledged the study’s retrospective design as a limitation in drawing that conclusion.

At the least, they suggested that new symptoms in patients with Cushing disease, particularly those with a family history of autoimmune disease, should prompt investigation of potential autoimmune disease.

Recordati Rare Diseases funded the study. The research was also conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst (the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center) as well as financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic healthcare centers. One author reported holding stocks in Pfizer and Amgen, and another reported receiving consulting fees from Corcept. Dr. Heaney reported receiving institutional grants for trials from Corcept, Ascendis, Crinetics, and Sparrow Pharm; serving on the advisory board for Xeris, Recordati, Corcept, Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, and Crinetics; and serving as a speaker for Chiesi, Novo Nordisk, and Corcept.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Modern technology for recording deep-brain activity involves sharp metal electrodes that penetrate the tissue, causing damage that can compromise the signal and limiting how often they can be used. 

A rapidly growing area in materials science and engineering aims to fix the problem by designing electrodes that are softer, smaller, and flexible — safer for use inside the delicate tissues of the brain. On January 17, researchers from the University of California, San Diego, reported the development of a thin, flexible electrode that can be inserted deep within the brain and communicate with sensors on the surface. 

But what if you could record detailed deep-brain activity without piercing the brain? 

A team of researchers (as it happens, also from UC San Diego) have developed a thin, flexible implant that “resides on the brain’s surface” and “can infer neural activity from deeper layers,” said Duygu Kuzum, PhD, a professor of electrical and computer engineering, who led the research. 

By combining electrical and optical imaging methods, and artificial intelligence, the researchers used the device — a polymer strip packed with graphene electrodes — to predict deep calcium activity from surface signals, according to a proof-of-concept study published this month in Nature Nanotechnology. 

“Almost everything we know about how neurons behave in living brains comes from data collected with either electrophysiology or two-photon imaging,” said neuroscientist Joshua H. Siegle, PhD, of the Allen Institute for Neural Dynamics in Seattle , who not involved in the study. “ Until now, these two methods have rarely been used simultaneously.”

The technology, which has been tested in mice, could help advance our knowledge of how the brain works and may lead to new minimally invasive treatments for neurologic disorders. 
 

Multimodal Neurotech: The Power of 2-in-1

Electrical and optical methods for recording brain activity have been crucial in advancing neurophysiologic science, but each technique has its limits. Electrical recordings provide high “temporal resolution”; they reveal when activation is happening, but not really where. Optical imaging, on the other hand, offers high “spatial resolution,” showing which area of the brain is lighting up, but its measurements may not correspond with the activity’s timing. 

Research over the past decade has explored how to combine and harness the strengths of both methods. One potential solution is to use electrodes made of transparent materials such as graphene, allowing a clear field of view for a microscope during imaging. Recently, University of Pennsylvania scientists used graphene electrodes to illuminate the neural dynamics of seizures. 

But there are challenges. If graphene electrodes are very small — in this case, 20 µm in diameter — they become more resistant to the flow of electricity. Dr. Kuzum and colleagues addressed this by adding tiny platinum particles to improve electrical conductivity. Long graphene wires connect electrodes to the circuit board, but defects in graphene can interrupt the signal, so they made each wire with two layers; any defects in one wire could be hidden by the other.

By combining the two methods (microelectrode arrays and two-photon imaging), the researchers could see both when brain activity was happening and where, including in deeper layers. They discovered a correlation between electrical responses on the surface and cellular calcium activity deeper down. The team used these data to create a neural network (a type of artificial intelligence that learns to recognize patterns) that predicts deep calcium activity from surface-level readings.

The tech could help scientists study brain activity “in a way not possible with current single-function tools,” said Luyao Lu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at George Washington University in Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study. It could shed light on interactions between vascular and electrical activity, or explain how place cells (neurons in the hippocampus) are so efficient at creating spatial memory. 

It could also pave the way for minimally invasive neural prosthetics or targeted treatments for neurologic disorders, the researchers say. Implanting the device would be a “straightforward process” similar to placing electrocorticography grids in patients with epilepsy, said Dr. Kuzum. 

But first, the team plans to do more studies in animal models before testing the tech in clinical settings, Dr. Kuzum added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Modern technology for recording deep-brain activity involves sharp metal electrodes that penetrate the tissue, causing damage that can compromise the signal and limiting how often they can be used. 

A rapidly growing area in materials science and engineering aims to fix the problem by designing electrodes that are softer, smaller, and flexible — safer for use inside the delicate tissues of the brain. On January 17, researchers from the University of California, San Diego, reported the development of a thin, flexible electrode that can be inserted deep within the brain and communicate with sensors on the surface. 

But what if you could record detailed deep-brain activity without piercing the brain? 

A team of researchers (as it happens, also from UC San Diego) have developed a thin, flexible implant that “resides on the brain’s surface” and “can infer neural activity from deeper layers,” said Duygu Kuzum, PhD, a professor of electrical and computer engineering, who led the research. 

By combining electrical and optical imaging methods, and artificial intelligence, the researchers used the device — a polymer strip packed with graphene electrodes — to predict deep calcium activity from surface signals, according to a proof-of-concept study published this month in Nature Nanotechnology. 

“Almost everything we know about how neurons behave in living brains comes from data collected with either electrophysiology or two-photon imaging,” said neuroscientist Joshua H. Siegle, PhD, of the Allen Institute for Neural Dynamics in Seattle , who not involved in the study. “ Until now, these two methods have rarely been used simultaneously.”

The technology, which has been tested in mice, could help advance our knowledge of how the brain works and may lead to new minimally invasive treatments for neurologic disorders. 
 

Multimodal Neurotech: The Power of 2-in-1

Electrical and optical methods for recording brain activity have been crucial in advancing neurophysiologic science, but each technique has its limits. Electrical recordings provide high “temporal resolution”; they reveal when activation is happening, but not really where. Optical imaging, on the other hand, offers high “spatial resolution,” showing which area of the brain is lighting up, but its measurements may not correspond with the activity’s timing. 

Research over the past decade has explored how to combine and harness the strengths of both methods. One potential solution is to use electrodes made of transparent materials such as graphene, allowing a clear field of view for a microscope during imaging. Recently, University of Pennsylvania scientists used graphene electrodes to illuminate the neural dynamics of seizures. 

But there are challenges. If graphene electrodes are very small — in this case, 20 µm in diameter — they become more resistant to the flow of electricity. Dr. Kuzum and colleagues addressed this by adding tiny platinum particles to improve electrical conductivity. Long graphene wires connect electrodes to the circuit board, but defects in graphene can interrupt the signal, so they made each wire with two layers; any defects in one wire could be hidden by the other.

By combining the two methods (microelectrode arrays and two-photon imaging), the researchers could see both when brain activity was happening and where, including in deeper layers. They discovered a correlation between electrical responses on the surface and cellular calcium activity deeper down. The team used these data to create a neural network (a type of artificial intelligence that learns to recognize patterns) that predicts deep calcium activity from surface-level readings.

The tech could help scientists study brain activity “in a way not possible with current single-function tools,” said Luyao Lu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at George Washington University in Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study. It could shed light on interactions between vascular and electrical activity, or explain how place cells (neurons in the hippocampus) are so efficient at creating spatial memory. 

It could also pave the way for minimally invasive neural prosthetics or targeted treatments for neurologic disorders, the researchers say. Implanting the device would be a “straightforward process” similar to placing electrocorticography grids in patients with epilepsy, said Dr. Kuzum. 

But first, the team plans to do more studies in animal models before testing the tech in clinical settings, Dr. Kuzum added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Modern technology for recording deep-brain activity involves sharp metal electrodes that penetrate the tissue, causing damage that can compromise the signal and limiting how often they can be used. 

A rapidly growing area in materials science and engineering aims to fix the problem by designing electrodes that are softer, smaller, and flexible — safer for use inside the delicate tissues of the brain. On January 17, researchers from the University of California, San Diego, reported the development of a thin, flexible electrode that can be inserted deep within the brain and communicate with sensors on the surface. 

But what if you could record detailed deep-brain activity without piercing the brain? 

A team of researchers (as it happens, also from UC San Diego) have developed a thin, flexible implant that “resides on the brain’s surface” and “can infer neural activity from deeper layers,” said Duygu Kuzum, PhD, a professor of electrical and computer engineering, who led the research. 

By combining electrical and optical imaging methods, and artificial intelligence, the researchers used the device — a polymer strip packed with graphene electrodes — to predict deep calcium activity from surface signals, according to a proof-of-concept study published this month in Nature Nanotechnology. 

“Almost everything we know about how neurons behave in living brains comes from data collected with either electrophysiology or two-photon imaging,” said neuroscientist Joshua H. Siegle, PhD, of the Allen Institute for Neural Dynamics in Seattle , who not involved in the study. “ Until now, these two methods have rarely been used simultaneously.”

The technology, which has been tested in mice, could help advance our knowledge of how the brain works and may lead to new minimally invasive treatments for neurologic disorders. 
 

Multimodal Neurotech: The Power of 2-in-1

Electrical and optical methods for recording brain activity have been crucial in advancing neurophysiologic science, but each technique has its limits. Electrical recordings provide high “temporal resolution”; they reveal when activation is happening, but not really where. Optical imaging, on the other hand, offers high “spatial resolution,” showing which area of the brain is lighting up, but its measurements may not correspond with the activity’s timing. 

Research over the past decade has explored how to combine and harness the strengths of both methods. One potential solution is to use electrodes made of transparent materials such as graphene, allowing a clear field of view for a microscope during imaging. Recently, University of Pennsylvania scientists used graphene electrodes to illuminate the neural dynamics of seizures. 

But there are challenges. If graphene electrodes are very small — in this case, 20 µm in diameter — they become more resistant to the flow of electricity. Dr. Kuzum and colleagues addressed this by adding tiny platinum particles to improve electrical conductivity. Long graphene wires connect electrodes to the circuit board, but defects in graphene can interrupt the signal, so they made each wire with two layers; any defects in one wire could be hidden by the other.

By combining the two methods (microelectrode arrays and two-photon imaging), the researchers could see both when brain activity was happening and where, including in deeper layers. They discovered a correlation between electrical responses on the surface and cellular calcium activity deeper down. The team used these data to create a neural network (a type of artificial intelligence that learns to recognize patterns) that predicts deep calcium activity from surface-level readings.

The tech could help scientists study brain activity “in a way not possible with current single-function tools,” said Luyao Lu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at George Washington University in Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study. It could shed light on interactions between vascular and electrical activity, or explain how place cells (neurons in the hippocampus) are so efficient at creating spatial memory. 

It could also pave the way for minimally invasive neural prosthetics or targeted treatments for neurologic disorders, the researchers say. Implanting the device would be a “straightforward process” similar to placing electrocorticography grids in patients with epilepsy, said Dr. Kuzum. 

But first, the team plans to do more studies in animal models before testing the tech in clinical settings, Dr. Kuzum added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No Trivial Feat”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A Moving Target”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Hope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No Trivial Feat”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A Moving Target”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Hope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No Trivial Feat”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A Moving Target”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Hope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For most symptomatic patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery (MCA), adding extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass surgery to medical therapy did not reduce stroke or death in comparison with medical therapy alone in the latest randomized trial comparing the two interventions.

However, subgroup analyses suggest a potential benefit of surgery for certain patients, such as those with MCA vs. ICA occlusion, mean transit time greater than 6 seconds, or regional blood flow of 0.8 or less.

“We were disappointed by the results,” Liqun Jiao, MD, of the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Beijing, told this news organization. “We were expecting to demonstrate a benefit from EC-IC bypass surgery over medical treatment alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, per our original hypothesis.”

Although the study showed improved efficacy and safety for the surgical procedure, he said, “The progress of medical treatment is even better.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Subgroup analyses promising

Previous randomized clinical trials, including the EC/IC Bypass Study and the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS), showed no benefit in stroke prevention for patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the ICA or MCA.

However, in light of improvements over the years in surgical techniques and patient selection, the authors conducted the Carotid and Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion Surgery Study (CMOSS), a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial comparing EC-IC bypass surgery plus medical therapy, consisting of antiplatelet therapy and control of stroke risk factors, with medical therapy alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, with refined patient and operator selection.

A total of 324 patients (median age, 52.7 years; 79% men) in 13 centers in China were included; 309 patients (95%) completed the study.

The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days or ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years after randomization.

Secondary outcomes included, among others, any stroke or death within 2 years and fatal stroke within 2 years.

No significant difference was found for the primary outcome between the surgical group (8.6%) and the medical group (12.3%).

The 30-day risk of stroke or death was 6.2% in the surgery group, versus 1.8% (3/163) for the medical group. The risk of ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years was 2%, versus 10.3% – nonsignificant differences.

Furthermore, none of the prespecified secondary endpoints showed a significant difference, including any stroke or death within 2 years (9.9% vs. 15.3%; hazard ratio, 0.69) and fatal stroke within 2 years (2% vs. none).

Despite the findings, “We are encouraged by the subgroup analysis and the trend of long-term outcomes,” Dr. Jiao said. “We will continue to finish 5-10 years of follow-up to see whether the benefit of bypass surgery can be identified.”

The team has also launched the CMOSS-2 trial with a refined study design based on the results of subgroup analysis of the CMOSS study.

CMOSS-2 is recruiting patients with symptomatic chronic occlusion of the MCA and severe hemodynamic insufficiency in 13 sites in China. The primary outcome is ischemic stroke in the territory of the target artery within 24 months after randomization.
 

Can’t exclude benefit

Thomas Jeerakathil, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta and Northern Stroke Lead, Cardiovascular and Stroke Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, commented on the study for this news organization. Like the authors, he said, “I don’t consider this study to definitively exclude the benefit of EC/IC bypass. More studies are required.”

Dr. Jeerakathil would like to see a study of a higher-risk group based on both clinical and hemodynamic blood flow criteria. In the current study, he said, “The trial group overall may not have been at high enough stroke risk to justify the up-front risks of the EC-IC bypass procedure.”

In addition, “The analysis method of Cox proportional hazards regression for the primary outcome did not fit the data when the perioperative period was combined with the period beyond 30 days,” he noted. “The researchers were open about this and did pivot and included a post hoc relative risk-based analysis, but the validity of their primary analysis is questionable.”

Furthermore, the study was “somewhat underpowered with a relatively small sample size and had the potential to miss clinically significant differences between groups,” he said. “It would be good to see a longer follow-up period of at least 5 years added to this trial and used in future trials, rather than 2 years.”

“Lastly,” he said, “it’s difficult to ignore the reduction in recurrent stroke events over the 30-day to 2-year time period associated with EC-IC bypass (from 10.3% down to 2%). This reduction alone shows the procedure has some potential to prevent stroke and would argue for more trials.”

EC-IC could be considered for patients who have failed other medical therapies and have more substantial evidence of compromised blood flow to the brain than those in the CMOSS trial, he noted, as many of these patients have few other options. “In our center and many other centers, the approach to EC-IC bypass is probably much more selective than used in the trial.”

Dr. Jeerakathil concluded, “Clinicians should be cautious about offering the procedure to patients with just mildly delayed blood flow in the hemisphere affected by the occluded artery and those who have not yet failed maximal medical therapy.”

But Seemant Chaturvedi, MD, and J. Marc Simard, MD, PhD, both of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, are not as optimistic about the potential for EC-IC.

Writing in a related editorial, they conclude that the results with EC-IC bypass surgery in randomized trials “remain unimpressive. Until a better understanding of the unique hemodynamic features of the brain is achieved, it will be difficult for neurosurgeons to continue offering this procedure to patients with ICA or MCA occlusion. Intensive, multifaceted medical therapy remains the first-line treatment for [these] patients.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Dr. Jiao, Dr. Jeerakathil, Dr. Chaturvedi, and Dr. Simard reported no conflicts of interest.

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

For most symptomatic patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery (MCA), adding extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass surgery to medical therapy did not reduce stroke or death in comparison with medical therapy alone in the latest randomized trial comparing the two interventions.

However, subgroup analyses suggest a potential benefit of surgery for certain patients, such as those with MCA vs. ICA occlusion, mean transit time greater than 6 seconds, or regional blood flow of 0.8 or less.

“We were disappointed by the results,” Liqun Jiao, MD, of the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Beijing, told this news organization. “We were expecting to demonstrate a benefit from EC-IC bypass surgery over medical treatment alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, per our original hypothesis.”

Although the study showed improved efficacy and safety for the surgical procedure, he said, “The progress of medical treatment is even better.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Subgroup analyses promising

Previous randomized clinical trials, including the EC/IC Bypass Study and the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS), showed no benefit in stroke prevention for patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the ICA or MCA.

However, in light of improvements over the years in surgical techniques and patient selection, the authors conducted the Carotid and Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion Surgery Study (CMOSS), a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial comparing EC-IC bypass surgery plus medical therapy, consisting of antiplatelet therapy and control of stroke risk factors, with medical therapy alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, with refined patient and operator selection.

A total of 324 patients (median age, 52.7 years; 79% men) in 13 centers in China were included; 309 patients (95%) completed the study.

The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days or ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years after randomization.

Secondary outcomes included, among others, any stroke or death within 2 years and fatal stroke within 2 years.

No significant difference was found for the primary outcome between the surgical group (8.6%) and the medical group (12.3%).

The 30-day risk of stroke or death was 6.2% in the surgery group, versus 1.8% (3/163) for the medical group. The risk of ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years was 2%, versus 10.3% – nonsignificant differences.

Furthermore, none of the prespecified secondary endpoints showed a significant difference, including any stroke or death within 2 years (9.9% vs. 15.3%; hazard ratio, 0.69) and fatal stroke within 2 years (2% vs. none).

Despite the findings, “We are encouraged by the subgroup analysis and the trend of long-term outcomes,” Dr. Jiao said. “We will continue to finish 5-10 years of follow-up to see whether the benefit of bypass surgery can be identified.”

The team has also launched the CMOSS-2 trial with a refined study design based on the results of subgroup analysis of the CMOSS study.

CMOSS-2 is recruiting patients with symptomatic chronic occlusion of the MCA and severe hemodynamic insufficiency in 13 sites in China. The primary outcome is ischemic stroke in the territory of the target artery within 24 months after randomization.
 

Can’t exclude benefit

Thomas Jeerakathil, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta and Northern Stroke Lead, Cardiovascular and Stroke Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, commented on the study for this news organization. Like the authors, he said, “I don’t consider this study to definitively exclude the benefit of EC/IC bypass. More studies are required.”

Dr. Jeerakathil would like to see a study of a higher-risk group based on both clinical and hemodynamic blood flow criteria. In the current study, he said, “The trial group overall may not have been at high enough stroke risk to justify the up-front risks of the EC-IC bypass procedure.”

In addition, “The analysis method of Cox proportional hazards regression for the primary outcome did not fit the data when the perioperative period was combined with the period beyond 30 days,” he noted. “The researchers were open about this and did pivot and included a post hoc relative risk-based analysis, but the validity of their primary analysis is questionable.”

Furthermore, the study was “somewhat underpowered with a relatively small sample size and had the potential to miss clinically significant differences between groups,” he said. “It would be good to see a longer follow-up period of at least 5 years added to this trial and used in future trials, rather than 2 years.”

“Lastly,” he said, “it’s difficult to ignore the reduction in recurrent stroke events over the 30-day to 2-year time period associated with EC-IC bypass (from 10.3% down to 2%). This reduction alone shows the procedure has some potential to prevent stroke and would argue for more trials.”

EC-IC could be considered for patients who have failed other medical therapies and have more substantial evidence of compromised blood flow to the brain than those in the CMOSS trial, he noted, as many of these patients have few other options. “In our center and many other centers, the approach to EC-IC bypass is probably much more selective than used in the trial.”

Dr. Jeerakathil concluded, “Clinicians should be cautious about offering the procedure to patients with just mildly delayed blood flow in the hemisphere affected by the occluded artery and those who have not yet failed maximal medical therapy.”

But Seemant Chaturvedi, MD, and J. Marc Simard, MD, PhD, both of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, are not as optimistic about the potential for EC-IC.

Writing in a related editorial, they conclude that the results with EC-IC bypass surgery in randomized trials “remain unimpressive. Until a better understanding of the unique hemodynamic features of the brain is achieved, it will be difficult for neurosurgeons to continue offering this procedure to patients with ICA or MCA occlusion. Intensive, multifaceted medical therapy remains the first-line treatment for [these] patients.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Dr. Jiao, Dr. Jeerakathil, Dr. Chaturvedi, and Dr. Simard reported no conflicts of interest.

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

For most symptomatic patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery (MCA), adding extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass surgery to medical therapy did not reduce stroke or death in comparison with medical therapy alone in the latest randomized trial comparing the two interventions.

However, subgroup analyses suggest a potential benefit of surgery for certain patients, such as those with MCA vs. ICA occlusion, mean transit time greater than 6 seconds, or regional blood flow of 0.8 or less.

“We were disappointed by the results,” Liqun Jiao, MD, of the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Beijing, told this news organization. “We were expecting to demonstrate a benefit from EC-IC bypass surgery over medical treatment alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, per our original hypothesis.”

Although the study showed improved efficacy and safety for the surgical procedure, he said, “The progress of medical treatment is even better.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Subgroup analyses promising

Previous randomized clinical trials, including the EC/IC Bypass Study and the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS), showed no benefit in stroke prevention for patients with atherosclerotic occlusion of the ICA or MCA.

However, in light of improvements over the years in surgical techniques and patient selection, the authors conducted the Carotid and Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion Surgery Study (CMOSS), a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial comparing EC-IC bypass surgery plus medical therapy, consisting of antiplatelet therapy and control of stroke risk factors, with medical therapy alone in symptomatic patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency, with refined patient and operator selection.

A total of 324 patients (median age, 52.7 years; 79% men) in 13 centers in China were included; 309 patients (95%) completed the study.

The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days or ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years after randomization.

Secondary outcomes included, among others, any stroke or death within 2 years and fatal stroke within 2 years.

No significant difference was found for the primary outcome between the surgical group (8.6%) and the medical group (12.3%).

The 30-day risk of stroke or death was 6.2% in the surgery group, versus 1.8% (3/163) for the medical group. The risk of ipsilateral ischemic stroke beyond 30 days through 2 years was 2%, versus 10.3% – nonsignificant differences.

Furthermore, none of the prespecified secondary endpoints showed a significant difference, including any stroke or death within 2 years (9.9% vs. 15.3%; hazard ratio, 0.69) and fatal stroke within 2 years (2% vs. none).

Despite the findings, “We are encouraged by the subgroup analysis and the trend of long-term outcomes,” Dr. Jiao said. “We will continue to finish 5-10 years of follow-up to see whether the benefit of bypass surgery can be identified.”

The team has also launched the CMOSS-2 trial with a refined study design based on the results of subgroup analysis of the CMOSS study.

CMOSS-2 is recruiting patients with symptomatic chronic occlusion of the MCA and severe hemodynamic insufficiency in 13 sites in China. The primary outcome is ischemic stroke in the territory of the target artery within 24 months after randomization.
 

Can’t exclude benefit

Thomas Jeerakathil, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta and Northern Stroke Lead, Cardiovascular and Stroke Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, commented on the study for this news organization. Like the authors, he said, “I don’t consider this study to definitively exclude the benefit of EC/IC bypass. More studies are required.”

Dr. Jeerakathil would like to see a study of a higher-risk group based on both clinical and hemodynamic blood flow criteria. In the current study, he said, “The trial group overall may not have been at high enough stroke risk to justify the up-front risks of the EC-IC bypass procedure.”

In addition, “The analysis method of Cox proportional hazards regression for the primary outcome did not fit the data when the perioperative period was combined with the period beyond 30 days,” he noted. “The researchers were open about this and did pivot and included a post hoc relative risk-based analysis, but the validity of their primary analysis is questionable.”

Furthermore, the study was “somewhat underpowered with a relatively small sample size and had the potential to miss clinically significant differences between groups,” he said. “It would be good to see a longer follow-up period of at least 5 years added to this trial and used in future trials, rather than 2 years.”

“Lastly,” he said, “it’s difficult to ignore the reduction in recurrent stroke events over the 30-day to 2-year time period associated with EC-IC bypass (from 10.3% down to 2%). This reduction alone shows the procedure has some potential to prevent stroke and would argue for more trials.”

EC-IC could be considered for patients who have failed other medical therapies and have more substantial evidence of compromised blood flow to the brain than those in the CMOSS trial, he noted, as many of these patients have few other options. “In our center and many other centers, the approach to EC-IC bypass is probably much more selective than used in the trial.”

Dr. Jeerakathil concluded, “Clinicians should be cautious about offering the procedure to patients with just mildly delayed blood flow in the hemisphere affected by the occluded artery and those who have not yet failed maximal medical therapy.”

But Seemant Chaturvedi, MD, and J. Marc Simard, MD, PhD, both of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, are not as optimistic about the potential for EC-IC.

Writing in a related editorial, they conclude that the results with EC-IC bypass surgery in randomized trials “remain unimpressive. Until a better understanding of the unique hemodynamic features of the brain is achieved, it will be difficult for neurosurgeons to continue offering this procedure to patients with ICA or MCA occlusion. Intensive, multifaceted medical therapy remains the first-line treatment for [these] patients.”

The study was supported by a research grant from the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Dr. Jiao, Dr. Jeerakathil, Dr. Chaturvedi, and Dr. Simard reported no conflicts of interest.

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

LOS ANGELES – A new report shows that spin, including signs of exaggeration and mathematical errors, was seen in 21% of 150 randomized traumatic brain injury clinical trials published in leading medical journals.

“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”

Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
 

Defining spin

In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”

Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”

For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).

Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.

According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”

For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.

As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.

The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.

The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.

Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”

They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).

At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.

A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
 

Appropriate methodology

Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.

It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”

Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”

Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.

“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”

What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES – A new report shows that spin, including signs of exaggeration and mathematical errors, was seen in 21% of 150 randomized traumatic brain injury clinical trials published in leading medical journals.

“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”

Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
 

Defining spin

In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”

Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”

For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).

Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.

According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”

For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.

As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.

The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.

The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.

Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”

They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).

At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.

A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
 

Appropriate methodology

Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.

It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”

Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”

Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.

“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”

What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES – A new report shows that spin, including signs of exaggeration and mathematical errors, was seen in 21% of 150 randomized traumatic brain injury clinical trials published in leading medical journals.

“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”

Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
 

Defining spin

In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”

Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”

For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).

Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.

According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”

For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.

As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.

The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.

The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.

Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”

They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).

At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.

A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
 

Appropriate methodology

Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.

It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”

Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”

Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.

“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”

What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough device designation to the Avantis spinal cord stimulation system (Reach Neuro), which has been shown in early testing to restore arm and hand movement in patients with post-stroke upper limb paresis.

“We are excited about the FDA’s recognition of our technology’s potential to change the lives of millions of people living with disability,” Marc Powell, PhD, CEO, and co-founder of Reach Neuro, said in a company news release.

“The breakthrough device designation is an incredible opportunity to work closely with FDA experts to expedite the clinical translation of the Avantis system,” Dr. Powell added.

Results of the first-in-human study of the system were published in Nature Medicine.

Investigators percutaneously implanted two linear leads in the dorsolateral epidural space targeting neural circuits that control arm and hand muscles in two chronic post-stroke patients.

In both patients, continuous stimulation of the targeted neural circuits led to significant and immediate improvement in arm and hand strength and dexterity. This enabled the patients to perform movements that they couldn’t perform without spinal cord stimulation.

The process also enabled fine motor skills, such as opening a lock and using utensils to eat independently – tasks that one patient had not been able to do for 9 years.

“Having the stimulation working and being able to move my arm/hand again after 9 years was one of the most surreal experiences of my life – it was as if my brain was in control of my arm again. This technology gave me such immense hope that one day I will regain a sense of independence again,” study participant Heather Rendulic said in the news release.

Surprisingly, some improvements were retained up to 1 month after the study, even without stimulation. No serious adverse events were reported.

Nearly three-quarters of patients with stroke experience lasting deficits in motor control of their arm and hand as a result of permanent damage to the brain’s ability to send signals to muscles.

The early results with the Avantis system provide “promising, albeit preliminary, evidence that spinal cord stimulation could be an assistive as well as a restorative approach for upper-limb recovery after stroke,” the study team said in Nature Medicine.

Reach Neuro was founded in 2021 as a spinout company of the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, also in Pittsburgh, where the technology is currently being tested in a clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough device designation to the Avantis spinal cord stimulation system (Reach Neuro), which has been shown in early testing to restore arm and hand movement in patients with post-stroke upper limb paresis.

“We are excited about the FDA’s recognition of our technology’s potential to change the lives of millions of people living with disability,” Marc Powell, PhD, CEO, and co-founder of Reach Neuro, said in a company news release.

“The breakthrough device designation is an incredible opportunity to work closely with FDA experts to expedite the clinical translation of the Avantis system,” Dr. Powell added.

Results of the first-in-human study of the system were published in Nature Medicine.

Investigators percutaneously implanted two linear leads in the dorsolateral epidural space targeting neural circuits that control arm and hand muscles in two chronic post-stroke patients.

In both patients, continuous stimulation of the targeted neural circuits led to significant and immediate improvement in arm and hand strength and dexterity. This enabled the patients to perform movements that they couldn’t perform without spinal cord stimulation.

The process also enabled fine motor skills, such as opening a lock and using utensils to eat independently – tasks that one patient had not been able to do for 9 years.

“Having the stimulation working and being able to move my arm/hand again after 9 years was one of the most surreal experiences of my life – it was as if my brain was in control of my arm again. This technology gave me such immense hope that one day I will regain a sense of independence again,” study participant Heather Rendulic said in the news release.

Surprisingly, some improvements were retained up to 1 month after the study, even without stimulation. No serious adverse events were reported.

Nearly three-quarters of patients with stroke experience lasting deficits in motor control of their arm and hand as a result of permanent damage to the brain’s ability to send signals to muscles.

The early results with the Avantis system provide “promising, albeit preliminary, evidence that spinal cord stimulation could be an assistive as well as a restorative approach for upper-limb recovery after stroke,” the study team said in Nature Medicine.

Reach Neuro was founded in 2021 as a spinout company of the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, also in Pittsburgh, where the technology is currently being tested in a clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted breakthrough device designation to the Avantis spinal cord stimulation system (Reach Neuro), which has been shown in early testing to restore arm and hand movement in patients with post-stroke upper limb paresis.

“We are excited about the FDA’s recognition of our technology’s potential to change the lives of millions of people living with disability,” Marc Powell, PhD, CEO, and co-founder of Reach Neuro, said in a company news release.

“The breakthrough device designation is an incredible opportunity to work closely with FDA experts to expedite the clinical translation of the Avantis system,” Dr. Powell added.

Results of the first-in-human study of the system were published in Nature Medicine.

Investigators percutaneously implanted two linear leads in the dorsolateral epidural space targeting neural circuits that control arm and hand muscles in two chronic post-stroke patients.

In both patients, continuous stimulation of the targeted neural circuits led to significant and immediate improvement in arm and hand strength and dexterity. This enabled the patients to perform movements that they couldn’t perform without spinal cord stimulation.

The process also enabled fine motor skills, such as opening a lock and using utensils to eat independently – tasks that one patient had not been able to do for 9 years.

“Having the stimulation working and being able to move my arm/hand again after 9 years was one of the most surreal experiences of my life – it was as if my brain was in control of my arm again. This technology gave me such immense hope that one day I will regain a sense of independence again,” study participant Heather Rendulic said in the news release.

Surprisingly, some improvements were retained up to 1 month after the study, even without stimulation. No serious adverse events were reported.

Nearly three-quarters of patients with stroke experience lasting deficits in motor control of their arm and hand as a result of permanent damage to the brain’s ability to send signals to muscles.

The early results with the Avantis system provide “promising, albeit preliminary, evidence that spinal cord stimulation could be an assistive as well as a restorative approach for upper-limb recovery after stroke,” the study team said in Nature Medicine.

Reach Neuro was founded in 2021 as a spinout company of the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, also in Pittsburgh, where the technology is currently being tested in a clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

Both pain relief and neurological improvements persisted in patients with diabetic neuropathy 2 years after they began receiving treatment with 10 kHz of spinal cord stimulation, according to research that released early, prior to its presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The data represents the longest follow-up available for spinal cord stimulation at a frequency higher than the 60 Hz initially approved for diabetic neuropathy by the Food and Drug Administration, according to lead author Erika A. Petersen, MD, a professor of neurosurgery and the residency program director at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

Petersen_Erika_ARK_web.jpg

“You would expect that somebody who continues to have diabetes for 24 months and has neuropathy would have worse neuropathy after 2 years, and what we’re seeing is that people were stable or better in terms of their nerve function at 2 years,” Dr. Petersen said in an interview. “So that’s really revolutionary.”
 

Encouraging preliminary findings

The findings are “promising and preliminary,” John D. Markman, MD, a professor in neurology and neurosurgery, vice chair for clinical research, and director of the Translational Pain Research Program at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. Dr. Markman, who was not involved in this study, said that, though the results are encouraging, it’s “less clear how much of [the pain improvement] is due to what we would consider to be on-target, pain-relieving benefit from stimulation versus other factors like expectation.” The crossover rate and amount of reduction in pain intensity are promising, but “I think that excitement is weighed against the fact that this is an open-label study.”

An underused treatment

Although spinal cord stimulation has been around since the late 1960s, its use only picked up steam in the 2000s, when it became more frequently used to treat chronic nerve damage related to neuropathic pain syndromes, Dr. Petersen explained. The FDA approved the treatment’s new indication for diabetic neuropathy in 2015, and data from Abbott and Medtronic have shown benefits from spinal cord stimulation at 60 Hz, but some patients are uncomfortable with the vibration or tingling feelings the devices can cause at that frequency.

“They describe creepy crawlies or ants crawling over the feet, or pins and needles, and painful sensitivity,” Dr. Petersen said. “You create a vibration feeling in the same zone where they already have those feelings of buzzing and pain and vibration, and it’s sometimes actually even more uncomfortable and less satisfying to them in terms of relief” with the spinal cord stimulation at 60 Hz, she said, “so there’s a lot of attrition in terms of who will actually use it.”

At 10 kHz, however, “people don’t feel any vibration or tingling associated with it; it just jams the signal of the pain,” she said. The difference between the frequencies is like that between “a lifeguard whistle and a dog whistle.”
 

Testing high-frequency stimulation

The new findings included the 24-month follow-up data from a randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for painful diabetic neuropathy. The original 216 participants enrolled in the trial had diabetic neuropathy symptoms for at least 12 months and either could no not tolerate or did not respond to medications. Enrollment criteria also included lower-limb pain intensity of at least 5 on a 0-10 visual analogy scale and hemoglobin A1c of no more than 10%.

For the first 6 months of the trial – before crossover was offered – participants were randomly assigned to receive either 10 kHz of spinal cord stimulation along with conventional medical management or to receive conventional medical management alone. The 6-month data from 187 patients, as reported in April 2021 in JAMA Neurology, revealed that 79% of those receiving spinal cord stimulation experienced at least 50% improved pain relief without worsening of their baseline neurologic deficits, compared with only 5% of those receiving only conventional treatments.

Average pain levels increased 2% in the control participants compared with a decrease of 76% in those with the spinal cord stimulation devices. In addition, 62% of the patients receiving spinal cord stimulation demonstration neurologic improvement in reflexes, strength, movement and sensation, compared with 3% of those in the control group. The study’s findings led the FDA to approve the device using 10 kHz.

At 6 months, 93% of control patients crossed over to receiving spinal cord stimulation while none with the devices opted to stop their spinal cord stimulation. The 12-month data revealed that 85% of those receiving spinal cord stimulation experienced at least 50% pain relief, with the average pain relief at 74%. Patients also reported statistically significant improved quality of life as well as less interference with sleep, mood, and daily activities from pain.

Two years after baseline, patients’ pain relief was maintained with average 80% improvement, and 66% of patients showed neurologic improvement since baseline. Though no patients had devices removed because of ineffectiveness, five patients’ devices were removed because of infection while infections in three other patients resolved.

“Being able to offer something that is not a pharmaceutical, without the side effects, that shows an even longer durability to that response is a really important finding at this point,” Dr. Petersen said.
 

Surgical considerations

Among the estimated 37 million Americans with type 1 or 2 diabetes, approximately one quarter of them experience some level of painful diabetic neuropathy, but medication and other medical management strategies are not always adequate in treating their pain. After a 1-week trial of spinal cord stimulation, the devices are implanted under the skin and rechargeable through the skin for up to 10 years, after which they can be replaced.

An appropriate candidate for spinal cord stimulation would be someone for whom existing non-invasive pain relief options, including medications, are ineffective or intolerable, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Markman both said. An adequate trial of medication is not “one size fits all” and will vary by each patient, added Dr. Markman, who is also interested in whether this study’s participants were able to have a reduction in use of pain relief medications.

“I think there’s a significant number of patients out there who can benefit from this, so I think that’s why it’s promising and exciting,” Dr. Markman said. “I do think it’s important to see if this actually allows them to be on less medication or whether stimulation turns out to be another treatment in addition to their baseline treatments.” The challenge is identifying “which patients are most likely to be benefiting from this and which are most likely to be harmed.”

Aside from infection from implantation, other possible risks include pain at the battery site and, in rare cases, a need for reoperation because of migration of the leads, he said.
 

Improvement in symptom severity and quality of life

After the wound from the implant has completely healed, Dr. Petersen said patients using the devices do not have any activity restrictions outside of magnetic interference, such as MRIs. “I’ve had people go back-country kayaking, scuba diving, fishing with their grandkids, all sorts of all sorts of things. If patients need to go through a scanner of any kind, they should ask whether it’s safe for pacemakers since these devices are like a “pacemaker for pain.

“I had a patient bring solar chargers with him so that he could recharge his battery in the backwoods while kayaking because that’s the level of improvement in pain that he got – from barely being able to walk down the hall to feeling comfortable being off the grid and active again,” Dr. Petersen said. “Those kinds of improvements in quality of life are massive.”

The study findings may also suggest that spinal cord stimulation can benefit a broader population of patients experiencing neuropathic pain, Dr. Markman said.

“There’s an extraordinary unmet need for treatments for neuropathy, and one important question here is the extent to which diabetic peripheral neuropathy and the response that we’re seeing here is a proxy for a broader effect across many neuropathies that are caused by other conditions other than diabetes,” Dr. Markman said. “There’s a lot of reason to think that this will be helpful not just for diabetes-related neuropathic pain, but for other types of neuropathic pain that have similar clinical presentations or clinical symptom patterns to diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

The study was funded by Nevro, who manufactures the devices. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Markman both reported consulting with, receiving support from, holding stock options with, and serving on the data safety monitoring boards and advisory boards of numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Both pain relief and neurological improvements persisted in patients with diabetic neuropathy 2 years after they began receiving treatment with 10 kHz of spinal cord stimulation, according to research that released early, prior to its presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The data represents the longest follow-up available for spinal cord stimulation at a frequency higher than the 60 Hz initially approved for diabetic neuropathy by the Food and Drug Administration, according to lead author Erika A. Petersen, MD, a professor of neurosurgery and the residency program director at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

Petersen_Erika_ARK_web.jpg

“You would expect that somebody who continues to have diabetes for 24 months and has neuropathy would have worse neuropathy after 2 years, and what we’re seeing is that people were stable or better in terms of their nerve function at 2 years,” Dr. Petersen said in an interview. “So that’s really revolutionary.”
 

Encouraging preliminary findings

The findings are “promising and preliminary,” John D. Markman, MD, a professor in neurology and neurosurgery, vice chair for clinical research, and director of the Translational Pain Research Program at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. Dr. Markman, who was not involved in this study, said that, though the results are encouraging, it’s “less clear how much of [the pain improvement] is due to what we would consider to be on-target, pain-relieving benefit from stimulation versus other factors like expectation.” The crossover rate and amount of reduction in pain intensity are promising, but “I think that excitement is weighed against the fact that this is an open-label study.”

An underused treatment

Although spinal cord stimulation has been around since the late 1960s, its use only picked up steam in the 2000s, when it became more frequently used to treat chronic nerve damage related to neuropathic pain syndromes, Dr. Petersen explained. The FDA approved the treatment’s new indication for diabetic neuropathy in 2015, and data from Abbott and Medtronic have shown benefits from spinal cord stimulation at 60 Hz, but some patients are uncomfortable with the vibration or tingling feelings the devices can cause at that frequency.

“They describe creepy crawlies or ants crawling over the feet, or pins and needles, and painful sensitivity,” Dr. Petersen said. “You create a vibration feeling in the same zone where they already have those feelings of buzzing and pain and vibration, and it’s sometimes actually even more uncomfortable and less satisfying to them in terms of relief” with the spinal cord stimulation at 60 Hz, she said, “so there’s a lot of attrition in terms of who will actually use it.”

At 10 kHz, however, “people don’t feel any vibration or tingling associated with it; it just jams the signal of the pain,” she said. The difference between the frequencies is like that between “a lifeguard whistle and a dog whistle.”
 

Testing high-frequency stimulation

The new findings included the 24-month follow-up data from a randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for painful diabetic neuropathy. The original 216 participants enrolled in the trial had diabetic neuropathy symptoms for at least 12 months and either could no not tolerate or did not respond to medications. Enrollment criteria also included lower-limb pain intensity of at least 5 on a 0-10 visual analogy scale and hemoglobin A1c of no more than 10%.

For the first 6 months of the trial – before crossover was offered – participants were randomly assigned to receive either 10 kHz of spinal cord stimulation along with conventional medical management or to receive conventional medical management alone. The 6-month data from 187 patients, as reported in April 2021 in JAMA Neurology, revealed that 79% of those receiving spinal cord stimulation experienced at least 50% improved pain relief without worsening of their baseline neurologic deficits, compared with only 5% of those receiving only conventional treatments.

Average pain levels increased 2% in the control participants compared with a decrease of 76% in those with the spinal cord stimulation devices. In addition, 62% of the patients receiving spinal cord stimulation demonstration neurologic improvement in reflexes, strength, movement and sensation, compared with 3% of those in the control group. The study’s findings led the FDA to approve the device using 10 kHz.

At 6 months, 93% of control patients crossed over to receiving spinal cord stimulation while none with the devices opted to stop their spinal cord stimulation. The 12-month data revealed that 85% of those receiving spinal cord stimulation experienced at least 50% pain relief, with the average pain relief at 74%. Patients also reported statistically significant improved quality of life as well as less interference with sleep, mood, and daily activities from pain.

Two years after baseline, patients’ pain relief was maintained with average 80% improvement, and 66% of patients showed neurologic improvement since baseline. Though no patients had devices removed because of ineffectiveness, five patients’ devices were removed because of infection while infections in three other patients resolved.

“Being able to offer something that is not a pharmaceutical, without the side effects, that shows an even longer durability to that response is a really important finding at this point,” Dr. Petersen said.
 

Surgical considerations

Among the estimated 37 million Americans with type 1 or 2 diabetes, approximately one quarter of them experience some level of painful diabetic neuropathy, but medication and other medical management strategies are not always adequate in treating their pain. After a 1-week trial of spinal cord stimulation, the devices are implanted under the skin and rechargeable through the skin for up to 10 years, after which they can be replaced.

An appropriate candidate for spinal cord stimulation would be someone for whom existing non-invasive pain relief options, including medications, are ineffective or intolerable, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Markman both said. An adequate trial of medication is not “one size fits all” and will vary by each patient, added Dr. Markman, who is also interested in whether this study’s participants were able to have a reduction in use of pain relief medications.

“I think there’s a significant number of patients out there who can benefit from this, so I think that’s why it’s promising and exciting,” Dr. Markman said. “I do think it’s important to see if this actually allows them to be on less medication or whether stimulation turns out to be another treatment in addition to their baseline treatments.” The challenge is identifying “which patients are most likely to be benefiting from this and which are most likely to be harmed.”

Aside from infection from implantation, other possible risks include pain at the battery site and, in rare cases, a need for reoperation because of migration of the leads, he said.
 

Improvement in symptom severity and quality of life

After the wound from the implant has completely healed, Dr. Petersen said patients using the devices do not have any activity restrictions outside of magnetic interference, such as MRIs. “I’ve had people go back-country kayaking, scuba diving, fishing with their grandkids, all sorts of all sorts of things. If patients need to go through a scanner of any kind, they should ask whether it’s safe for pacemakers since these devices are like a “pacemaker for pain.

“I had a patient bring solar chargers with him so that he could recharge his battery in the backwoods while kayaking because that’s the level of improvement in pain that he got – from barely being able to walk down the hall to feeling comfortable being off the grid and active again,” Dr. Petersen said. “Those kinds of improvements in quality of life are massive.”

The study findings may also suggest that spinal cord stimulation can benefit a broader population of patients experiencing neuropathic pain, Dr. Markman said.

“There’s an extraordinary unmet need for treatments for neuropathy, and one important question here is the extent to which diabetic peripheral neuropathy and the response that we’re seeing here is a proxy for a broader effect across many neuropathies that are caused by other conditions other than diabetes,” Dr. Markman said. “There’s a lot of reason to think that this will be helpful not just for diabetes-related neuropathic pain, but for other types of neuropathic pain that have similar clinical presentations or clinical symptom patterns to diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

The study was funded by Nevro, who manufactures the devices. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Markman both reported consulting with, receiving support from, holding stock options with, and serving on the data safety monitoring boards and advisory boards of numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Both pain relief and neurological improvements persisted in patients with diabetic neuropathy 2 years after they began receiving treatment with 10 kHz of spinal cord stimulation, according to research that released early, prior to its presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The data represents the longest follow-up available for spinal cord stimulation at a frequency higher than the 60 Hz initially approved for diabetic neuropathy by the Food and Drug Administration, according to lead author Erika A. Petersen, MD, a professor of neurosurgery and the residency program director at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

Petersen_Erika_ARK_web.jpg

“You would expect that somebody who continues to have diabetes for 24 months and has neuropathy would have worse neuropathy after 2 years, and what we’re seeing is that people were stable or better in terms of their nerve function at 2 years,” Dr. Petersen said in an interview. “So that’s really revolutionary.”
 

Encouraging preliminary findings

The findings are “promising and preliminary,” John D. Markman, MD, a professor in neurology and neurosurgery, vice chair for clinical research, and director of the Translational Pain Research Program at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said in an interview. Dr. Markman, who was not involved in this study, said that, though the results are encouraging, it’s “less clear how much of [the pain improvement] is due to what we would consider to be on-target, pain-relieving benefit from stimulation versus other factors like expectation.” The crossover rate and amount of reduction in pain intensity are promising, but “I think that excitement is weighed against the fact that this is an open-label study.”

An underused treatment

Although spinal cord stimulation has been around since the late 1960s, its use only picked up steam in the 2000s, when it became more frequently used to treat chronic nerve damage related to neuropathic pain syndromes, Dr. Petersen explained. The FDA approved the treatment’s new indication for diabetic neuropathy in 2015, and data from Abbott and Medtronic have shown benefits from spinal cord stimulation at 60 Hz, but some patients are uncomfortable with the vibration or tingling feelings the devices can cause at that frequency.

“They describe creepy crawlies or ants crawling over the feet, or pins and needles, and painful sensitivity,” Dr. Petersen said. “You create a vibration feeling in the same zone where they already have those feelings of buzzing and pain and vibration, and it’s sometimes actually even more uncomfortable and less satisfying to them in terms of relief” with the spinal cord stimulation at 60 Hz, she said, “so there’s a lot of attrition in terms of who will actually use it.”

At 10 kHz, however, “people don’t feel any vibration or tingling associated with it; it just jams the signal of the pain,” she said. The difference between the frequencies is like that between “a lifeguard whistle and a dog whistle.”
 

Testing high-frequency stimulation

The new findings included the 24-month follow-up data from a randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for painful diabetic neuropathy. The original 216 participants enrolled in the trial had diabetic neuropathy symptoms for at least 12 months and either could no not tolerate or did not respond to medications. Enrollment criteria also included lower-limb pain intensity of at least 5 on a 0-10 visual analogy scale and hemoglobin A1c of no more than 10%.

For the first 6 months of the trial – before crossover was offered – participants were randomly assigned to receive either 10 kHz of spinal cord stimulation along with conventional medical management or to receive conventional medical management alone. The 6-month data from 187 patients, as reported in April 2021 in JAMA Neurology, revealed that 79% of those receiving spinal cord stimulation experienced at least 50% improved pain relief without worsening of their baseline neurologic deficits, compared with only 5% of those receiving only conventional treatments.

Average pain levels increased 2% in the control participants compared with a decrease of 76% in those with the spinal cord stimulation devices. In addition, 62% of the patients receiving spinal cord stimulation demonstration neurologic improvement in reflexes, strength, movement and sensation, compared with 3% of those in the control group. The study’s findings led the FDA to approve the device using 10 kHz.

At 6 months, 93% of control patients crossed over to receiving spinal cord stimulation while none with the devices opted to stop their spinal cord stimulation. The 12-month data revealed that 85% of those receiving spinal cord stimulation experienced at least 50% pain relief, with the average pain relief at 74%. Patients also reported statistically significant improved quality of life as well as less interference with sleep, mood, and daily activities from pain.

Two years after baseline, patients’ pain relief was maintained with average 80% improvement, and 66% of patients showed neurologic improvement since baseline. Though no patients had devices removed because of ineffectiveness, five patients’ devices were removed because of infection while infections in three other patients resolved.

“Being able to offer something that is not a pharmaceutical, without the side effects, that shows an even longer durability to that response is a really important finding at this point,” Dr. Petersen said.
 

Surgical considerations

Among the estimated 37 million Americans with type 1 or 2 diabetes, approximately one quarter of them experience some level of painful diabetic neuropathy, but medication and other medical management strategies are not always adequate in treating their pain. After a 1-week trial of spinal cord stimulation, the devices are implanted under the skin and rechargeable through the skin for up to 10 years, after which they can be replaced.

An appropriate candidate for spinal cord stimulation would be someone for whom existing non-invasive pain relief options, including medications, are ineffective or intolerable, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Markman both said. An adequate trial of medication is not “one size fits all” and will vary by each patient, added Dr. Markman, who is also interested in whether this study’s participants were able to have a reduction in use of pain relief medications.

“I think there’s a significant number of patients out there who can benefit from this, so I think that’s why it’s promising and exciting,” Dr. Markman said. “I do think it’s important to see if this actually allows them to be on less medication or whether stimulation turns out to be another treatment in addition to their baseline treatments.” The challenge is identifying “which patients are most likely to be benefiting from this and which are most likely to be harmed.”

Aside from infection from implantation, other possible risks include pain at the battery site and, in rare cases, a need for reoperation because of migration of the leads, he said.
 

Improvement in symptom severity and quality of life

After the wound from the implant has completely healed, Dr. Petersen said patients using the devices do not have any activity restrictions outside of magnetic interference, such as MRIs. “I’ve had people go back-country kayaking, scuba diving, fishing with their grandkids, all sorts of all sorts of things. If patients need to go through a scanner of any kind, they should ask whether it’s safe for pacemakers since these devices are like a “pacemaker for pain.

“I had a patient bring solar chargers with him so that he could recharge his battery in the backwoods while kayaking because that’s the level of improvement in pain that he got – from barely being able to walk down the hall to feeling comfortable being off the grid and active again,” Dr. Petersen said. “Those kinds of improvements in quality of life are massive.”

The study findings may also suggest that spinal cord stimulation can benefit a broader population of patients experiencing neuropathic pain, Dr. Markman said.

“There’s an extraordinary unmet need for treatments for neuropathy, and one important question here is the extent to which diabetic peripheral neuropathy and the response that we’re seeing here is a proxy for a broader effect across many neuropathies that are caused by other conditions other than diabetes,” Dr. Markman said. “There’s a lot of reason to think that this will be helpful not just for diabetes-related neuropathic pain, but for other types of neuropathic pain that have similar clinical presentations or clinical symptom patterns to diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”

The study was funded by Nevro, who manufactures the devices. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Markman both reported consulting with, receiving support from, holding stock options with, and serving on the data safety monitoring boards and advisory boards of numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Investigators have identified four blood biomarkers that could potentially be used to predict, diagnose, and monitor treatment response for posttraumatic stress disorder.

“More accurate means of predicting or screening for PTSD could help to overcome the disorder by identifying individuals at high risk of developing PTSD and providing them with early intervention or prevention strategies,” said study investigator Stacy-Ann Miller, MS.

She also noted that the biomarkers could be used to monitor treatment for PTSD, identify subtypes of PTSD, and lead to a new understanding of the mechanisms underlying PTSD.

The findings were presented at Discover BMB, the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
 

Toward better clinical assessment

The findings originated from research conducted by the Department of Defense–initiated PTSD Systems Biology Consortium. The consortium’s goals include developing a reproducible panel of blood-based biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity for PTSD diagnosis and is made up of about 45 researchers, led by Marti Jett, PhD, Charles Marmar, MD, and Francis J. Doyle III, PhD.

The researchers analyzed blood samples from 1,000 active-duty Army personnel from the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky. Participants were assessed before and after deployment to Afghanistan in February 2014 and are referred to as the Fort Campbell Cohort (FCC). Participants’ age ranged from 25 to 30 and approximately 6% were female.

Investigators collected blood samples from the service members and looked for four biomarkers: glycolytic ratio, arginine, serotonin, and glutamate. The team then divided the participants into four groups – those with PTSD (PTSD Checklist score above 30), those who were subthreshold for PTSD (PTSD Checklist score 15-30), those who had high resilience, and those who had low levels of resilience.

The resilience groups were determined based on answers to the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Intensive Combat Exposure (DRRI-D), the number of deployments, whether they had moderate or severe traumatic brain injury, and scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.

Those who scored in the high range at current or prior time points or who were PTSD/subthreshold at prior time points were placed in the low resilience group.

Ms. Miller noted that those in the PTSD group had more severe symptoms than those in the PTSD subthreshold group based on the longitudinal clinical assessment at 3-6 months, 5 years, and longer post deployment. The low resilience group had a much higher rate of PTSD post deployment than the high resilience group.

Investigators found participants with PTSD or subthreshold PTSD had significantly higher glycolic ratios and lower arginine than those with high resilience. They also found that those with PTSD had significantly lower serotonin and higher glutamate levels versus those with high resilience. These associations were independent of factors such as sex, age, body mass index, smoking, and caffeine consumption.

Ms. Miller said that the study results require further validation by the consortium’s labs and third-party labs.

“We are also interested in determining the most appropriate time to screen soldiers for PTSD, as it has been noted that the time period where we see the most psychological issues is around 2-3 months post return from deployment and when the soldier is preparing for their next assignment, perhaps a next deployment,” she said.

She added that previous studies have identified several promising biomarkers of PTSD. “However, like much of the research data, the study sample was comprised mainly of combat-exposed males. With more women serving on the front lines, the military faces new challenges in how combat affects females in the military,” including sex-specific biomarkers that will improve clinical assessment for female soldiers.

Eventually, the team would also like to be able to apply their research to the civilian population experiencing PTSD.

“Our research is anticipated to be useful in helping the medical provider select appropriate therapeutic interventions,” Ms. Miller said.

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

Investigators have identified four blood biomarkers that could potentially be used to predict, diagnose, and monitor treatment response for posttraumatic stress disorder.

“More accurate means of predicting or screening for PTSD could help to overcome the disorder by identifying individuals at high risk of developing PTSD and providing them with early intervention or prevention strategies,” said study investigator Stacy-Ann Miller, MS.

She also noted that the biomarkers could be used to monitor treatment for PTSD, identify subtypes of PTSD, and lead to a new understanding of the mechanisms underlying PTSD.

The findings were presented at Discover BMB, the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
 

Toward better clinical assessment

The findings originated from research conducted by the Department of Defense–initiated PTSD Systems Biology Consortium. The consortium’s goals include developing a reproducible panel of blood-based biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity for PTSD diagnosis and is made up of about 45 researchers, led by Marti Jett, PhD, Charles Marmar, MD, and Francis J. Doyle III, PhD.

The researchers analyzed blood samples from 1,000 active-duty Army personnel from the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky. Participants were assessed before and after deployment to Afghanistan in February 2014 and are referred to as the Fort Campbell Cohort (FCC). Participants’ age ranged from 25 to 30 and approximately 6% were female.

Investigators collected blood samples from the service members and looked for four biomarkers: glycolytic ratio, arginine, serotonin, and glutamate. The team then divided the participants into four groups – those with PTSD (PTSD Checklist score above 30), those who were subthreshold for PTSD (PTSD Checklist score 15-30), those who had high resilience, and those who had low levels of resilience.

The resilience groups were determined based on answers to the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Intensive Combat Exposure (DRRI-D), the number of deployments, whether they had moderate or severe traumatic brain injury, and scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.

Those who scored in the high range at current or prior time points or who were PTSD/subthreshold at prior time points were placed in the low resilience group.

Ms. Miller noted that those in the PTSD group had more severe symptoms than those in the PTSD subthreshold group based on the longitudinal clinical assessment at 3-6 months, 5 years, and longer post deployment. The low resilience group had a much higher rate of PTSD post deployment than the high resilience group.

Investigators found participants with PTSD or subthreshold PTSD had significantly higher glycolic ratios and lower arginine than those with high resilience. They also found that those with PTSD had significantly lower serotonin and higher glutamate levels versus those with high resilience. These associations were independent of factors such as sex, age, body mass index, smoking, and caffeine consumption.

Ms. Miller said that the study results require further validation by the consortium’s labs and third-party labs.

“We are also interested in determining the most appropriate time to screen soldiers for PTSD, as it has been noted that the time period where we see the most psychological issues is around 2-3 months post return from deployment and when the soldier is preparing for their next assignment, perhaps a next deployment,” she said.

She added that previous studies have identified several promising biomarkers of PTSD. “However, like much of the research data, the study sample was comprised mainly of combat-exposed males. With more women serving on the front lines, the military faces new challenges in how combat affects females in the military,” including sex-specific biomarkers that will improve clinical assessment for female soldiers.

Eventually, the team would also like to be able to apply their research to the civilian population experiencing PTSD.

“Our research is anticipated to be useful in helping the medical provider select appropriate therapeutic interventions,” Ms. Miller said.

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

Investigators have identified four blood biomarkers that could potentially be used to predict, diagnose, and monitor treatment response for posttraumatic stress disorder.

“More accurate means of predicting or screening for PTSD could help to overcome the disorder by identifying individuals at high risk of developing PTSD and providing them with early intervention or prevention strategies,” said study investigator Stacy-Ann Miller, MS.

She also noted that the biomarkers could be used to monitor treatment for PTSD, identify subtypes of PTSD, and lead to a new understanding of the mechanisms underlying PTSD.

The findings were presented at Discover BMB, the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
 

Toward better clinical assessment

The findings originated from research conducted by the Department of Defense–initiated PTSD Systems Biology Consortium. The consortium’s goals include developing a reproducible panel of blood-based biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity for PTSD diagnosis and is made up of about 45 researchers, led by Marti Jett, PhD, Charles Marmar, MD, and Francis J. Doyle III, PhD.

The researchers analyzed blood samples from 1,000 active-duty Army personnel from the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky. Participants were assessed before and after deployment to Afghanistan in February 2014 and are referred to as the Fort Campbell Cohort (FCC). Participants’ age ranged from 25 to 30 and approximately 6% were female.

Investigators collected blood samples from the service members and looked for four biomarkers: glycolytic ratio, arginine, serotonin, and glutamate. The team then divided the participants into four groups – those with PTSD (PTSD Checklist score above 30), those who were subthreshold for PTSD (PTSD Checklist score 15-30), those who had high resilience, and those who had low levels of resilience.

The resilience groups were determined based on answers to the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Intensive Combat Exposure (DRRI-D), the number of deployments, whether they had moderate or severe traumatic brain injury, and scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.

Those who scored in the high range at current or prior time points or who were PTSD/subthreshold at prior time points were placed in the low resilience group.

Ms. Miller noted that those in the PTSD group had more severe symptoms than those in the PTSD subthreshold group based on the longitudinal clinical assessment at 3-6 months, 5 years, and longer post deployment. The low resilience group had a much higher rate of PTSD post deployment than the high resilience group.

Investigators found participants with PTSD or subthreshold PTSD had significantly higher glycolic ratios and lower arginine than those with high resilience. They also found that those with PTSD had significantly lower serotonin and higher glutamate levels versus those with high resilience. These associations were independent of factors such as sex, age, body mass index, smoking, and caffeine consumption.

Ms. Miller said that the study results require further validation by the consortium’s labs and third-party labs.

“We are also interested in determining the most appropriate time to screen soldiers for PTSD, as it has been noted that the time period where we see the most psychological issues is around 2-3 months post return from deployment and when the soldier is preparing for their next assignment, perhaps a next deployment,” she said.

She added that previous studies have identified several promising biomarkers of PTSD. “However, like much of the research data, the study sample was comprised mainly of combat-exposed males. With more women serving on the front lines, the military faces new challenges in how combat affects females in the military,” including sex-specific biomarkers that will improve clinical assessment for female soldiers.

Eventually, the team would also like to be able to apply their research to the civilian population experiencing PTSD.

“Our research is anticipated to be useful in helping the medical provider select appropriate therapeutic interventions,” Ms. Miller said.

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

Two biomarkers present in blood measured on the day of traumatic brain injury (TBI) can accurately predict a patient’s risk for death or severe disability 6 months later, new research suggests.

In new data from the TRACK-TBI study group, high levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) proteins found in glial cells and neurons, respectively, correlated with death and severe injury. Investigators note that measuring these biomarkers may give a more accurate assessment of a patient’s prognosis following TBI.

This study is the “first report of the accuracy of a blood test that can be obtained rapidly on the day of injury to predict neurological recovery at 6 months after injury,” lead author Frederick Korley, MD, PhD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in the Lancet Neurology.
 

Added value

The researchers measured GFAP and UCH-L1 in blood samples taken from 1,696 patients with TBI on the day of their injury, and they assessed patient recovery 6 months later.

The markers were measured using the i-STAT TBI Plasma test (Abbott Labs). The test was approved in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine which patients with mild TBI should undergo computed tomography scans.

About two-thirds of the study population were men, and the average age was 39 years. All patients were evaluated at Level I trauma centers for injuries caused primarily by traffic accidents or falls.

Six months following injury, 7% of the patients had died and 14% had an unfavorable outcome, ranging from vegetative state to severe disability requiring daily support. In addition, 67% had incomplete recovery, ranging from moderate disabilities requiring assistance outside of the home to minor disabling neurological or psychological deficits.

Day-of-injury GFAP and UCH-L1 levels had a high probability of predicting death (87% for GFAP and 89% for UCH-L1) and severe disability (86% for both GFAP and UCH-L1) at 6 months, the investigators reported.

The biomarkers were less accurate in predicting incomplete recovery (62% for GFAP and 61% for UCH-L1).

The researchers also assessed the added value of combining the blood biomarkers to current TBI prognostic models that take into account variables such as age, motor score, pupil reactivity, and CT characteristics.

In patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-12, adding GFAP and UCH-L1 alone or combined to each of the three International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) models significantly increased their accuracy for predicting death (range, 90%-94%) and unfavorable outcome (range, 83%-89%).

In patients with milder TBI (GCS score, 13-15), adding GFAP and UCH-L1 to the UPFRONT prognostic model modestly increased accuracy for predicting incomplete recovery (69%).
 

‘Important’ findings

Commenting on the study, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, said this “critical” study shows that these biomarkers can “predict key outcomes,” including mortality and severe disability. “Thus, in conjunction with clinical evaluations and related data such as neuroimaging, these tests may warrant translation to broader clinical practice, particularly in acute settings,” said Dr. Raji, who was not involved in the research.

Also weighing in, Heidi Fusco, MD, assistant director of the traumatic brain injury program at NYU Langone Rusk Rehabilitation, said the findings are “important.”

“Prognosis after brain injury often is based on the initial presentation, ongoing clinical exams, and neuroimaging; and the addition of biomarkers would contribute to creating a more objective prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

She noted “it’s unclear” whether clinical hospital laboratories would be able to accommodate this type of laboratory drawing.

“It is imperative that clinicians still use the patient history [and] clinical and radiological exam when making clinical decisions for a patient and not just lab values. It would be best to incorporate the GFAP and UCH-L1 into a preexisting prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, One Mind, and U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. Dr. Korley reported having previously consulted for Abbott Laboratories and has received research funding from Abbott Laboratories, which makes the assays used in the study. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader ApS and Neurevolution. Dr. Fusco has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two biomarkers present in blood measured on the day of traumatic brain injury (TBI) can accurately predict a patient’s risk for death or severe disability 6 months later, new research suggests.

In new data from the TRACK-TBI study group, high levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) proteins found in glial cells and neurons, respectively, correlated with death and severe injury. Investigators note that measuring these biomarkers may give a more accurate assessment of a patient’s prognosis following TBI.

This study is the “first report of the accuracy of a blood test that can be obtained rapidly on the day of injury to predict neurological recovery at 6 months after injury,” lead author Frederick Korley, MD, PhD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in the Lancet Neurology.
 

Added value

The researchers measured GFAP and UCH-L1 in blood samples taken from 1,696 patients with TBI on the day of their injury, and they assessed patient recovery 6 months later.

The markers were measured using the i-STAT TBI Plasma test (Abbott Labs). The test was approved in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine which patients with mild TBI should undergo computed tomography scans.

About two-thirds of the study population were men, and the average age was 39 years. All patients were evaluated at Level I trauma centers for injuries caused primarily by traffic accidents or falls.

Six months following injury, 7% of the patients had died and 14% had an unfavorable outcome, ranging from vegetative state to severe disability requiring daily support. In addition, 67% had incomplete recovery, ranging from moderate disabilities requiring assistance outside of the home to minor disabling neurological or psychological deficits.

Day-of-injury GFAP and UCH-L1 levels had a high probability of predicting death (87% for GFAP and 89% for UCH-L1) and severe disability (86% for both GFAP and UCH-L1) at 6 months, the investigators reported.

The biomarkers were less accurate in predicting incomplete recovery (62% for GFAP and 61% for UCH-L1).

The researchers also assessed the added value of combining the blood biomarkers to current TBI prognostic models that take into account variables such as age, motor score, pupil reactivity, and CT characteristics.

In patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-12, adding GFAP and UCH-L1 alone or combined to each of the three International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) models significantly increased their accuracy for predicting death (range, 90%-94%) and unfavorable outcome (range, 83%-89%).

In patients with milder TBI (GCS score, 13-15), adding GFAP and UCH-L1 to the UPFRONT prognostic model modestly increased accuracy for predicting incomplete recovery (69%).
 

‘Important’ findings

Commenting on the study, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, said this “critical” study shows that these biomarkers can “predict key outcomes,” including mortality and severe disability. “Thus, in conjunction with clinical evaluations and related data such as neuroimaging, these tests may warrant translation to broader clinical practice, particularly in acute settings,” said Dr. Raji, who was not involved in the research.

Also weighing in, Heidi Fusco, MD, assistant director of the traumatic brain injury program at NYU Langone Rusk Rehabilitation, said the findings are “important.”

“Prognosis after brain injury often is based on the initial presentation, ongoing clinical exams, and neuroimaging; and the addition of biomarkers would contribute to creating a more objective prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

She noted “it’s unclear” whether clinical hospital laboratories would be able to accommodate this type of laboratory drawing.

“It is imperative that clinicians still use the patient history [and] clinical and radiological exam when making clinical decisions for a patient and not just lab values. It would be best to incorporate the GFAP and UCH-L1 into a preexisting prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, One Mind, and U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. Dr. Korley reported having previously consulted for Abbott Laboratories and has received research funding from Abbott Laboratories, which makes the assays used in the study. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader ApS and Neurevolution. Dr. Fusco has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two biomarkers present in blood measured on the day of traumatic brain injury (TBI) can accurately predict a patient’s risk for death or severe disability 6 months later, new research suggests.

In new data from the TRACK-TBI study group, high levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) proteins found in glial cells and neurons, respectively, correlated with death and severe injury. Investigators note that measuring these biomarkers may give a more accurate assessment of a patient’s prognosis following TBI.

This study is the “first report of the accuracy of a blood test that can be obtained rapidly on the day of injury to predict neurological recovery at 6 months after injury,” lead author Frederick Korley, MD, PhD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in the Lancet Neurology.
 

Added value

The researchers measured GFAP and UCH-L1 in blood samples taken from 1,696 patients with TBI on the day of their injury, and they assessed patient recovery 6 months later.

The markers were measured using the i-STAT TBI Plasma test (Abbott Labs). The test was approved in 2021 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine which patients with mild TBI should undergo computed tomography scans.

About two-thirds of the study population were men, and the average age was 39 years. All patients were evaluated at Level I trauma centers for injuries caused primarily by traffic accidents or falls.

Six months following injury, 7% of the patients had died and 14% had an unfavorable outcome, ranging from vegetative state to severe disability requiring daily support. In addition, 67% had incomplete recovery, ranging from moderate disabilities requiring assistance outside of the home to minor disabling neurological or psychological deficits.

Day-of-injury GFAP and UCH-L1 levels had a high probability of predicting death (87% for GFAP and 89% for UCH-L1) and severe disability (86% for both GFAP and UCH-L1) at 6 months, the investigators reported.

The biomarkers were less accurate in predicting incomplete recovery (62% for GFAP and 61% for UCH-L1).

The researchers also assessed the added value of combining the blood biomarkers to current TBI prognostic models that take into account variables such as age, motor score, pupil reactivity, and CT characteristics.

In patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-12, adding GFAP and UCH-L1 alone or combined to each of the three International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI (IMPACT) models significantly increased their accuracy for predicting death (range, 90%-94%) and unfavorable outcome (range, 83%-89%).

In patients with milder TBI (GCS score, 13-15), adding GFAP and UCH-L1 to the UPFRONT prognostic model modestly increased accuracy for predicting incomplete recovery (69%).
 

‘Important’ findings

Commenting on the study, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, said this “critical” study shows that these biomarkers can “predict key outcomes,” including mortality and severe disability. “Thus, in conjunction with clinical evaluations and related data such as neuroimaging, these tests may warrant translation to broader clinical practice, particularly in acute settings,” said Dr. Raji, who was not involved in the research.

Also weighing in, Heidi Fusco, MD, assistant director of the traumatic brain injury program at NYU Langone Rusk Rehabilitation, said the findings are “important.”

“Prognosis after brain injury often is based on the initial presentation, ongoing clinical exams, and neuroimaging; and the addition of biomarkers would contribute to creating a more objective prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

She noted “it’s unclear” whether clinical hospital laboratories would be able to accommodate this type of laboratory drawing.

“It is imperative that clinicians still use the patient history [and] clinical and radiological exam when making clinical decisions for a patient and not just lab values. It would be best to incorporate the GFAP and UCH-L1 into a preexisting prognostic model,” Dr. Fusco said.

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, the U.S. Department of Defense, One Mind, and U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. Dr. Korley reported having previously consulted for Abbott Laboratories and has received research funding from Abbott Laboratories, which makes the assays used in the study. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader ApS and Neurevolution. Dr. Fusco has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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