MDedge Neurology

The next generation of COVID-19 vaccines should be able to fight off a new strain and be given each year, a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration said April 6.

But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.

The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.

“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”

The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.

The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”

The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.

“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.

Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.

Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.

“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
 

Not enough information to make broader plan

The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.

But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.

“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.

In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.

It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.

Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”


 

More like flu vaccine?

The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.

The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.

COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”

“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”

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

The next generation of COVID-19 vaccines should be able to fight off a new strain and be given each year, a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration said April 6.

But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.

The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.

“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”

The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.

The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”

The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.

“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.

Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.

Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.

“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
 

Not enough information to make broader plan

The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.

But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.

“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.

In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.

It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.

Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”


 

More like flu vaccine?

The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.

The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.

COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”

“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”

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

The next generation of COVID-19 vaccines should be able to fight off a new strain and be given each year, a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration said April 6.

But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.

The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.

“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”

The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.

The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”

The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.

“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.

Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.

Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.

“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
 

Not enough information to make broader plan

The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.

But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.

“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.

In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.

It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.

Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”


 

More like flu vaccine?

The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.

The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.

COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”

“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”

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

After more than a decade of moving because of medical school, residencies, and international fellowships, Abhi Kole, MD, PhD, is ready to put down roots. But he’s learning that buying a house in today’s housing market is easier said than done.

In the past 6 months, Dr. Kole, an internist at Grady Hospital in Atlanta, put in offers on three houses. None resulted in a purchase. Dr. Kole says he’s learned how to be more competitive with each subsequent offer, starting out with a bid significantly above the asking price and waiving his right to an appraisal or financing contingencies.

The experience has been surprising and disappointing.

“I knew the market was bad when I started looking and that home prices had gone up,” Dr. Kole says. “What I didn’t realize was that it would still be so hard for me. I have a good job, no debt, and great credit.”

Another frustration for Dr. Kole: He’s been approved for a physician’s loan (a type of mortgage that requires a lower down payment and does not count student loans in debt-to-income calculations) from a national bank, but sellers seem to prefer buyers who work with local lenders. Dr. Kole has been willing to waive the appraisal and mortgage contingency on the right home, but he draws the line at waiving the inspection, a trend that some other buyers in his area are going along with.

“With each house, I learn more about how this works and what amount of risk I can safely assume,” Dr. Kobe says. “There are certain things I definitely wouldn’t give up.”

Dr. Kole’s experience mirrors that of millions of other would-be homebuyers navigating a strong seller’s market.

“Potential homebuyers are really facing a triple threat right now,” says Clare Losey, an assistant research economist with the Texas Real Estate Research Center. “There’s high home appreciation, high mortgage rates, and low inventory of homes for sale.”

It’s still possible to find — and buy — your dream home, even in today’s market with all its challenges. Here are some important steps that can help you.
 

1. Do not low ball.

There may be some cases in which you can save money by making an offer significantly below the asking price on a property. However, with most housing areas across the country experiencing a seller’s market, you run the risk of offending the buyer or being dismissed as not having a serious offer.

In today’s market, a better strategy is to go in with close to your best and final offer from the start, realtors say. It can help to waive the appraisal or financing contingency as well, although it’s important to understand the risk associated with doing so. Last month, the average home sold for 103% of the list price, according to data compiled from Statista.
 

2. Get credit ready.

The better your credit, the easier time you’ll have getting a mortgage — and the lower the rate you’ll pay for the loan. The average first-time homebuyer has a credit score of 746, according to a recent paper by Fannie Mae. If you know you’re going to buy a home in the next few months, you can improve your credit by making sure to pay all your bills on time and by avoiding taking on any new debt.

This is also a good opportunity to check your credit report (get all three reports for free from AnnualCreditReport.com) to see whether there are any mistakes or other problems that you’ll need to clear up before applying for a loan. Also, take a look at your credit-utilization ratio (the amount of credit you use compared to the amount available to you). Experts recommend keeping this number below 30%.
 

3. Prepare to move quickly.

Among homes that closed in March, the average number of days on the market (the amount of time between listing and closing) was just 38 days, according to Realtor.com. In busy markets, homes are moving even faster, realtors say, with sellers commonly accepting offers within days of listing their house for sale.

“It’s crazy,” says Sarah Scattini, president of the Reno/Sparks Association of Realtors. “The market is moving extremely fast here. If you list your home, your sale is pending within 5 days.”

In addition to moving quickly to make your initial offer, do the same if a buyer counters with a negotiation. A speedy response will show the buyer that you’re very interested — and to beat out any other bidders who may have also received a counteroffer.
 

4. Shop around for mortgages.

Especially for first-time homebuyers, the process will go much more smoothly if you’ve got a team of professionals to help you. Look for a realtor and a mortgage lender who have experience working with first-time homebuyers and with physicians, if possible.

Since mortgage rates can vary wildly, you’ll want to shop around a bit before settling on a lender. Get quotes from a local lender, an online lender, and, potentially, a credit union or a mortgage broker to get a sense of the types of mortgages and rates available to you.

“With multiple offers on every single listing, you really want to align yourself with a great realtor who can negotiate for you on your behalf and navigate you through this very tricky market,” says Ms. Scattini.

For both your realtor and your lender, you’ll want to know up front how they get paid and how they calculate their fees. Typically, the real estate agents for buyers and sellers split a 6% commission on home sales, meaning that your realtor will likely take home 3% of the purchase price.
 

5. Get preapproved.

Once you’ve settled on a lender, getting preapproved for a mortgage can make your offer more appealing to potential buyers. Preapproval is an in-depth process in which lenders pull your credit and look at other financial factors, such as your income and assets, to tell you ahead of time how much you could borrow under their standards and how much that might cost you.

These days, a large number of buyers are coming in with a cash offer, which in former times was considered very appealing to sellers. However, preapproval helps equalize buyers, and as one seller noted, “I don’t care if it’s cash or mortgage, as long as I get the money.”

If, like most homebuyers, you need a mortgage to finance the purchase, having preapproval can provide some assurance to sellers that your offer won’t fall through because you can’t qualify for the mortgage you expected. Once you’ve received preapproval, don’t open any new credit accounts. If your credit score goes down, the amount you can borrow could decline as well.
 

6. Firm up your budget.

While the preapproval process will tell you how much a lender thinks you can afford, it typically makes sense to come up with your own budget as well. That’s because banks and other mortgage lenders may approve you for much more than you want or are able to pay for a home.

You’ll want to factor in future costs of homeowners as well as any other (current or future) expenses for which the lender may not have accounted. For example, if you’re planning to have children soon, you may want to lower your budget to factor in the cost of childcare.

Knowing your budget ahead of time, and looking only at houses that fall within it, will prevent you from falling in love with a house that you really can’t afford.
 

7. Stick with it.

Buying a house in today’s market is no easy task. The first part of the process requires simply looking at multiple houses to get a sense of how far your budget will go and whether there are homes that meet your requirements.

If you’re sure that purchasing a home is the best financial move for you, don’t give up. Instead, consider whether you can make adjustments that could widen your pool of potential homes. That may mean changing your budget, moving a little further out geographically, or opting for a house that needs a little more work than you expected.

That said, while the pace of price increases will likely moderate, it’s unlikely prices will go down significantly in the future.

“We might see home price appreciation subside to levels close to 10% to 15% [from 20% last year] or even just 5% to 10%,” Ms. Losey says. “When you do the math, home prices just can’t continue to go up 20% year over year.”

Dr. Kobe is planning to keep looking for his home for at least the next several months.

“Prices are still going up, but we are hearing that the inventory will increase over the summer,” he says. “I’m still out looking for the right house, and I’m ready to make an offer.”

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

After more than a decade of moving because of medical school, residencies, and international fellowships, Abhi Kole, MD, PhD, is ready to put down roots. But he’s learning that buying a house in today’s housing market is easier said than done.

In the past 6 months, Dr. Kole, an internist at Grady Hospital in Atlanta, put in offers on three houses. None resulted in a purchase. Dr. Kole says he’s learned how to be more competitive with each subsequent offer, starting out with a bid significantly above the asking price and waiving his right to an appraisal or financing contingencies.

The experience has been surprising and disappointing.

“I knew the market was bad when I started looking and that home prices had gone up,” Dr. Kole says. “What I didn’t realize was that it would still be so hard for me. I have a good job, no debt, and great credit.”

Another frustration for Dr. Kole: He’s been approved for a physician’s loan (a type of mortgage that requires a lower down payment and does not count student loans in debt-to-income calculations) from a national bank, but sellers seem to prefer buyers who work with local lenders. Dr. Kole has been willing to waive the appraisal and mortgage contingency on the right home, but he draws the line at waiving the inspection, a trend that some other buyers in his area are going along with.

“With each house, I learn more about how this works and what amount of risk I can safely assume,” Dr. Kobe says. “There are certain things I definitely wouldn’t give up.”

Dr. Kole’s experience mirrors that of millions of other would-be homebuyers navigating a strong seller’s market.

“Potential homebuyers are really facing a triple threat right now,” says Clare Losey, an assistant research economist with the Texas Real Estate Research Center. “There’s high home appreciation, high mortgage rates, and low inventory of homes for sale.”

It’s still possible to find — and buy — your dream home, even in today’s market with all its challenges. Here are some important steps that can help you.
 

1. Do not low ball.

There may be some cases in which you can save money by making an offer significantly below the asking price on a property. However, with most housing areas across the country experiencing a seller’s market, you run the risk of offending the buyer or being dismissed as not having a serious offer.

In today’s market, a better strategy is to go in with close to your best and final offer from the start, realtors say. It can help to waive the appraisal or financing contingency as well, although it’s important to understand the risk associated with doing so. Last month, the average home sold for 103% of the list price, according to data compiled from Statista.
 

2. Get credit ready.

The better your credit, the easier time you’ll have getting a mortgage — and the lower the rate you’ll pay for the loan. The average first-time homebuyer has a credit score of 746, according to a recent paper by Fannie Mae. If you know you’re going to buy a home in the next few months, you can improve your credit by making sure to pay all your bills on time and by avoiding taking on any new debt.

This is also a good opportunity to check your credit report (get all three reports for free from AnnualCreditReport.com) to see whether there are any mistakes or other problems that you’ll need to clear up before applying for a loan. Also, take a look at your credit-utilization ratio (the amount of credit you use compared to the amount available to you). Experts recommend keeping this number below 30%.
 

3. Prepare to move quickly.

Among homes that closed in March, the average number of days on the market (the amount of time between listing and closing) was just 38 days, according to Realtor.com. In busy markets, homes are moving even faster, realtors say, with sellers commonly accepting offers within days of listing their house for sale.

“It’s crazy,” says Sarah Scattini, president of the Reno/Sparks Association of Realtors. “The market is moving extremely fast here. If you list your home, your sale is pending within 5 days.”

In addition to moving quickly to make your initial offer, do the same if a buyer counters with a negotiation. A speedy response will show the buyer that you’re very interested — and to beat out any other bidders who may have also received a counteroffer.
 

4. Shop around for mortgages.

Especially for first-time homebuyers, the process will go much more smoothly if you’ve got a team of professionals to help you. Look for a realtor and a mortgage lender who have experience working with first-time homebuyers and with physicians, if possible.

Since mortgage rates can vary wildly, you’ll want to shop around a bit before settling on a lender. Get quotes from a local lender, an online lender, and, potentially, a credit union or a mortgage broker to get a sense of the types of mortgages and rates available to you.

“With multiple offers on every single listing, you really want to align yourself with a great realtor who can negotiate for you on your behalf and navigate you through this very tricky market,” says Ms. Scattini.

For both your realtor and your lender, you’ll want to know up front how they get paid and how they calculate their fees. Typically, the real estate agents for buyers and sellers split a 6% commission on home sales, meaning that your realtor will likely take home 3% of the purchase price.
 

5. Get preapproved.

Once you’ve settled on a lender, getting preapproved for a mortgage can make your offer more appealing to potential buyers. Preapproval is an in-depth process in which lenders pull your credit and look at other financial factors, such as your income and assets, to tell you ahead of time how much you could borrow under their standards and how much that might cost you.

These days, a large number of buyers are coming in with a cash offer, which in former times was considered very appealing to sellers. However, preapproval helps equalize buyers, and as one seller noted, “I don’t care if it’s cash or mortgage, as long as I get the money.”

If, like most homebuyers, you need a mortgage to finance the purchase, having preapproval can provide some assurance to sellers that your offer won’t fall through because you can’t qualify for the mortgage you expected. Once you’ve received preapproval, don’t open any new credit accounts. If your credit score goes down, the amount you can borrow could decline as well.
 

6. Firm up your budget.

While the preapproval process will tell you how much a lender thinks you can afford, it typically makes sense to come up with your own budget as well. That’s because banks and other mortgage lenders may approve you for much more than you want or are able to pay for a home.

You’ll want to factor in future costs of homeowners as well as any other (current or future) expenses for which the lender may not have accounted. For example, if you’re planning to have children soon, you may want to lower your budget to factor in the cost of childcare.

Knowing your budget ahead of time, and looking only at houses that fall within it, will prevent you from falling in love with a house that you really can’t afford.
 

7. Stick with it.

Buying a house in today’s market is no easy task. The first part of the process requires simply looking at multiple houses to get a sense of how far your budget will go and whether there are homes that meet your requirements.

If you’re sure that purchasing a home is the best financial move for you, don’t give up. Instead, consider whether you can make adjustments that could widen your pool of potential homes. That may mean changing your budget, moving a little further out geographically, or opting for a house that needs a little more work than you expected.

That said, while the pace of price increases will likely moderate, it’s unlikely prices will go down significantly in the future.

“We might see home price appreciation subside to levels close to 10% to 15% [from 20% last year] or even just 5% to 10%,” Ms. Losey says. “When you do the math, home prices just can’t continue to go up 20% year over year.”

Dr. Kobe is planning to keep looking for his home for at least the next several months.

“Prices are still going up, but we are hearing that the inventory will increase over the summer,” he says. “I’m still out looking for the right house, and I’m ready to make an offer.”

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

After more than a decade of moving because of medical school, residencies, and international fellowships, Abhi Kole, MD, PhD, is ready to put down roots. But he’s learning that buying a house in today’s housing market is easier said than done.

In the past 6 months, Dr. Kole, an internist at Grady Hospital in Atlanta, put in offers on three houses. None resulted in a purchase. Dr. Kole says he’s learned how to be more competitive with each subsequent offer, starting out with a bid significantly above the asking price and waiving his right to an appraisal or financing contingencies.

The experience has been surprising and disappointing.

“I knew the market was bad when I started looking and that home prices had gone up,” Dr. Kole says. “What I didn’t realize was that it would still be so hard for me. I have a good job, no debt, and great credit.”

Another frustration for Dr. Kole: He’s been approved for a physician’s loan (a type of mortgage that requires a lower down payment and does not count student loans in debt-to-income calculations) from a national bank, but sellers seem to prefer buyers who work with local lenders. Dr. Kole has been willing to waive the appraisal and mortgage contingency on the right home, but he draws the line at waiving the inspection, a trend that some other buyers in his area are going along with.

“With each house, I learn more about how this works and what amount of risk I can safely assume,” Dr. Kobe says. “There are certain things I definitely wouldn’t give up.”

Dr. Kole’s experience mirrors that of millions of other would-be homebuyers navigating a strong seller’s market.

“Potential homebuyers are really facing a triple threat right now,” says Clare Losey, an assistant research economist with the Texas Real Estate Research Center. “There’s high home appreciation, high mortgage rates, and low inventory of homes for sale.”

It’s still possible to find — and buy — your dream home, even in today’s market with all its challenges. Here are some important steps that can help you.
 

1. Do not low ball.

There may be some cases in which you can save money by making an offer significantly below the asking price on a property. However, with most housing areas across the country experiencing a seller’s market, you run the risk of offending the buyer or being dismissed as not having a serious offer.

In today’s market, a better strategy is to go in with close to your best and final offer from the start, realtors say. It can help to waive the appraisal or financing contingency as well, although it’s important to understand the risk associated with doing so. Last month, the average home sold for 103% of the list price, according to data compiled from Statista.
 

2. Get credit ready.

The better your credit, the easier time you’ll have getting a mortgage — and the lower the rate you’ll pay for the loan. The average first-time homebuyer has a credit score of 746, according to a recent paper by Fannie Mae. If you know you’re going to buy a home in the next few months, you can improve your credit by making sure to pay all your bills on time and by avoiding taking on any new debt.

This is also a good opportunity to check your credit report (get all three reports for free from AnnualCreditReport.com) to see whether there are any mistakes or other problems that you’ll need to clear up before applying for a loan. Also, take a look at your credit-utilization ratio (the amount of credit you use compared to the amount available to you). Experts recommend keeping this number below 30%.
 

3. Prepare to move quickly.

Among homes that closed in March, the average number of days on the market (the amount of time between listing and closing) was just 38 days, according to Realtor.com. In busy markets, homes are moving even faster, realtors say, with sellers commonly accepting offers within days of listing their house for sale.

“It’s crazy,” says Sarah Scattini, president of the Reno/Sparks Association of Realtors. “The market is moving extremely fast here. If you list your home, your sale is pending within 5 days.”

In addition to moving quickly to make your initial offer, do the same if a buyer counters with a negotiation. A speedy response will show the buyer that you’re very interested — and to beat out any other bidders who may have also received a counteroffer.
 

4. Shop around for mortgages.

Especially for first-time homebuyers, the process will go much more smoothly if you’ve got a team of professionals to help you. Look for a realtor and a mortgage lender who have experience working with first-time homebuyers and with physicians, if possible.

Since mortgage rates can vary wildly, you’ll want to shop around a bit before settling on a lender. Get quotes from a local lender, an online lender, and, potentially, a credit union or a mortgage broker to get a sense of the types of mortgages and rates available to you.

“With multiple offers on every single listing, you really want to align yourself with a great realtor who can negotiate for you on your behalf and navigate you through this very tricky market,” says Ms. Scattini.

For both your realtor and your lender, you’ll want to know up front how they get paid and how they calculate their fees. Typically, the real estate agents for buyers and sellers split a 6% commission on home sales, meaning that your realtor will likely take home 3% of the purchase price.
 

5. Get preapproved.

Once you’ve settled on a lender, getting preapproved for a mortgage can make your offer more appealing to potential buyers. Preapproval is an in-depth process in which lenders pull your credit and look at other financial factors, such as your income and assets, to tell you ahead of time how much you could borrow under their standards and how much that might cost you.

These days, a large number of buyers are coming in with a cash offer, which in former times was considered very appealing to sellers. However, preapproval helps equalize buyers, and as one seller noted, “I don’t care if it’s cash or mortgage, as long as I get the money.”

If, like most homebuyers, you need a mortgage to finance the purchase, having preapproval can provide some assurance to sellers that your offer won’t fall through because you can’t qualify for the mortgage you expected. Once you’ve received preapproval, don’t open any new credit accounts. If your credit score goes down, the amount you can borrow could decline as well.
 

6. Firm up your budget.

While the preapproval process will tell you how much a lender thinks you can afford, it typically makes sense to come up with your own budget as well. That’s because banks and other mortgage lenders may approve you for much more than you want or are able to pay for a home.

You’ll want to factor in future costs of homeowners as well as any other (current or future) expenses for which the lender may not have accounted. For example, if you’re planning to have children soon, you may want to lower your budget to factor in the cost of childcare.

Knowing your budget ahead of time, and looking only at houses that fall within it, will prevent you from falling in love with a house that you really can’t afford.
 

7. Stick with it.

Buying a house in today’s market is no easy task. The first part of the process requires simply looking at multiple houses to get a sense of how far your budget will go and whether there are homes that meet your requirements.

If you’re sure that purchasing a home is the best financial move for you, don’t give up. Instead, consider whether you can make adjustments that could widen your pool of potential homes. That may mean changing your budget, moving a little further out geographically, or opting for a house that needs a little more work than you expected.

That said, while the pace of price increases will likely moderate, it’s unlikely prices will go down significantly in the future.

“We might see home price appreciation subside to levels close to 10% to 15% [from 20% last year] or even just 5% to 10%,” Ms. Losey says. “When you do the math, home prices just can’t continue to go up 20% year over year.”

Dr. Kobe is planning to keep looking for his home for at least the next several months.

“Prices are still going up, but we are hearing that the inventory will increase over the summer,” he says. “I’m still out looking for the right house, and I’m ready to make an offer.”

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

A new study suggests that overgrowth of the amygdala in infants during the first 6-12 months of life is tied to a later diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

“The faster the amygdala grew in infancy, the more social difficulties the child showed when diagnosed with autism a year later,” first author Mark Shen, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and neuroscience, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

The study was published online  in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Unique to autism

The amygdala plays a key role in processing memory, emotional responses, and decisionmaking. 

It’s long been known that the amygdala is abnormally large in school-aged children with ASD, but until now, it was not known precisely when aberrant amygdala growth happens, what the clinical consequences may be, and whether amygdala overgrowth is unique to autism.

To investigate, Dr. Shen and colleagues evaluated 1,099 longitudinal MRI scans obtained during natural sleep at 6, 12, and 24 months of age in 408 infants in the Infant Brain Imaging Study (IBIS) Network.

The cohort included 58 infants at high likelihood of developing ASD who were later diagnosed with the disorder, 212 infants at high likelihood of ASD who did not develop ASD, 109 typically-developing control infants, and 29 infants with fragile X syndrome.

At 6 months, infants who developed ASD had typically sized amygdala volumes but showed significantly faster amygdala growth between 6 and 24 months, such that by 12 months the ASD group had significantly larger amygdala volume (Cohen’s d = 0.56), compared with all other groups.

Amygdala growth rate between 6 and 12 months was significantly associated with greater social deficits at 24 months when the children were diagnosed with ASD.

“We found that the amygdala grows too rapidly between 6 and 12 months of age, during a presymptomatic period in autism, prior to when the diagnostic symptoms of autism (social difficulties and repetitive behaviors) are evident and lead to the later diagnosis of autism,” Dr. Shen said in an interview.

This brain growth pattern appears to be unique to autism, as babies with the genetic disorder fragile X syndrome – another neurodevelopmental condition – showed a markedly different brain growth pattern: no differences in amygdala growth but enlargement of a different brain structure, the caudate, which was linked to increased repetitive behaviors, the investigators found.
 

Earlier intervention

Prior research has shown that children who are later diagnosed with ASD often display problems in infancy with how they attend to visual stimuli in their surroundings.

These early problems with processing visual and sensory information may put increased stress on the amygdala, potentially leading to amygdala hyperactivity, deficits in pruning dendritic connections, and overgrowth, Dr. Shen and colleagues hypothesize.

Amygdala overgrowth has also been linked to chronic stress in studies of other psychiatric conditions, such as depression and anxiety, and may provide a clue to understanding this observation in infants who later develop autism.

“This research suggests that an optimal time to begin supports for children who are at the highest likelihood of developing autism may be during the first year of life: to improve early precursors to social development, such as sensory processing, in babies even before social difficulties arise,” Dr. Shen said.

Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, said, “What makes this study important is the finding of abnormally increased amygdala growth rate in autism using a longitudinal design that focuses on earlier development.”

“While we are typically used to understanding brain structure as abnormally decreasing over time in certain disorders like Alzheimer’s disease, this study challenges us to understand that too much brain volume growth can also be abnormal in specific conditions,” Dr. Raji added.

This research was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and National Institute of Mental Health, along with Autism Speaks and the Simons Foundation. Dr. Shen and Dr. Raji have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study suggests that overgrowth of the amygdala in infants during the first 6-12 months of life is tied to a later diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

“The faster the amygdala grew in infancy, the more social difficulties the child showed when diagnosed with autism a year later,” first author Mark Shen, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and neuroscience, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

The study was published online  in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Unique to autism

The amygdala plays a key role in processing memory, emotional responses, and decisionmaking. 

It’s long been known that the amygdala is abnormally large in school-aged children with ASD, but until now, it was not known precisely when aberrant amygdala growth happens, what the clinical consequences may be, and whether amygdala overgrowth is unique to autism.

To investigate, Dr. Shen and colleagues evaluated 1,099 longitudinal MRI scans obtained during natural sleep at 6, 12, and 24 months of age in 408 infants in the Infant Brain Imaging Study (IBIS) Network.

The cohort included 58 infants at high likelihood of developing ASD who were later diagnosed with the disorder, 212 infants at high likelihood of ASD who did not develop ASD, 109 typically-developing control infants, and 29 infants with fragile X syndrome.

At 6 months, infants who developed ASD had typically sized amygdala volumes but showed significantly faster amygdala growth between 6 and 24 months, such that by 12 months the ASD group had significantly larger amygdala volume (Cohen’s d = 0.56), compared with all other groups.

Amygdala growth rate between 6 and 12 months was significantly associated with greater social deficits at 24 months when the children were diagnosed with ASD.

“We found that the amygdala grows too rapidly between 6 and 12 months of age, during a presymptomatic period in autism, prior to when the diagnostic symptoms of autism (social difficulties and repetitive behaviors) are evident and lead to the later diagnosis of autism,” Dr. Shen said in an interview.

This brain growth pattern appears to be unique to autism, as babies with the genetic disorder fragile X syndrome – another neurodevelopmental condition – showed a markedly different brain growth pattern: no differences in amygdala growth but enlargement of a different brain structure, the caudate, which was linked to increased repetitive behaviors, the investigators found.
 

Earlier intervention

Prior research has shown that children who are later diagnosed with ASD often display problems in infancy with how they attend to visual stimuli in their surroundings.

These early problems with processing visual and sensory information may put increased stress on the amygdala, potentially leading to amygdala hyperactivity, deficits in pruning dendritic connections, and overgrowth, Dr. Shen and colleagues hypothesize.

Amygdala overgrowth has also been linked to chronic stress in studies of other psychiatric conditions, such as depression and anxiety, and may provide a clue to understanding this observation in infants who later develop autism.

“This research suggests that an optimal time to begin supports for children who are at the highest likelihood of developing autism may be during the first year of life: to improve early precursors to social development, such as sensory processing, in babies even before social difficulties arise,” Dr. Shen said.

Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, said, “What makes this study important is the finding of abnormally increased amygdala growth rate in autism using a longitudinal design that focuses on earlier development.”

“While we are typically used to understanding brain structure as abnormally decreasing over time in certain disorders like Alzheimer’s disease, this study challenges us to understand that too much brain volume growth can also be abnormal in specific conditions,” Dr. Raji added.

This research was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and National Institute of Mental Health, along with Autism Speaks and the Simons Foundation. Dr. Shen and Dr. Raji have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study suggests that overgrowth of the amygdala in infants during the first 6-12 months of life is tied to a later diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

“The faster the amygdala grew in infancy, the more social difficulties the child showed when diagnosed with autism a year later,” first author Mark Shen, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and neuroscience, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told this news organization.

The study was published online  in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Unique to autism

The amygdala plays a key role in processing memory, emotional responses, and decisionmaking. 

It’s long been known that the amygdala is abnormally large in school-aged children with ASD, but until now, it was not known precisely when aberrant amygdala growth happens, what the clinical consequences may be, and whether amygdala overgrowth is unique to autism.

To investigate, Dr. Shen and colleagues evaluated 1,099 longitudinal MRI scans obtained during natural sleep at 6, 12, and 24 months of age in 408 infants in the Infant Brain Imaging Study (IBIS) Network.

The cohort included 58 infants at high likelihood of developing ASD who were later diagnosed with the disorder, 212 infants at high likelihood of ASD who did not develop ASD, 109 typically-developing control infants, and 29 infants with fragile X syndrome.

At 6 months, infants who developed ASD had typically sized amygdala volumes but showed significantly faster amygdala growth between 6 and 24 months, such that by 12 months the ASD group had significantly larger amygdala volume (Cohen’s d = 0.56), compared with all other groups.

Amygdala growth rate between 6 and 12 months was significantly associated with greater social deficits at 24 months when the children were diagnosed with ASD.

“We found that the amygdala grows too rapidly between 6 and 12 months of age, during a presymptomatic period in autism, prior to when the diagnostic symptoms of autism (social difficulties and repetitive behaviors) are evident and lead to the later diagnosis of autism,” Dr. Shen said in an interview.

This brain growth pattern appears to be unique to autism, as babies with the genetic disorder fragile X syndrome – another neurodevelopmental condition – showed a markedly different brain growth pattern: no differences in amygdala growth but enlargement of a different brain structure, the caudate, which was linked to increased repetitive behaviors, the investigators found.
 

Earlier intervention

Prior research has shown that children who are later diagnosed with ASD often display problems in infancy with how they attend to visual stimuli in their surroundings.

These early problems with processing visual and sensory information may put increased stress on the amygdala, potentially leading to amygdala hyperactivity, deficits in pruning dendritic connections, and overgrowth, Dr. Shen and colleagues hypothesize.

Amygdala overgrowth has also been linked to chronic stress in studies of other psychiatric conditions, such as depression and anxiety, and may provide a clue to understanding this observation in infants who later develop autism.

“This research suggests that an optimal time to begin supports for children who are at the highest likelihood of developing autism may be during the first year of life: to improve early precursors to social development, such as sensory processing, in babies even before social difficulties arise,” Dr. Shen said.

Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, assistant professor of radiology and neurology, Washington University, St. Louis, said, “What makes this study important is the finding of abnormally increased amygdala growth rate in autism using a longitudinal design that focuses on earlier development.”

“While we are typically used to understanding brain structure as abnormally decreasing over time in certain disorders like Alzheimer’s disease, this study challenges us to understand that too much brain volume growth can also be abnormal in specific conditions,” Dr. Raji added.

This research was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and National Institute of Mental Health, along with Autism Speaks and the Simons Foundation. Dr. Shen and Dr. Raji have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I’d do anything for weight loss (but I won’t do that)

Weight loss isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. How many people step onto the scale in the morning and sigh, wishing they could lose that last 10 pounds?

Alcohol also isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. If there’s one thing more universal than wishing you could lose weight, it’s drinking to forget your woes about being unable to lose weight.

© Ljupco Smokovski/Fotolia.com

Naturally, and unfortunately for those of us who rather enjoy a good beer, one of the best ways to lose weight is to stop drinking. Alcohol is almost the definition of empty calories. So, which wins out: The unstoppable force of wanting to lose weight, or the immovable object of alcohol? According to a survey from DrugAbuse.com, it’s alcohol, and it’s not even close.

Even in a state with as health conscious a reputation as California, not only are people not willing to give up alcohol to lose weight, they’re willing to gain a noticeable amount of weight in order to continue drinking. It’s 14 pounds for Californians, which is in the middle of the road for America, which overall averaged 13 pounds to keep drinking. Hawaiians, South Dakotans, Utahns, and Vermonters were at the bottom, willing to add only 8 pounds to keep booze in their diet. At the other end of the scale, willing to add 28 whole pounds to keep the beer flowing, is humble little Rhode Island, followed by Wyoming at 23 pounds, Maryland at 22, and Tennessee at 21.

Obviously, that’s a lot of weight to gain, but to drive home the exact quantity of just how much weight, KRON-TV noted that adding the U.S. average of 13 pounds to your body is the equivalent of strapping 224 slices of bacon to yourself, which, to us, is just the poorest choice of comparison. If there’s one thing we’re less willing to give up than alcohol, it’s probably bacon. Or if you’re feeling especially ambitious, you could go for bacon-scented beer from the Waffle House. Now that’s a drink.
 

This looks like a job for the ‘magnetic slime robot’

What’s that? While you were in the process of gaining 14 pounds so you could keep drinking alcohol you swallowed something that you shouldn’t have? Did you swallow a lot of aggression?

openclipart/freesvg

You swallowed a what? An ear bud? But how did you manage that? No, never mind, we don’t really want to hear about your personal life. Lucky for you, though, today’s LOTME phrase that pays is “magnetic turd” and it’s just the thing for the busy executive/child with a foreign object stuck in their … whatever.

Yes, we said magnetic turd. Or, if you prefer, a “magnetic slime robot.” The black-brown–colored blob/robot/turd in question is an investigational substance that can be controlled magnetically to move through very narrow spaces and encircle small objects that have been accidentally swallowed, its cocreator, Li Zhang of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told the Guardian.

It’s made by combining the polymer polyvinyl alcohol with borax and particles of neodymium magnet. And since those neodymium particles are not particularly friendly to humans, Dr. Zhang and the research team coated the slime with silica to seal in the toxicity. The slime has the consistency of custard and exhibits “visco-elastic properties,” Dr. Zhang said, meaning that “sometimes it behaves like a solid, sometimes it behaves like a liquid.”

We could go on, telling you about the substance’s self-healing ability and electrical conductivity and how it does look very, very turd-like. Instead, we offer this link to the team’s really freaky video.

We’re going to be seeing that in our nightmares.
 

Fish: More than meets the fry?

When you think of fish, intelligence isn’t usually the first thing to pop into your head. Their short memory spans, which can be as little as 3 seconds, probably don’t help their cause.

Taken/Pixabay

Recently, though, it has become apparent that fish can be trained to do simple math problems like adding and subtracting. Research conducted in Germany has shown that cichlids – tropical fish often found in home aquariums – and stingrays can observe small quantities and know how many things are there without actually counting, kind of like how a human can look at a bowl of apples and know about how many are in it.

Fish, once thought to be not very smart, may be on the same level of intelligence as birds, suggested Vera Schluessel, PhD, of the University of Bonn’s Institute of Zoology, and associates.

“Successful fish showed abilities far above chance level, specifically in the stingrays. Again, this raises the question of what abilities fish may be capable of if being asked the ‘right’ question,” the researchers said in Scientific Reports.

They tried to teach the cichlids and stingrays how to add and subtract by recognizing colors: Blue meant to add one and yellow meant to subtract one. Gates were set up and when the fish chose a correct answer, they were rewarded with food. Although it took many sessions for the fish to completely catch on, they did figure it out eventually.

If fish are smarter than we thought, maybe we can stop paying for math tutors for our kids and just have the family goldfish do it.
 

For earthworms, not all plastics are created equal

Everything living on the earth has to deal with pollution in some way, including earthworms. Not only have they have adapted to eating plastics found in soil, they have preferences.

Piqsels

The earthworm is a little creature with a big job. The materials and minerals they munch on as they go through the earth get recycled through their tiny bodies to create more fertile soil for things to grow – making them the hidden heroes of every garden. But what about soil that’s full of microscopic plastic pieces? Well, turns out earthworms will eat that too, investigators from Nankai University in Tianjin, China, reported in Environmental Science & Technology.

The researchers looked at how these eating machines were digesting the plastic and found that they actually have preferences. Soils with bio-based polylactic acid (PLA) or petroleum-derived polyethylene terephthalate (PET) particles were a hit. Another test showed that the worms broke the PLA particles down into smaller fragments than the PET ones. So at least the “healthier” option agreed with them more. More work is needed, however, to determine if the worms are being harmed by all the waste they’re digesting.

So what does this mean for the evolution or even survival of this unsung hero of the planet? Scientists still need to dig into that question. No pun intended.

I’d do anything for weight loss (but I won’t do that)

Weight loss isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. How many people step onto the scale in the morning and sigh, wishing they could lose that last 10 pounds?

Alcohol also isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. If there’s one thing more universal than wishing you could lose weight, it’s drinking to forget your woes about being unable to lose weight.

© Ljupco Smokovski/Fotolia.com

Naturally, and unfortunately for those of us who rather enjoy a good beer, one of the best ways to lose weight is to stop drinking. Alcohol is almost the definition of empty calories. So, which wins out: The unstoppable force of wanting to lose weight, or the immovable object of alcohol? According to a survey from DrugAbuse.com, it’s alcohol, and it’s not even close.

Even in a state with as health conscious a reputation as California, not only are people not willing to give up alcohol to lose weight, they’re willing to gain a noticeable amount of weight in order to continue drinking. It’s 14 pounds for Californians, which is in the middle of the road for America, which overall averaged 13 pounds to keep drinking. Hawaiians, South Dakotans, Utahns, and Vermonters were at the bottom, willing to add only 8 pounds to keep booze in their diet. At the other end of the scale, willing to add 28 whole pounds to keep the beer flowing, is humble little Rhode Island, followed by Wyoming at 23 pounds, Maryland at 22, and Tennessee at 21.

Obviously, that’s a lot of weight to gain, but to drive home the exact quantity of just how much weight, KRON-TV noted that adding the U.S. average of 13 pounds to your body is the equivalent of strapping 224 slices of bacon to yourself, which, to us, is just the poorest choice of comparison. If there’s one thing we’re less willing to give up than alcohol, it’s probably bacon. Or if you’re feeling especially ambitious, you could go for bacon-scented beer from the Waffle House. Now that’s a drink.
 

This looks like a job for the ‘magnetic slime robot’

What’s that? While you were in the process of gaining 14 pounds so you could keep drinking alcohol you swallowed something that you shouldn’t have? Did you swallow a lot of aggression?

openclipart/freesvg

You swallowed a what? An ear bud? But how did you manage that? No, never mind, we don’t really want to hear about your personal life. Lucky for you, though, today’s LOTME phrase that pays is “magnetic turd” and it’s just the thing for the busy executive/child with a foreign object stuck in their … whatever.

Yes, we said magnetic turd. Or, if you prefer, a “magnetic slime robot.” The black-brown–colored blob/robot/turd in question is an investigational substance that can be controlled magnetically to move through very narrow spaces and encircle small objects that have been accidentally swallowed, its cocreator, Li Zhang of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told the Guardian.

It’s made by combining the polymer polyvinyl alcohol with borax and particles of neodymium magnet. And since those neodymium particles are not particularly friendly to humans, Dr. Zhang and the research team coated the slime with silica to seal in the toxicity. The slime has the consistency of custard and exhibits “visco-elastic properties,” Dr. Zhang said, meaning that “sometimes it behaves like a solid, sometimes it behaves like a liquid.”

We could go on, telling you about the substance’s self-healing ability and electrical conductivity and how it does look very, very turd-like. Instead, we offer this link to the team’s really freaky video.

We’re going to be seeing that in our nightmares.
 

Fish: More than meets the fry?

When you think of fish, intelligence isn’t usually the first thing to pop into your head. Their short memory spans, which can be as little as 3 seconds, probably don’t help their cause.

Taken/Pixabay

Recently, though, it has become apparent that fish can be trained to do simple math problems like adding and subtracting. Research conducted in Germany has shown that cichlids – tropical fish often found in home aquariums – and stingrays can observe small quantities and know how many things are there without actually counting, kind of like how a human can look at a bowl of apples and know about how many are in it.

Fish, once thought to be not very smart, may be on the same level of intelligence as birds, suggested Vera Schluessel, PhD, of the University of Bonn’s Institute of Zoology, and associates.

“Successful fish showed abilities far above chance level, specifically in the stingrays. Again, this raises the question of what abilities fish may be capable of if being asked the ‘right’ question,” the researchers said in Scientific Reports.

They tried to teach the cichlids and stingrays how to add and subtract by recognizing colors: Blue meant to add one and yellow meant to subtract one. Gates were set up and when the fish chose a correct answer, they were rewarded with food. Although it took many sessions for the fish to completely catch on, they did figure it out eventually.

If fish are smarter than we thought, maybe we can stop paying for math tutors for our kids and just have the family goldfish do it.
 

For earthworms, not all plastics are created equal

Everything living on the earth has to deal with pollution in some way, including earthworms. Not only have they have adapted to eating plastics found in soil, they have preferences.

Piqsels

The earthworm is a little creature with a big job. The materials and minerals they munch on as they go through the earth get recycled through their tiny bodies to create more fertile soil for things to grow – making them the hidden heroes of every garden. But what about soil that’s full of microscopic plastic pieces? Well, turns out earthworms will eat that too, investigators from Nankai University in Tianjin, China, reported in Environmental Science & Technology.

The researchers looked at how these eating machines were digesting the plastic and found that they actually have preferences. Soils with bio-based polylactic acid (PLA) or petroleum-derived polyethylene terephthalate (PET) particles were a hit. Another test showed that the worms broke the PLA particles down into smaller fragments than the PET ones. So at least the “healthier” option agreed with them more. More work is needed, however, to determine if the worms are being harmed by all the waste they’re digesting.

So what does this mean for the evolution or even survival of this unsung hero of the planet? Scientists still need to dig into that question. No pun intended.

I’d do anything for weight loss (but I won’t do that)

Weight loss isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. How many people step onto the scale in the morning and sigh, wishing they could lose that last 10 pounds?

Alcohol also isn’t a multibillion-dollar industry for nothing. If there’s one thing more universal than wishing you could lose weight, it’s drinking to forget your woes about being unable to lose weight.

© Ljupco Smokovski/Fotolia.com

Naturally, and unfortunately for those of us who rather enjoy a good beer, one of the best ways to lose weight is to stop drinking. Alcohol is almost the definition of empty calories. So, which wins out: The unstoppable force of wanting to lose weight, or the immovable object of alcohol? According to a survey from DrugAbuse.com, it’s alcohol, and it’s not even close.

Even in a state with as health conscious a reputation as California, not only are people not willing to give up alcohol to lose weight, they’re willing to gain a noticeable amount of weight in order to continue drinking. It’s 14 pounds for Californians, which is in the middle of the road for America, which overall averaged 13 pounds to keep drinking. Hawaiians, South Dakotans, Utahns, and Vermonters were at the bottom, willing to add only 8 pounds to keep booze in their diet. At the other end of the scale, willing to add 28 whole pounds to keep the beer flowing, is humble little Rhode Island, followed by Wyoming at 23 pounds, Maryland at 22, and Tennessee at 21.

Obviously, that’s a lot of weight to gain, but to drive home the exact quantity of just how much weight, KRON-TV noted that adding the U.S. average of 13 pounds to your body is the equivalent of strapping 224 slices of bacon to yourself, which, to us, is just the poorest choice of comparison. If there’s one thing we’re less willing to give up than alcohol, it’s probably bacon. Or if you’re feeling especially ambitious, you could go for bacon-scented beer from the Waffle House. Now that’s a drink.
 

This looks like a job for the ‘magnetic slime robot’

What’s that? While you were in the process of gaining 14 pounds so you could keep drinking alcohol you swallowed something that you shouldn’t have? Did you swallow a lot of aggression?

openclipart/freesvg

You swallowed a what? An ear bud? But how did you manage that? No, never mind, we don’t really want to hear about your personal life. Lucky for you, though, today’s LOTME phrase that pays is “magnetic turd” and it’s just the thing for the busy executive/child with a foreign object stuck in their … whatever.

Yes, we said magnetic turd. Or, if you prefer, a “magnetic slime robot.” The black-brown–colored blob/robot/turd in question is an investigational substance that can be controlled magnetically to move through very narrow spaces and encircle small objects that have been accidentally swallowed, its cocreator, Li Zhang of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told the Guardian.

It’s made by combining the polymer polyvinyl alcohol with borax and particles of neodymium magnet. And since those neodymium particles are not particularly friendly to humans, Dr. Zhang and the research team coated the slime with silica to seal in the toxicity. The slime has the consistency of custard and exhibits “visco-elastic properties,” Dr. Zhang said, meaning that “sometimes it behaves like a solid, sometimes it behaves like a liquid.”

We could go on, telling you about the substance’s self-healing ability and electrical conductivity and how it does look very, very turd-like. Instead, we offer this link to the team’s really freaky video.

We’re going to be seeing that in our nightmares.
 

Fish: More than meets the fry?

When you think of fish, intelligence isn’t usually the first thing to pop into your head. Their short memory spans, which can be as little as 3 seconds, probably don’t help their cause.

Taken/Pixabay

Recently, though, it has become apparent that fish can be trained to do simple math problems like adding and subtracting. Research conducted in Germany has shown that cichlids – tropical fish often found in home aquariums – and stingrays can observe small quantities and know how many things are there without actually counting, kind of like how a human can look at a bowl of apples and know about how many are in it.

Fish, once thought to be not very smart, may be on the same level of intelligence as birds, suggested Vera Schluessel, PhD, of the University of Bonn’s Institute of Zoology, and associates.

“Successful fish showed abilities far above chance level, specifically in the stingrays. Again, this raises the question of what abilities fish may be capable of if being asked the ‘right’ question,” the researchers said in Scientific Reports.

They tried to teach the cichlids and stingrays how to add and subtract by recognizing colors: Blue meant to add one and yellow meant to subtract one. Gates were set up and when the fish chose a correct answer, they were rewarded with food. Although it took many sessions for the fish to completely catch on, they did figure it out eventually.

If fish are smarter than we thought, maybe we can stop paying for math tutors for our kids and just have the family goldfish do it.
 

For earthworms, not all plastics are created equal

Everything living on the earth has to deal with pollution in some way, including earthworms. Not only have they have adapted to eating plastics found in soil, they have preferences.

Piqsels

The earthworm is a little creature with a big job. The materials and minerals they munch on as they go through the earth get recycled through their tiny bodies to create more fertile soil for things to grow – making them the hidden heroes of every garden. But what about soil that’s full of microscopic plastic pieces? Well, turns out earthworms will eat that too, investigators from Nankai University in Tianjin, China, reported in Environmental Science & Technology.

The researchers looked at how these eating machines were digesting the plastic and found that they actually have preferences. Soils with bio-based polylactic acid (PLA) or petroleum-derived polyethylene terephthalate (PET) particles were a hit. Another test showed that the worms broke the PLA particles down into smaller fragments than the PET ones. So at least the “healthier” option agreed with them more. More work is needed, however, to determine if the worms are being harmed by all the waste they’re digesting.

So what does this mean for the evolution or even survival of this unsung hero of the planet? Scientists still need to dig into that question. No pun intended.

SEATTLE – A novel treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) that targets brain cell energy production to promote remyelination showed signs of efficacy in a phase 2 trial, though it did not meet its primary endpoint, which was the change in the summated motor unit index (MUNIX) from baseline to week 36.

The drug, CNM-Au8, is being developed by Clene, and would represent a novel mechanism of action. “This is a brand-new approach. We used it complementary with riluzole and it was well tolerated, so I see this as an add-on therapy. I think if we can show some more positivity and longer-term results, it’s going to be a game changer for ALS,” Matthew Kiernan, MBBS, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Kiernan presented the results at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

Riluzole (Rilutek), which received Food and Drug Administration approval in 1995, inhibits glutamate release to counter excitotoxicity, which is believed to play a role in ALS, Huntington’s disease, ischemia, and other acute and chronic neurodegenerative diseases. The other FDA-approved agent for ALS is the neuroprotective agent and free-radical scavenger edaravone (Radicava), approved in 2017.

CNM-Au8 is made up of catalytically active gold nanocrystals that cross the blood-brain barrier, but lacks the toxicity associated with other synthetic gold compounds, according to the company. The formulation is also being investigated for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis. Basic research has shown that it stabilizes mitochondria and reduces accumulation of the TDP-43 protein, which is linked to spread of ALS through the brain, Dr. Kiernan said during his presentation.

The treatment is well tolerated. “Normally in an ALS trial, we see about a 25% dropout rate. There were no dropouts on the active compound in the clinical trial. There are less deaths, so improved survival,” said Dr. Kiernan, the Bushell chair of neurology at the University of Sydney and codirector of the Brain and Mind Center in Sydney.
 

Good safety signal

The fact that the trial missed its primary endpoint isn’t too concerning, according to Nicholas Johnson, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “ALS clinical trials are incredibly difficult to conduct, especially a phase 2 learning-phase clinical trial. At this phase, I’m much more buoyed by the fact that they have a good safety signal, and that they’re willing to move forward to that phase 3 clinical trial,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview. He is vice chair of research at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

A phase 3 clinical trial is in development in the United States and Europe. The drug also is included as part of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, which is testing multiple ALS therapies simultaneously. “The results from that should be available by the second half of this year and it will also inform us as to what the approach should be,” said Dr. Kiernan.

Dr. Johnson also was enthusiastic. “I’m excited to see the results in terms of the primary endpoints for that next phase 3 clinical trial,” he said.
 

Ongoing research

In September 2021, Clene announced a second expanded access program for people with ALS.

The study included a 36-week double-blind treatment period followed by long-term, open-label follow-up. Twenty-three patients received 30 mg CNM-Au8, and 22 received placebo. In the first 36 weeks, the treatment group was more likely to have no disease progression, defined as death, tracheostomy, noninvasive ventilation, or a gastronomy tube (P = .0125). The researchers compared the probability of experiencing a less than 6-point decline in the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale. At 12 weeks, it was about 85% in both groups. At 24 weeks, it was about 60% to 50% in favor of the CNM-Au8 group, and at 36 weeks it was about 50% to 20% (P = .0350).

At 36 weeks, quality of life as measured by the ALS Specific Quality of Life–Short Form was better in the treatment group at 36 weeks (mean change, 0.9; P = .0177).

Survival was better in the treatment group at 96 weeks than the mortality derived from a European Network for the Cure of ALS prediction model (hazard ratio [HR], 0.2974; P = .0068). This benefit also was experienced by patients who received drug throughout the study (HR, 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-1.1) and those who started out on placebo and converted to active drug during the open-label period (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.064-0.88).

The study was funded by Clene and FightMND. Dr. Kiernan and Dr. Johnson have no relevant financial disclosures.

SEATTLE – A novel treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) that targets brain cell energy production to promote remyelination showed signs of efficacy in a phase 2 trial, though it did not meet its primary endpoint, which was the change in the summated motor unit index (MUNIX) from baseline to week 36.

The drug, CNM-Au8, is being developed by Clene, and would represent a novel mechanism of action. “This is a brand-new approach. We used it complementary with riluzole and it was well tolerated, so I see this as an add-on therapy. I think if we can show some more positivity and longer-term results, it’s going to be a game changer for ALS,” Matthew Kiernan, MBBS, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Kiernan presented the results at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

Riluzole (Rilutek), which received Food and Drug Administration approval in 1995, inhibits glutamate release to counter excitotoxicity, which is believed to play a role in ALS, Huntington’s disease, ischemia, and other acute and chronic neurodegenerative diseases. The other FDA-approved agent for ALS is the neuroprotective agent and free-radical scavenger edaravone (Radicava), approved in 2017.

CNM-Au8 is made up of catalytically active gold nanocrystals that cross the blood-brain barrier, but lacks the toxicity associated with other synthetic gold compounds, according to the company. The formulation is also being investigated for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis. Basic research has shown that it stabilizes mitochondria and reduces accumulation of the TDP-43 protein, which is linked to spread of ALS through the brain, Dr. Kiernan said during his presentation.

The treatment is well tolerated. “Normally in an ALS trial, we see about a 25% dropout rate. There were no dropouts on the active compound in the clinical trial. There are less deaths, so improved survival,” said Dr. Kiernan, the Bushell chair of neurology at the University of Sydney and codirector of the Brain and Mind Center in Sydney.
 

Good safety signal

The fact that the trial missed its primary endpoint isn’t too concerning, according to Nicholas Johnson, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “ALS clinical trials are incredibly difficult to conduct, especially a phase 2 learning-phase clinical trial. At this phase, I’m much more buoyed by the fact that they have a good safety signal, and that they’re willing to move forward to that phase 3 clinical trial,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview. He is vice chair of research at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

A phase 3 clinical trial is in development in the United States and Europe. The drug also is included as part of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, which is testing multiple ALS therapies simultaneously. “The results from that should be available by the second half of this year and it will also inform us as to what the approach should be,” said Dr. Kiernan.

Dr. Johnson also was enthusiastic. “I’m excited to see the results in terms of the primary endpoints for that next phase 3 clinical trial,” he said.
 

Ongoing research

In September 2021, Clene announced a second expanded access program for people with ALS.

The study included a 36-week double-blind treatment period followed by long-term, open-label follow-up. Twenty-three patients received 30 mg CNM-Au8, and 22 received placebo. In the first 36 weeks, the treatment group was more likely to have no disease progression, defined as death, tracheostomy, noninvasive ventilation, or a gastronomy tube (P = .0125). The researchers compared the probability of experiencing a less than 6-point decline in the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale. At 12 weeks, it was about 85% in both groups. At 24 weeks, it was about 60% to 50% in favor of the CNM-Au8 group, and at 36 weeks it was about 50% to 20% (P = .0350).

At 36 weeks, quality of life as measured by the ALS Specific Quality of Life–Short Form was better in the treatment group at 36 weeks (mean change, 0.9; P = .0177).

Survival was better in the treatment group at 96 weeks than the mortality derived from a European Network for the Cure of ALS prediction model (hazard ratio [HR], 0.2974; P = .0068). This benefit also was experienced by patients who received drug throughout the study (HR, 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-1.1) and those who started out on placebo and converted to active drug during the open-label period (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.064-0.88).

The study was funded by Clene and FightMND. Dr. Kiernan and Dr. Johnson have no relevant financial disclosures.

SEATTLE – A novel treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) that targets brain cell energy production to promote remyelination showed signs of efficacy in a phase 2 trial, though it did not meet its primary endpoint, which was the change in the summated motor unit index (MUNIX) from baseline to week 36.

The drug, CNM-Au8, is being developed by Clene, and would represent a novel mechanism of action. “This is a brand-new approach. We used it complementary with riluzole and it was well tolerated, so I see this as an add-on therapy. I think if we can show some more positivity and longer-term results, it’s going to be a game changer for ALS,” Matthew Kiernan, MBBS, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Kiernan presented the results at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

Riluzole (Rilutek), which received Food and Drug Administration approval in 1995, inhibits glutamate release to counter excitotoxicity, which is believed to play a role in ALS, Huntington’s disease, ischemia, and other acute and chronic neurodegenerative diseases. The other FDA-approved agent for ALS is the neuroprotective agent and free-radical scavenger edaravone (Radicava), approved in 2017.

CNM-Au8 is made up of catalytically active gold nanocrystals that cross the blood-brain barrier, but lacks the toxicity associated with other synthetic gold compounds, according to the company. The formulation is also being investigated for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis. Basic research has shown that it stabilizes mitochondria and reduces accumulation of the TDP-43 protein, which is linked to spread of ALS through the brain, Dr. Kiernan said during his presentation.

The treatment is well tolerated. “Normally in an ALS trial, we see about a 25% dropout rate. There were no dropouts on the active compound in the clinical trial. There are less deaths, so improved survival,” said Dr. Kiernan, the Bushell chair of neurology at the University of Sydney and codirector of the Brain and Mind Center in Sydney.
 

Good safety signal

The fact that the trial missed its primary endpoint isn’t too concerning, according to Nicholas Johnson, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “ALS clinical trials are incredibly difficult to conduct, especially a phase 2 learning-phase clinical trial. At this phase, I’m much more buoyed by the fact that they have a good safety signal, and that they’re willing to move forward to that phase 3 clinical trial,” Dr. Johnson said in an interview. He is vice chair of research at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

A phase 3 clinical trial is in development in the United States and Europe. The drug also is included as part of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, which is testing multiple ALS therapies simultaneously. “The results from that should be available by the second half of this year and it will also inform us as to what the approach should be,” said Dr. Kiernan.

Dr. Johnson also was enthusiastic. “I’m excited to see the results in terms of the primary endpoints for that next phase 3 clinical trial,” he said.
 

Ongoing research

In September 2021, Clene announced a second expanded access program for people with ALS.

The study included a 36-week double-blind treatment period followed by long-term, open-label follow-up. Twenty-three patients received 30 mg CNM-Au8, and 22 received placebo. In the first 36 weeks, the treatment group was more likely to have no disease progression, defined as death, tracheostomy, noninvasive ventilation, or a gastronomy tube (P = .0125). The researchers compared the probability of experiencing a less than 6-point decline in the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale. At 12 weeks, it was about 85% in both groups. At 24 weeks, it was about 60% to 50% in favor of the CNM-Au8 group, and at 36 weeks it was about 50% to 20% (P = .0350).

At 36 weeks, quality of life as measured by the ALS Specific Quality of Life–Short Form was better in the treatment group at 36 weeks (mean change, 0.9; P = .0177).

Survival was better in the treatment group at 96 weeks than the mortality derived from a European Network for the Cure of ALS prediction model (hazard ratio [HR], 0.2974; P = .0068). This benefit also was experienced by patients who received drug throughout the study (HR, 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-1.1) and those who started out on placebo and converted to active drug during the open-label period (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.064-0.88).

The study was funded by Clene and FightMND. Dr. Kiernan and Dr. Johnson have no relevant financial disclosures.

Physical fitness has been linked to a lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease, but even moderate levels of cardiorespiratory fitness offer some protection, new findings suggest. “One exciting finding of this study is that as people’s fitness improved, their risk of Alzheimer’s disease decreased – it was not an all-or-nothing proposition,” study investigator Edward Zamrini, MD, of the Washington DC VA Medical Center, said in a news release.

The findings suggest that people can work toward making incremental changes and improvements in their physical fitness, which may help decrease their risk of dementia, Dr. Zamrini added.

The findings were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Effective prevention strategy

Using the Veterans Health Administration database, Dr. Zamrini and colleagues identified 649,605 veterans (mean age, 61 years) free of Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders (ADRD) when they completed standardized exercise treadmill tests between 2000 and 2017.

They divided participants into five age-specific fitness groups, from least fit to most fit, based on peak metabolic equivalents (METs) achieved during the treadmill test: lowest-fit (METs, ±3.8), low-fit (METs, ±5.8), moderate-fit (METs, ±7.5), fit (METs, ±9.2), and highest-fit (METs, ±11.7).

In unadjusted analysis, veterans with the lowest cardiorespiratory fitness developed ADRD at a rate of 9.5 cases per 1,000 person-years, compared with a rate of 6.4 cases per 1,000 person-years for the most fit group (P < .001).

After adjusting for factors that could affect risk of ADRD, compared with the lowest-fit group, the highest-fit and fit groups were 33% and 26% less likely to develop ADRD, respectively, while the moderate-fit and low-fit groups were 20% and 13% less likely to develop the disease, respectively.

The next vital sign?

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Boston, noted that “for decades and with increasing body of support from studies like this, we have known that preventing dementia is based on healthy behaviors for the brain including a proper diet (NASH and/or Mediterranean), exercise regimen (aerobic/cardio more than anaerobic/weight-lifting), sleep hygiene, and social and intellectual engagements.”

“Frankly, what’s good for the body is good for the brain,” said Dr. Lakhan.

“It should be noted that the measure studied here is cardiorespiratory fitness, which has been associated with heart disease and resulting death, death from any cause, and now brain health,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“This powerful predictor may in fact be the next vital sign, after your heart rate and blood pressure, from which your primary care provider can make a personalized treatment plan,” he added.

“Accelerating this process, the ability to measure cardiorespiratory fitness traditionally from huge stationary machines down to wearables like a watch or ring, or even your iPhone or Android, is just on the horizon,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“Instead of tracking just your weight, shape, and BMI, personal fitness may be tailored to optimizing this indicator and further empowering individuals to take charge of their health,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Washington DC VA Medical Center, and George Washington University. Dr. Zamrini and Dr. Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physical fitness has been linked to a lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease, but even moderate levels of cardiorespiratory fitness offer some protection, new findings suggest. “One exciting finding of this study is that as people’s fitness improved, their risk of Alzheimer’s disease decreased – it was not an all-or-nothing proposition,” study investigator Edward Zamrini, MD, of the Washington DC VA Medical Center, said in a news release.

The findings suggest that people can work toward making incremental changes and improvements in their physical fitness, which may help decrease their risk of dementia, Dr. Zamrini added.

The findings were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Effective prevention strategy

Using the Veterans Health Administration database, Dr. Zamrini and colleagues identified 649,605 veterans (mean age, 61 years) free of Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders (ADRD) when they completed standardized exercise treadmill tests between 2000 and 2017.

They divided participants into five age-specific fitness groups, from least fit to most fit, based on peak metabolic equivalents (METs) achieved during the treadmill test: lowest-fit (METs, ±3.8), low-fit (METs, ±5.8), moderate-fit (METs, ±7.5), fit (METs, ±9.2), and highest-fit (METs, ±11.7).

In unadjusted analysis, veterans with the lowest cardiorespiratory fitness developed ADRD at a rate of 9.5 cases per 1,000 person-years, compared with a rate of 6.4 cases per 1,000 person-years for the most fit group (P < .001).

After adjusting for factors that could affect risk of ADRD, compared with the lowest-fit group, the highest-fit and fit groups were 33% and 26% less likely to develop ADRD, respectively, while the moderate-fit and low-fit groups were 20% and 13% less likely to develop the disease, respectively.

The next vital sign?

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Boston, noted that “for decades and with increasing body of support from studies like this, we have known that preventing dementia is based on healthy behaviors for the brain including a proper diet (NASH and/or Mediterranean), exercise regimen (aerobic/cardio more than anaerobic/weight-lifting), sleep hygiene, and social and intellectual engagements.”

“Frankly, what’s good for the body is good for the brain,” said Dr. Lakhan.

“It should be noted that the measure studied here is cardiorespiratory fitness, which has been associated with heart disease and resulting death, death from any cause, and now brain health,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“This powerful predictor may in fact be the next vital sign, after your heart rate and blood pressure, from which your primary care provider can make a personalized treatment plan,” he added.

“Accelerating this process, the ability to measure cardiorespiratory fitness traditionally from huge stationary machines down to wearables like a watch or ring, or even your iPhone or Android, is just on the horizon,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“Instead of tracking just your weight, shape, and BMI, personal fitness may be tailored to optimizing this indicator and further empowering individuals to take charge of their health,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Washington DC VA Medical Center, and George Washington University. Dr. Zamrini and Dr. Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physical fitness has been linked to a lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease, but even moderate levels of cardiorespiratory fitness offer some protection, new findings suggest. “One exciting finding of this study is that as people’s fitness improved, their risk of Alzheimer’s disease decreased – it was not an all-or-nothing proposition,” study investigator Edward Zamrini, MD, of the Washington DC VA Medical Center, said in a news release.

The findings suggest that people can work toward making incremental changes and improvements in their physical fitness, which may help decrease their risk of dementia, Dr. Zamrini added.

The findings were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Effective prevention strategy

Using the Veterans Health Administration database, Dr. Zamrini and colleagues identified 649,605 veterans (mean age, 61 years) free of Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders (ADRD) when they completed standardized exercise treadmill tests between 2000 and 2017.

They divided participants into five age-specific fitness groups, from least fit to most fit, based on peak metabolic equivalents (METs) achieved during the treadmill test: lowest-fit (METs, ±3.8), low-fit (METs, ±5.8), moderate-fit (METs, ±7.5), fit (METs, ±9.2), and highest-fit (METs, ±11.7).

In unadjusted analysis, veterans with the lowest cardiorespiratory fitness developed ADRD at a rate of 9.5 cases per 1,000 person-years, compared with a rate of 6.4 cases per 1,000 person-years for the most fit group (P < .001).

After adjusting for factors that could affect risk of ADRD, compared with the lowest-fit group, the highest-fit and fit groups were 33% and 26% less likely to develop ADRD, respectively, while the moderate-fit and low-fit groups were 20% and 13% less likely to develop the disease, respectively.

The next vital sign?

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Boston, noted that “for decades and with increasing body of support from studies like this, we have known that preventing dementia is based on healthy behaviors for the brain including a proper diet (NASH and/or Mediterranean), exercise regimen (aerobic/cardio more than anaerobic/weight-lifting), sleep hygiene, and social and intellectual engagements.”

“Frankly, what’s good for the body is good for the brain,” said Dr. Lakhan.

“It should be noted that the measure studied here is cardiorespiratory fitness, which has been associated with heart disease and resulting death, death from any cause, and now brain health,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“This powerful predictor may in fact be the next vital sign, after your heart rate and blood pressure, from which your primary care provider can make a personalized treatment plan,” he added.

“Accelerating this process, the ability to measure cardiorespiratory fitness traditionally from huge stationary machines down to wearables like a watch or ring, or even your iPhone or Android, is just on the horizon,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“Instead of tracking just your weight, shape, and BMI, personal fitness may be tailored to optimizing this indicator and further empowering individuals to take charge of their health,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Washington DC VA Medical Center, and George Washington University. Dr. Zamrini and Dr. Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A dose-response relationship exists between number of years playing hockey and risk and severity of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), new research suggests. Early results from a study that examined donor brains showed that each additional year of ice hockey play increased the risk for CTE by 23%.

This information should be on the “radar” of all clinicians, said coinvestigator Jesse Mez, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University. “When they’re talking to kids and families and parents about playing contact sports, they should discuss the benefits as well as the risks so all that information can be taken into consideration.”

Dr. Mez noted that clinicians should also consider the amount of hockey played when assessing patients for thinking and memory trouble later in life. “CTE could be in the differential diagnosis,” he said.

The study findings were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Football data

CTE is a neurodegenerative disease associated with repetitive hits to the head. In previous research, the investigators showed that the more that athletes play American football, the more likely they are to develop CTE.

“Hockey, like football, involves repetitive head impacts as part of the game,” said Dr. Mez. “So we hypothesized that we would see a similar type of dose-response relationship in hockey.”

From two brain banks – the Veterans Affairs–Boston University–Concussion Legacy Foundation and the Framingham Heart Study – the researchers accessed 74 consecutive brains from donors who had played ice hockey. They collected information about hockey play during “pretty comprehensive” interviews with next of kin, Dr. Mez reported.

The study participants ranged in age from 13 to 91 years. The cause of death varied; most died with end-stage dementia and neurodegenerative disease, but some died of cardiovascular disease, and others from accidents.

For 9% of the individuals, the highest level of play was a youth league; 34% had reached the high school level, 30% reached the juniors/college level, and 26% played professionally. In addition, 46% played another contact sport – including 43% who played American football.

Primary outcomes included evidence of CTE from stage 0 (no CTE) to stage IV and severity of CTE, which was defined by the amount of neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) burden in 11 brain regions. For this burden, the score ranged from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe) in each region for a total range of 0-33.

Dr. Mez noted that, in CTE, tau protein accumulates abnormally. “It typically begins in the cortex in the frontal lobe and then spreads to other parts of the brain, including to the medial temporal structures, and is widespread by stage IV.”

The researchers estimated the association of duration of ice hockey play in years with each neuropathologic outcome and adjusted for age at death and duration of football play.
 

Consistent findings

Results showed that, of the 74 donors, 40 (54%) had CTE. Each additional year of hockey play corresponded to increased chances for having CTE (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 11%-36%; P < .01). This increase in risk is similar to that which was found with football players, Dr. Mez noted. This was somewhat surprising, as hockey involves fewer “hits” than football.

“Hits are not as quintessential to the game of hockey as they are in football, where contacts occur with nearly every play,” he said. “In football, you have several hundred impacts over the course of a season.”

Researchers also found a 15% increase in odds for increasing one CTE stage (95% CI, 8%-22%; P < .01), and a .03 standard deviation increase in cumulative NFT burden (95% CI, 0.01-0.05; P < .01).

Dr. Mez noted that the fact that the results were consistent across different outcomes “improves the validity” of the findings.

In a sensitivity analysis that excluded participants who also played football, estimates “were pretty similar” to those in the full analysis, said Dr. Mez.

The investigators have not yet examined the effect of level of hockey play, such as professionally or at the college level, on CTE risk. However, in football players, they found that level of play is another “valuable predictor of CTE pathology,” Dr. Mez said, adding that level of play, position played, and years of play “are all probably contributing” to CTE risk.

Asking about years of play is useful in a clinical setting. “It’s very easy for a clinician to ask patients how many years of hockey they played,” said Dr. Mez.

Overall, the new results are important, as “millions of individuals” play contact sports, whether that is hockey, football, or European soccer, he added. “And for all sports, there seems to be this relationship between more play and risk of this disease.”
 

‘Skewed’ population?

Commenting on the findings, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Health and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said he was surprised the investigators found a 23% per year increase in risk for CTE among hockey players.

Dr. Conidi has played hockey himself and works with the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League. In his practice, he treats retired professional football players who have neurodegenerative disorders. From his experience, the number of repetitive direct head impacts in football is significantly higher than in hockey. “Most of the forces seen in hockey are from hits to the body, where the force is transferred to the head,” said Dr. Conidi, who was not involved with the research.

He noted differences in the way hockey is played around the world. In European countries, for example, the ice surface is relatively large and the emphasis tends to be more on skill than hitting.

“It would have been interesting to have the study group analyze the data based on where the athlete grew up,” he said. Dr. Conidi would also like to know when the participants played hockey. “The game is vastly different now than it was in the 1970s, ‘80s, and early ‘90s, when there was more fighting, less protective gear, and more hitting in general.”

As is the case for most studies of CTE in athletes, the study population is “skewed” because the participants likely had neurocognitive and other problems that led to their decision to donate their brain, said Dr. Conidi.

He also doesn’t believe the study should be the sole factor in a decision to continue or stop playing hockey. “We are still in the infancy stages of understanding the effects of high-impact sports on athletes’ brains.”

The study received funding from the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Mez and Dr. Conidi have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A dose-response relationship exists between number of years playing hockey and risk and severity of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), new research suggests. Early results from a study that examined donor brains showed that each additional year of ice hockey play increased the risk for CTE by 23%.

This information should be on the “radar” of all clinicians, said coinvestigator Jesse Mez, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University. “When they’re talking to kids and families and parents about playing contact sports, they should discuss the benefits as well as the risks so all that information can be taken into consideration.”

Dr. Mez noted that clinicians should also consider the amount of hockey played when assessing patients for thinking and memory trouble later in life. “CTE could be in the differential diagnosis,” he said.

The study findings were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Football data

CTE is a neurodegenerative disease associated with repetitive hits to the head. In previous research, the investigators showed that the more that athletes play American football, the more likely they are to develop CTE.

“Hockey, like football, involves repetitive head impacts as part of the game,” said Dr. Mez. “So we hypothesized that we would see a similar type of dose-response relationship in hockey.”

From two brain banks – the Veterans Affairs–Boston University–Concussion Legacy Foundation and the Framingham Heart Study – the researchers accessed 74 consecutive brains from donors who had played ice hockey. They collected information about hockey play during “pretty comprehensive” interviews with next of kin, Dr. Mez reported.

The study participants ranged in age from 13 to 91 years. The cause of death varied; most died with end-stage dementia and neurodegenerative disease, but some died of cardiovascular disease, and others from accidents.

For 9% of the individuals, the highest level of play was a youth league; 34% had reached the high school level, 30% reached the juniors/college level, and 26% played professionally. In addition, 46% played another contact sport – including 43% who played American football.

Primary outcomes included evidence of CTE from stage 0 (no CTE) to stage IV and severity of CTE, which was defined by the amount of neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) burden in 11 brain regions. For this burden, the score ranged from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe) in each region for a total range of 0-33.

Dr. Mez noted that, in CTE, tau protein accumulates abnormally. “It typically begins in the cortex in the frontal lobe and then spreads to other parts of the brain, including to the medial temporal structures, and is widespread by stage IV.”

The researchers estimated the association of duration of ice hockey play in years with each neuropathologic outcome and adjusted for age at death and duration of football play.
 

Consistent findings

Results showed that, of the 74 donors, 40 (54%) had CTE. Each additional year of hockey play corresponded to increased chances for having CTE (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 11%-36%; P < .01). This increase in risk is similar to that which was found with football players, Dr. Mez noted. This was somewhat surprising, as hockey involves fewer “hits” than football.

“Hits are not as quintessential to the game of hockey as they are in football, where contacts occur with nearly every play,” he said. “In football, you have several hundred impacts over the course of a season.”

Researchers also found a 15% increase in odds for increasing one CTE stage (95% CI, 8%-22%; P < .01), and a .03 standard deviation increase in cumulative NFT burden (95% CI, 0.01-0.05; P < .01).

Dr. Mez noted that the fact that the results were consistent across different outcomes “improves the validity” of the findings.

In a sensitivity analysis that excluded participants who also played football, estimates “were pretty similar” to those in the full analysis, said Dr. Mez.

The investigators have not yet examined the effect of level of hockey play, such as professionally or at the college level, on CTE risk. However, in football players, they found that level of play is another “valuable predictor of CTE pathology,” Dr. Mez said, adding that level of play, position played, and years of play “are all probably contributing” to CTE risk.

Asking about years of play is useful in a clinical setting. “It’s very easy for a clinician to ask patients how many years of hockey they played,” said Dr. Mez.

Overall, the new results are important, as “millions of individuals” play contact sports, whether that is hockey, football, or European soccer, he added. “And for all sports, there seems to be this relationship between more play and risk of this disease.”
 

‘Skewed’ population?

Commenting on the findings, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Health and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said he was surprised the investigators found a 23% per year increase in risk for CTE among hockey players.

Dr. Conidi has played hockey himself and works with the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League. In his practice, he treats retired professional football players who have neurodegenerative disorders. From his experience, the number of repetitive direct head impacts in football is significantly higher than in hockey. “Most of the forces seen in hockey are from hits to the body, where the force is transferred to the head,” said Dr. Conidi, who was not involved with the research.

He noted differences in the way hockey is played around the world. In European countries, for example, the ice surface is relatively large and the emphasis tends to be more on skill than hitting.

“It would have been interesting to have the study group analyze the data based on where the athlete grew up,” he said. Dr. Conidi would also like to know when the participants played hockey. “The game is vastly different now than it was in the 1970s, ‘80s, and early ‘90s, when there was more fighting, less protective gear, and more hitting in general.”

As is the case for most studies of CTE in athletes, the study population is “skewed” because the participants likely had neurocognitive and other problems that led to their decision to donate their brain, said Dr. Conidi.

He also doesn’t believe the study should be the sole factor in a decision to continue or stop playing hockey. “We are still in the infancy stages of understanding the effects of high-impact sports on athletes’ brains.”

The study received funding from the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Mez and Dr. Conidi have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A dose-response relationship exists between number of years playing hockey and risk and severity of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), new research suggests. Early results from a study that examined donor brains showed that each additional year of ice hockey play increased the risk for CTE by 23%.

This information should be on the “radar” of all clinicians, said coinvestigator Jesse Mez, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University. “When they’re talking to kids and families and parents about playing contact sports, they should discuss the benefits as well as the risks so all that information can be taken into consideration.”

Dr. Mez noted that clinicians should also consider the amount of hockey played when assessing patients for thinking and memory trouble later in life. “CTE could be in the differential diagnosis,” he said.

The study findings were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Football data

CTE is a neurodegenerative disease associated with repetitive hits to the head. In previous research, the investigators showed that the more that athletes play American football, the more likely they are to develop CTE.

“Hockey, like football, involves repetitive head impacts as part of the game,” said Dr. Mez. “So we hypothesized that we would see a similar type of dose-response relationship in hockey.”

From two brain banks – the Veterans Affairs–Boston University–Concussion Legacy Foundation and the Framingham Heart Study – the researchers accessed 74 consecutive brains from donors who had played ice hockey. They collected information about hockey play during “pretty comprehensive” interviews with next of kin, Dr. Mez reported.

The study participants ranged in age from 13 to 91 years. The cause of death varied; most died with end-stage dementia and neurodegenerative disease, but some died of cardiovascular disease, and others from accidents.

For 9% of the individuals, the highest level of play was a youth league; 34% had reached the high school level, 30% reached the juniors/college level, and 26% played professionally. In addition, 46% played another contact sport – including 43% who played American football.

Primary outcomes included evidence of CTE from stage 0 (no CTE) to stage IV and severity of CTE, which was defined by the amount of neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) burden in 11 brain regions. For this burden, the score ranged from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe) in each region for a total range of 0-33.

Dr. Mez noted that, in CTE, tau protein accumulates abnormally. “It typically begins in the cortex in the frontal lobe and then spreads to other parts of the brain, including to the medial temporal structures, and is widespread by stage IV.”

The researchers estimated the association of duration of ice hockey play in years with each neuropathologic outcome and adjusted for age at death and duration of football play.
 

Consistent findings

Results showed that, of the 74 donors, 40 (54%) had CTE. Each additional year of hockey play corresponded to increased chances for having CTE (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 11%-36%; P < .01). This increase in risk is similar to that which was found with football players, Dr. Mez noted. This was somewhat surprising, as hockey involves fewer “hits” than football.

“Hits are not as quintessential to the game of hockey as they are in football, where contacts occur with nearly every play,” he said. “In football, you have several hundred impacts over the course of a season.”

Researchers also found a 15% increase in odds for increasing one CTE stage (95% CI, 8%-22%; P < .01), and a .03 standard deviation increase in cumulative NFT burden (95% CI, 0.01-0.05; P < .01).

Dr. Mez noted that the fact that the results were consistent across different outcomes “improves the validity” of the findings.

In a sensitivity analysis that excluded participants who also played football, estimates “were pretty similar” to those in the full analysis, said Dr. Mez.

The investigators have not yet examined the effect of level of hockey play, such as professionally or at the college level, on CTE risk. However, in football players, they found that level of play is another “valuable predictor of CTE pathology,” Dr. Mez said, adding that level of play, position played, and years of play “are all probably contributing” to CTE risk.

Asking about years of play is useful in a clinical setting. “It’s very easy for a clinician to ask patients how many years of hockey they played,” said Dr. Mez.

Overall, the new results are important, as “millions of individuals” play contact sports, whether that is hockey, football, or European soccer, he added. “And for all sports, there seems to be this relationship between more play and risk of this disease.”
 

‘Skewed’ population?

Commenting on the findings, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Health and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said he was surprised the investigators found a 23% per year increase in risk for CTE among hockey players.

Dr. Conidi has played hockey himself and works with the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League. In his practice, he treats retired professional football players who have neurodegenerative disorders. From his experience, the number of repetitive direct head impacts in football is significantly higher than in hockey. “Most of the forces seen in hockey are from hits to the body, where the force is transferred to the head,” said Dr. Conidi, who was not involved with the research.

He noted differences in the way hockey is played around the world. In European countries, for example, the ice surface is relatively large and the emphasis tends to be more on skill than hitting.

“It would have been interesting to have the study group analyze the data based on where the athlete grew up,” he said. Dr. Conidi would also like to know when the participants played hockey. “The game is vastly different now than it was in the 1970s, ‘80s, and early ‘90s, when there was more fighting, less protective gear, and more hitting in general.”

As is the case for most studies of CTE in athletes, the study population is “skewed” because the participants likely had neurocognitive and other problems that led to their decision to donate their brain, said Dr. Conidi.

He also doesn’t believe the study should be the sole factor in a decision to continue or stop playing hockey. “We are still in the infancy stages of understanding the effects of high-impact sports on athletes’ brains.”

The study received funding from the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Mez and Dr. Conidi have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Ohio House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would enable patients to use drug manufacturer coupons and other co-pay assistance as payment toward their annual deductible.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, approximately 1 in 4 Americans have difficulty paying for their prescription drugs, while almost half of U.S. adults report difficulty paying out-of-pocket costs not covered by their health insurance.

Supporting the bill that restricts co-pay accumulators are groups such as the Ohio State Medical Association, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, Susan C. Komen, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the American Diabetes Association. The bill faced opposition from health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, reported The Columbus Dispatch.

“The debate on the management of rising drug costs between manufacturers and insurers unfortunately leaves patients caught in the middle, and practices like co-pay accumulators can have a devastating impact,” Monica Hueckel, senior director of government relations for the Ohio State Medical Association, told this news organization.

“Patients often do not even know about these policies until the coupons are no longer usable. As you can imagine, for patients with expensive medications and/or high deductible health plans, the impact is disastrous,” she said.

Ohio State Representative Susan Manchester, who co-sponsored the bill, told The Columbus Dispatch that the legislation “is needed to assist our constituents who find themselves increasingly subjected to more out-of-pocket costs as part of their insurance coverage.”

Other states blocking health insurers’ co-pay policies

With the passage of the bill, Ohio joins 12 states and Puerto Rico in preventing the use of health insurers’ co-pays to increase patients’ out-of-pocket costs, reported The Columbus Dispatch; 15 states are also considering this type of legislation.

Eighty-three percent of patients are in plans that include a co-pay accumulator, according to consulting firm Avalere, which wrote that, beginning in 2023, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires patients with Medicaid to receive “the full value of co-pay assistance” on drugs.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, co-pay adjustment programs present challenges for patients, with plans that include high cost sharing or co-insurance whereby a patient pays a percentage of the cost instead of a flat amount.

For example, with a co-pay adjustment policy, a patient with a $2,000 deductible plan couldn’t use a $500 coupon toward meeting the deductible, writes the National Conference of State Legislatures. Conversely, a patient in a plan without a co-pay adjustment policy could use the coupon to satisfy their annual deductible.

Patients with complex conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and diabetes, which often require expensive medications, may have little choice but to fork over the unexpected co-pays, according to the organization that represents state legislatures in the United States.

The bill now moves to the Ohio Senate, reported The Columbus Dispatch.

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

The Ohio House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would enable patients to use drug manufacturer coupons and other co-pay assistance as payment toward their annual deductible.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, approximately 1 in 4 Americans have difficulty paying for their prescription drugs, while almost half of U.S. adults report difficulty paying out-of-pocket costs not covered by their health insurance.

Supporting the bill that restricts co-pay accumulators are groups such as the Ohio State Medical Association, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, Susan C. Komen, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the American Diabetes Association. The bill faced opposition from health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, reported The Columbus Dispatch.

“The debate on the management of rising drug costs between manufacturers and insurers unfortunately leaves patients caught in the middle, and practices like co-pay accumulators can have a devastating impact,” Monica Hueckel, senior director of government relations for the Ohio State Medical Association, told this news organization.

“Patients often do not even know about these policies until the coupons are no longer usable. As you can imagine, for patients with expensive medications and/or high deductible health plans, the impact is disastrous,” she said.

Ohio State Representative Susan Manchester, who co-sponsored the bill, told The Columbus Dispatch that the legislation “is needed to assist our constituents who find themselves increasingly subjected to more out-of-pocket costs as part of their insurance coverage.”

Other states blocking health insurers’ co-pay policies

With the passage of the bill, Ohio joins 12 states and Puerto Rico in preventing the use of health insurers’ co-pays to increase patients’ out-of-pocket costs, reported The Columbus Dispatch; 15 states are also considering this type of legislation.

Eighty-three percent of patients are in plans that include a co-pay accumulator, according to consulting firm Avalere, which wrote that, beginning in 2023, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires patients with Medicaid to receive “the full value of co-pay assistance” on drugs.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, co-pay adjustment programs present challenges for patients, with plans that include high cost sharing or co-insurance whereby a patient pays a percentage of the cost instead of a flat amount.

For example, with a co-pay adjustment policy, a patient with a $2,000 deductible plan couldn’t use a $500 coupon toward meeting the deductible, writes the National Conference of State Legislatures. Conversely, a patient in a plan without a co-pay adjustment policy could use the coupon to satisfy their annual deductible.

Patients with complex conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and diabetes, which often require expensive medications, may have little choice but to fork over the unexpected co-pays, according to the organization that represents state legislatures in the United States.

The bill now moves to the Ohio Senate, reported The Columbus Dispatch.

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

The Ohio House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would enable patients to use drug manufacturer coupons and other co-pay assistance as payment toward their annual deductible.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, approximately 1 in 4 Americans have difficulty paying for their prescription drugs, while almost half of U.S. adults report difficulty paying out-of-pocket costs not covered by their health insurance.

Supporting the bill that restricts co-pay accumulators are groups such as the Ohio State Medical Association, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, Susan C. Komen, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the American Diabetes Association. The bill faced opposition from health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, reported The Columbus Dispatch.

“The debate on the management of rising drug costs between manufacturers and insurers unfortunately leaves patients caught in the middle, and practices like co-pay accumulators can have a devastating impact,” Monica Hueckel, senior director of government relations for the Ohio State Medical Association, told this news organization.

“Patients often do not even know about these policies until the coupons are no longer usable. As you can imagine, for patients with expensive medications and/or high deductible health plans, the impact is disastrous,” she said.

Ohio State Representative Susan Manchester, who co-sponsored the bill, told The Columbus Dispatch that the legislation “is needed to assist our constituents who find themselves increasingly subjected to more out-of-pocket costs as part of their insurance coverage.”

Other states blocking health insurers’ co-pay policies

With the passage of the bill, Ohio joins 12 states and Puerto Rico in preventing the use of health insurers’ co-pays to increase patients’ out-of-pocket costs, reported The Columbus Dispatch; 15 states are also considering this type of legislation.

Eighty-three percent of patients are in plans that include a co-pay accumulator, according to consulting firm Avalere, which wrote that, beginning in 2023, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires patients with Medicaid to receive “the full value of co-pay assistance” on drugs.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, co-pay adjustment programs present challenges for patients, with plans that include high cost sharing or co-insurance whereby a patient pays a percentage of the cost instead of a flat amount.

For example, with a co-pay adjustment policy, a patient with a $2,000 deductible plan couldn’t use a $500 coupon toward meeting the deductible, writes the National Conference of State Legislatures. Conversely, a patient in a plan without a co-pay adjustment policy could use the coupon to satisfy their annual deductible.

Patients with complex conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and diabetes, which often require expensive medications, may have little choice but to fork over the unexpected co-pays, according to the organization that represents state legislatures in the United States.

The bill now moves to the Ohio Senate, reported The Columbus Dispatch.

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

Emma Moore felt cornered. At a community health clinic in Portland, Ore., the 29-year-old nurse practitioner said she felt overwhelmed and undertrained. Coronavirus patients flooded the clinic for 2 years, and Ms. Moore struggled to keep up.

Then the stakes became clear. On March 25, about 2,400 miles away in a Tennessee courtroom, former nurse RaDonda Vaught was convicted of two felonies and facing 8 years in prison for a fatal medication mistake.

Like many nurses, Ms. Moore wondered if that could be her. She’d made medication errors before, although none so grievous. But what about the next one? In the pressure cooker of pandemic-era health care, another mistake felt inevitable.

Four days after Ms. Vaught’s verdict, Ms. Moore quit. She said Ms. Vaught’s verdict contributed to her decision.

“It’s not worth the possibility or the likelihood that this will happen,” Ms. Moore said, “if I’m in a situation where I’m set up to fail.”

In the wake of Ms. Vaught’s trial – an extremely rare case of a health care worker being criminally prosecuted for a medical error – nurses and nursing organizations have condemned the verdict through tens of thousands of social media posts, shares, comments, and videos. They warn that the fallout will ripple through their profession, demoralizing and depleting the ranks of nurses already stretched thin by the pandemic. Ultimately, they say, it will worsen health care for all.

Statements from the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, and the National Medical Association said Ms. Vaught’s conviction set a “dangerous precedent.” Linda H. Aiken, PhD, RN, a nursing and sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that although Ms. Vaught’s case is an “outlier,” it will make nurses less forthcoming about mistakes.

“One thing that everybody agrees on is it’s going to have a dampening effect on the reporting of errors or near misses, which then has a detrimental effect on safety,” Dr. Aiken said. “The only way you can really learn about errors in these complicated systems is to have people say, ‘Oh, I almost gave the wrong drug because …’

“Well, nobody is going to say that now.”

Fear and outrage about Ms. Vaught’s case have swirled among nurses on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. On TikTok, a video platform increasingly popular among medical professionals, videos with the “#RaDondaVaught” hashtag totaled more than 47 million views.

Ms. Vaught’s supporters catapulted a plea for her clemency to the top of Change.org, a petition website. And thousands also joined a Facebook group planning to gather in protest outside Ms. Vaught’s sentencing hearing in May.

Ashley Bartholomew, BSN, RN, a 36-year-old Tampa nurse who followed the trial through YouTube and Twitter, echoed the fear of many others. Nurses have long felt forced into “impossible situations” by mounting responsibilities and staffing shortages, she said, particularly in hospitals that operate with lean staffing models.

“The big response we are seeing is because all of us are acutely aware of how bad the pandemic has exacerbated the existing problems,” Ms. Bartholomew said. And “setting a precedent for criminally charging [for] an error is only going to make this exponentially worse.”

Ms. Vaught, who worked at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., was convicted in the death of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died from a drug mix-up in 2017. Ms. Murphey was prescribed a dose of a sedative, Versed, but Ms. Vaught accidentally withdrew a powerful paralyzer, vecuronium, from an automated medication-dispensing cabinet and administered it to the patient.

Prosecutors argued that Ms. Vaught overlooked many obvious signs she’d withdrawn the wrong drug and did not monitor Ms. Murphey after she was given a deadly dose. Ms. Vaught owned up to the error but said it was an honest mistake, not a crime.

Some of Ms. Vaught’s peers support the conviction.

Scott G. Shelp, BSN, RN, a California nurse with a small YouTube channel, posted a 26-minute self-described “unpopular opinion” that Ms. Vaught deserves to serve prison time. “We need to stick up for each other,” he said, “but we cannot defend the indefensible.”

Mr. Shelp said he would never make the same error as Ms. Vaught and “neither would any competent nurse.” Regarding concerns that the conviction would discourage nurses from disclosing errors, Mr. Shelp said “dishonest” nurses “should be weeded out” of the profession anyway.

“In any other circumstance, I can’t believe anyone – including nurses – would accept ‘I didn’t mean to’ as a serious defense,” Mr. Shelp said. “Punishment for a harmful act someone actually did is justice.”

Ms. Vaught was acquitted of reckless homicide but convicted of a lesser charge, criminally negligent homicide, and gross neglect of an impaired adult. As outrage spread across social media, the Nashville district attorney’s office defended the conviction, saying in a statement it was “not an indictment against the nursing profession or the medical community.”

“This case is, and always has been, about the one single individual who made 17 egregious actions, and inactions, that killed an elderly woman,” said the office’s spokesperson, Steve Hayslip. “The jury found that Vaught’s actions were so far below the protocols and standard level of care, that the jury (which included a longtime nurse and another health care professional) returned a guilty verdict in less than four hours.”

The office of Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee confirmed he is not considering clemency for Ms. Vaught despite the Change.org petition, which had amassed about 187,000 signatures as of April 4.

Casey Black, press secretary for Gov. Lee, said that outside of death penalty cases the governor relies on the Board of Parole to recommend defendants for clemency, which happens only after sentencing and a board investigation.

But the controversy around Ms. Vaught’s case is far from over. As of April 4, more than 8,200 people had joined a Facebook group planning a march in protest outside the courthouse during her sentencing May 13.

Among the event’s planners is Tina Visant, the host of “Good Nurse Bad Nurse,” a podcast that followed Ms. Vaught’s case and opposed her prosecution.

“I don’t know how Nashville is going to handle it,” Ms. Visant said of the protest during a recent episode about Ms. Vaught’s trial. “There are a lot of people coming from all over.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Emma Moore felt cornered. At a community health clinic in Portland, Ore., the 29-year-old nurse practitioner said she felt overwhelmed and undertrained. Coronavirus patients flooded the clinic for 2 years, and Ms. Moore struggled to keep up.

Then the stakes became clear. On March 25, about 2,400 miles away in a Tennessee courtroom, former nurse RaDonda Vaught was convicted of two felonies and facing 8 years in prison for a fatal medication mistake.

Like many nurses, Ms. Moore wondered if that could be her. She’d made medication errors before, although none so grievous. But what about the next one? In the pressure cooker of pandemic-era health care, another mistake felt inevitable.

Four days after Ms. Vaught’s verdict, Ms. Moore quit. She said Ms. Vaught’s verdict contributed to her decision.

“It’s not worth the possibility or the likelihood that this will happen,” Ms. Moore said, “if I’m in a situation where I’m set up to fail.”

In the wake of Ms. Vaught’s trial – an extremely rare case of a health care worker being criminally prosecuted for a medical error – nurses and nursing organizations have condemned the verdict through tens of thousands of social media posts, shares, comments, and videos. They warn that the fallout will ripple through their profession, demoralizing and depleting the ranks of nurses already stretched thin by the pandemic. Ultimately, they say, it will worsen health care for all.

Statements from the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, and the National Medical Association said Ms. Vaught’s conviction set a “dangerous precedent.” Linda H. Aiken, PhD, RN, a nursing and sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that although Ms. Vaught’s case is an “outlier,” it will make nurses less forthcoming about mistakes.

“One thing that everybody agrees on is it’s going to have a dampening effect on the reporting of errors or near misses, which then has a detrimental effect on safety,” Dr. Aiken said. “The only way you can really learn about errors in these complicated systems is to have people say, ‘Oh, I almost gave the wrong drug because …’

“Well, nobody is going to say that now.”

Fear and outrage about Ms. Vaught’s case have swirled among nurses on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. On TikTok, a video platform increasingly popular among medical professionals, videos with the “#RaDondaVaught” hashtag totaled more than 47 million views.

Ms. Vaught’s supporters catapulted a plea for her clemency to the top of Change.org, a petition website. And thousands also joined a Facebook group planning to gather in protest outside Ms. Vaught’s sentencing hearing in May.

Ashley Bartholomew, BSN, RN, a 36-year-old Tampa nurse who followed the trial through YouTube and Twitter, echoed the fear of many others. Nurses have long felt forced into “impossible situations” by mounting responsibilities and staffing shortages, she said, particularly in hospitals that operate with lean staffing models.

“The big response we are seeing is because all of us are acutely aware of how bad the pandemic has exacerbated the existing problems,” Ms. Bartholomew said. And “setting a precedent for criminally charging [for] an error is only going to make this exponentially worse.”

Ms. Vaught, who worked at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., was convicted in the death of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died from a drug mix-up in 2017. Ms. Murphey was prescribed a dose of a sedative, Versed, but Ms. Vaught accidentally withdrew a powerful paralyzer, vecuronium, from an automated medication-dispensing cabinet and administered it to the patient.

Prosecutors argued that Ms. Vaught overlooked many obvious signs she’d withdrawn the wrong drug and did not monitor Ms. Murphey after she was given a deadly dose. Ms. Vaught owned up to the error but said it was an honest mistake, not a crime.

Some of Ms. Vaught’s peers support the conviction.

Scott G. Shelp, BSN, RN, a California nurse with a small YouTube channel, posted a 26-minute self-described “unpopular opinion” that Ms. Vaught deserves to serve prison time. “We need to stick up for each other,” he said, “but we cannot defend the indefensible.”

Mr. Shelp said he would never make the same error as Ms. Vaught and “neither would any competent nurse.” Regarding concerns that the conviction would discourage nurses from disclosing errors, Mr. Shelp said “dishonest” nurses “should be weeded out” of the profession anyway.

“In any other circumstance, I can’t believe anyone – including nurses – would accept ‘I didn’t mean to’ as a serious defense,” Mr. Shelp said. “Punishment for a harmful act someone actually did is justice.”

Ms. Vaught was acquitted of reckless homicide but convicted of a lesser charge, criminally negligent homicide, and gross neglect of an impaired adult. As outrage spread across social media, the Nashville district attorney’s office defended the conviction, saying in a statement it was “not an indictment against the nursing profession or the medical community.”

“This case is, and always has been, about the one single individual who made 17 egregious actions, and inactions, that killed an elderly woman,” said the office’s spokesperson, Steve Hayslip. “The jury found that Vaught’s actions were so far below the protocols and standard level of care, that the jury (which included a longtime nurse and another health care professional) returned a guilty verdict in less than four hours.”

The office of Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee confirmed he is not considering clemency for Ms. Vaught despite the Change.org petition, which had amassed about 187,000 signatures as of April 4.

Casey Black, press secretary for Gov. Lee, said that outside of death penalty cases the governor relies on the Board of Parole to recommend defendants for clemency, which happens only after sentencing and a board investigation.

But the controversy around Ms. Vaught’s case is far from over. As of April 4, more than 8,200 people had joined a Facebook group planning a march in protest outside the courthouse during her sentencing May 13.

Among the event’s planners is Tina Visant, the host of “Good Nurse Bad Nurse,” a podcast that followed Ms. Vaught’s case and opposed her prosecution.

“I don’t know how Nashville is going to handle it,” Ms. Visant said of the protest during a recent episode about Ms. Vaught’s trial. “There are a lot of people coming from all over.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Emma Moore felt cornered. At a community health clinic in Portland, Ore., the 29-year-old nurse practitioner said she felt overwhelmed and undertrained. Coronavirus patients flooded the clinic for 2 years, and Ms. Moore struggled to keep up.

Then the stakes became clear. On March 25, about 2,400 miles away in a Tennessee courtroom, former nurse RaDonda Vaught was convicted of two felonies and facing 8 years in prison for a fatal medication mistake.

Like many nurses, Ms. Moore wondered if that could be her. She’d made medication errors before, although none so grievous. But what about the next one? In the pressure cooker of pandemic-era health care, another mistake felt inevitable.

Four days after Ms. Vaught’s verdict, Ms. Moore quit. She said Ms. Vaught’s verdict contributed to her decision.

“It’s not worth the possibility or the likelihood that this will happen,” Ms. Moore said, “if I’m in a situation where I’m set up to fail.”

In the wake of Ms. Vaught’s trial – an extremely rare case of a health care worker being criminally prosecuted for a medical error – nurses and nursing organizations have condemned the verdict through tens of thousands of social media posts, shares, comments, and videos. They warn that the fallout will ripple through their profession, demoralizing and depleting the ranks of nurses already stretched thin by the pandemic. Ultimately, they say, it will worsen health care for all.

Statements from the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, and the National Medical Association said Ms. Vaught’s conviction set a “dangerous precedent.” Linda H. Aiken, PhD, RN, a nursing and sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that although Ms. Vaught’s case is an “outlier,” it will make nurses less forthcoming about mistakes.

“One thing that everybody agrees on is it’s going to have a dampening effect on the reporting of errors or near misses, which then has a detrimental effect on safety,” Dr. Aiken said. “The only way you can really learn about errors in these complicated systems is to have people say, ‘Oh, I almost gave the wrong drug because …’

“Well, nobody is going to say that now.”

Fear and outrage about Ms. Vaught’s case have swirled among nurses on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. On TikTok, a video platform increasingly popular among medical professionals, videos with the “#RaDondaVaught” hashtag totaled more than 47 million views.

Ms. Vaught’s supporters catapulted a plea for her clemency to the top of Change.org, a petition website. And thousands also joined a Facebook group planning to gather in protest outside Ms. Vaught’s sentencing hearing in May.

Ashley Bartholomew, BSN, RN, a 36-year-old Tampa nurse who followed the trial through YouTube and Twitter, echoed the fear of many others. Nurses have long felt forced into “impossible situations” by mounting responsibilities and staffing shortages, she said, particularly in hospitals that operate with lean staffing models.

“The big response we are seeing is because all of us are acutely aware of how bad the pandemic has exacerbated the existing problems,” Ms. Bartholomew said. And “setting a precedent for criminally charging [for] an error is only going to make this exponentially worse.”

Ms. Vaught, who worked at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., was convicted in the death of Charlene Murphey, a 75-year-old patient who died from a drug mix-up in 2017. Ms. Murphey was prescribed a dose of a sedative, Versed, but Ms. Vaught accidentally withdrew a powerful paralyzer, vecuronium, from an automated medication-dispensing cabinet and administered it to the patient.

Prosecutors argued that Ms. Vaught overlooked many obvious signs she’d withdrawn the wrong drug and did not monitor Ms. Murphey after she was given a deadly dose. Ms. Vaught owned up to the error but said it was an honest mistake, not a crime.

Some of Ms. Vaught’s peers support the conviction.

Scott G. Shelp, BSN, RN, a California nurse with a small YouTube channel, posted a 26-minute self-described “unpopular opinion” that Ms. Vaught deserves to serve prison time. “We need to stick up for each other,” he said, “but we cannot defend the indefensible.”

Mr. Shelp said he would never make the same error as Ms. Vaught and “neither would any competent nurse.” Regarding concerns that the conviction would discourage nurses from disclosing errors, Mr. Shelp said “dishonest” nurses “should be weeded out” of the profession anyway.

“In any other circumstance, I can’t believe anyone – including nurses – would accept ‘I didn’t mean to’ as a serious defense,” Mr. Shelp said. “Punishment for a harmful act someone actually did is justice.”

Ms. Vaught was acquitted of reckless homicide but convicted of a lesser charge, criminally negligent homicide, and gross neglect of an impaired adult. As outrage spread across social media, the Nashville district attorney’s office defended the conviction, saying in a statement it was “not an indictment against the nursing profession or the medical community.”

“This case is, and always has been, about the one single individual who made 17 egregious actions, and inactions, that killed an elderly woman,” said the office’s spokesperson, Steve Hayslip. “The jury found that Vaught’s actions were so far below the protocols and standard level of care, that the jury (which included a longtime nurse and another health care professional) returned a guilty verdict in less than four hours.”

The office of Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee confirmed he is not considering clemency for Ms. Vaught despite the Change.org petition, which had amassed about 187,000 signatures as of April 4.

Casey Black, press secretary for Gov. Lee, said that outside of death penalty cases the governor relies on the Board of Parole to recommend defendants for clemency, which happens only after sentencing and a board investigation.

But the controversy around Ms. Vaught’s case is far from over. As of April 4, more than 8,200 people had joined a Facebook group planning a march in protest outside the courthouse during her sentencing May 13.

Among the event’s planners is Tina Visant, the host of “Good Nurse Bad Nurse,” a podcast that followed Ms. Vaught’s case and opposed her prosecution.

“I don’t know how Nashville is going to handle it,” Ms. Visant said of the protest during a recent episode about Ms. Vaught’s trial. “There are a lot of people coming from all over.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

A novel endovascular brain-computer interface is safe and effective, allowing paralyzed patients to use their thoughts to perform daily tasks, results of a small, first-in-human study show.

A potential life changer for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the minimally invasive device enables patients to carry out important activities of daily living.

“Our participants are able to use the device to perform tasks like sending email, texting loved ones and caregivers, browsing the web, and doing personal finances such as online banking,” study investigator Douglas J. Weber, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering and neuroscience, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, told a press briefing.

The technology allowed one patient to write a book (due out later this year) and another patient to maintain communication despite losing his ability to speak, said the study’s lead investigator, Bruce Campbell, MBBS, PhD, professor of neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne.

“In addition to providing patients with communicative capabilities not possible as a result of their disease, it is our goal to enable patients to be more independently involved in their care going forward, by enabling effective and faster communication directly with their caregiver and physician,” said Dr. Campbell.

The findings were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Minimally invasive

ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. Patients with ALS eventually lose the ability to control muscle movement, often leading to total paralysis.

“Extending the period in which patients are able to communicate with loved ones and caregivers could provide a very meaningful benefit to patients with ALS,” said Dr. Weber.

Brain-computer interfaces measure and translate brain signals, with some functioning as motor neuro-prostheses. These devices provide direct communication between the brain and an external device by recording and decoding signals from the precentral gyrus as the result of movement intention.

“The technology has potential to empower the more than five million people in the U.S. who are severely paralyzed to once again perform important activities of daily living independently,” said Dr. Weber.

Until now, motor neuro-prostheses required surgery to remove a portion of the skull and place electrodes on to the brain. However, the new minimally invasive motor neuro-prostheses reach the brain by vascular access, dispensing with the need for a craniotomy.

“The brain-computer interface device used in our study is unique in that it does not require invasive open surgery to implant,” said Dr. Weber. “Instead this is an endovascular brain-computer interface.”

Using a catheter, surgeons feed the BCI through one of two jugular veins in the neck. They position an array of 16 sensors or electrodes on a stent-like scaffold that deploys against the walls of the superior sagittal sinus.
 

No adverse events

Describing the device, Dr. Weber said the electrodes or sensing elements are tiny and the body of the stent, which serves as a scaffold to support the electrodes, resembles a standard endovascular stent.

“It’s very small at the time of delivery because it’s held within the body of a catheter, but then when deployed it expands to contact the wall of the vein.”

The device transmits brain signals from the motor cortex to an electronics unit, located in a subcutaneous pocket that decodes movement signals. The machine-learning decoder is programmed as follows: When a trainer asked participants to attempt certain movements, like tapping their foot or extending their knee, the decoder analyzes nerve cell signals from those movement attempts. The decoder is able to translate movement signals into computer navigation.

The study included four patients with ALS who were paralyzed because of the disease and were trained to use the device.

A key safety endpoint was device-related serious adverse events resulting in death or increased disability during the post-implant evaluation period. Results showed all four participants successfully completed the 12-month follow-up with no serious adverse events.

Researchers also assessed target vessel patency and incidence of device migration at 3 and 12 months. Postoperative imaging showed that in all participants, the blood vessel that held the implanted device remained open and stayed in place.

Addressing the potential for blood clots, Dr. Weber said that so far there has been no sign of clotting or vascular occlusion.

“The device itself integrates well into the walls of the blood vessel over time,” he said. “Within the acute period after implantation, there’s time where the device is exposed to the blood stream, but once it becomes encapsulated and fully integrated into the blood vessel wall, the risks of thrombosis diminish.”
 

Greater independence

Researchers also recorded signal fidelity and stability over 12 months and use of the brain-computer interface to perform routine tasks. All participants learned to use the motor neuro-prostheses with eye tracking for computer use. Eye tracking technology helps a computer determine what a person is looking at.

Using the system, patients were able to complete tasks without help. These included text messaging and managing finances. “Since the device is fully implanted and easy for patients to use, they can use the technology independently and in their own home,” said Dr. Weber.

Although the study started with patients with ALS, those paralyzed from other causes, such as an upper spinal cord injury or brain-stem stroke could also benefit from this technology, Dr. Weber said. In addition, the technology could be expanded to broaden brain communication capabilities potentially to include robotic limbs, he said.

There’s even the potential to use this minimally invasive brain interface technology to deliver therapies like deep brain stimulation, which Dr. Weber noted is a growing field. “It’s [the] early days, but it’s a very exciting new direction for brain interface technology,” he said.

Researchers are now recruiting patients for the first U.S.-based feasibility trial of the device that will be funded by the NIH, said Dr. Weber. A limitation of the research was the study’s small size.
 

Advancing the field

Reached for a comment, Kevin C. Davis, an MD and PhD student in the department of biomedical engineering, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, said this new work moves the field forward in an important way.

Dr. Davis and colleagues have shown the effectiveness of another technology used to overcome paralysis – a small portable system that facilitates hand grasp of a patient with a spinal cord injury. He reported on this DBS-based BCI system at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Developing effective brain-computer interfaces, and motor neural prosthetics that avoid surgery, as the team did in this new study, is “worth exploring,” said Dr. Davis.

However, although the device used in this new study avoids cranial surgery, “sole vascular access may limit the device’s ability to reach other areas of the brain more suitable for upper-limb motor prosthetics,” he said.

“Determining how much function such a device could provide to individuals with locked-in syndrome or paralysis will be important in determining its viability as an eventual clinical tool for patients.”

The study was supported by Synchron, the maker of the device, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office of Naval Research, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Australian Federal Government Foundation, and the Motor Neuron Disease Research Institute of Australia.

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

A novel endovascular brain-computer interface is safe and effective, allowing paralyzed patients to use their thoughts to perform daily tasks, results of a small, first-in-human study show.

A potential life changer for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the minimally invasive device enables patients to carry out important activities of daily living.

“Our participants are able to use the device to perform tasks like sending email, texting loved ones and caregivers, browsing the web, and doing personal finances such as online banking,” study investigator Douglas J. Weber, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering and neuroscience, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, told a press briefing.

The technology allowed one patient to write a book (due out later this year) and another patient to maintain communication despite losing his ability to speak, said the study’s lead investigator, Bruce Campbell, MBBS, PhD, professor of neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne.

“In addition to providing patients with communicative capabilities not possible as a result of their disease, it is our goal to enable patients to be more independently involved in their care going forward, by enabling effective and faster communication directly with their caregiver and physician,” said Dr. Campbell.

The findings were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Minimally invasive

ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. Patients with ALS eventually lose the ability to control muscle movement, often leading to total paralysis.

“Extending the period in which patients are able to communicate with loved ones and caregivers could provide a very meaningful benefit to patients with ALS,” said Dr. Weber.

Brain-computer interfaces measure and translate brain signals, with some functioning as motor neuro-prostheses. These devices provide direct communication between the brain and an external device by recording and decoding signals from the precentral gyrus as the result of movement intention.

“The technology has potential to empower the more than five million people in the U.S. who are severely paralyzed to once again perform important activities of daily living independently,” said Dr. Weber.

Until now, motor neuro-prostheses required surgery to remove a portion of the skull and place electrodes on to the brain. However, the new minimally invasive motor neuro-prostheses reach the brain by vascular access, dispensing with the need for a craniotomy.

“The brain-computer interface device used in our study is unique in that it does not require invasive open surgery to implant,” said Dr. Weber. “Instead this is an endovascular brain-computer interface.”

Using a catheter, surgeons feed the BCI through one of two jugular veins in the neck. They position an array of 16 sensors or electrodes on a stent-like scaffold that deploys against the walls of the superior sagittal sinus.
 

No adverse events

Describing the device, Dr. Weber said the electrodes or sensing elements are tiny and the body of the stent, which serves as a scaffold to support the electrodes, resembles a standard endovascular stent.

“It’s very small at the time of delivery because it’s held within the body of a catheter, but then when deployed it expands to contact the wall of the vein.”

The device transmits brain signals from the motor cortex to an electronics unit, located in a subcutaneous pocket that decodes movement signals. The machine-learning decoder is programmed as follows: When a trainer asked participants to attempt certain movements, like tapping their foot or extending their knee, the decoder analyzes nerve cell signals from those movement attempts. The decoder is able to translate movement signals into computer navigation.

The study included four patients with ALS who were paralyzed because of the disease and were trained to use the device.

A key safety endpoint was device-related serious adverse events resulting in death or increased disability during the post-implant evaluation period. Results showed all four participants successfully completed the 12-month follow-up with no serious adverse events.

Researchers also assessed target vessel patency and incidence of device migration at 3 and 12 months. Postoperative imaging showed that in all participants, the blood vessel that held the implanted device remained open and stayed in place.

Addressing the potential for blood clots, Dr. Weber said that so far there has been no sign of clotting or vascular occlusion.

“The device itself integrates well into the walls of the blood vessel over time,” he said. “Within the acute period after implantation, there’s time where the device is exposed to the blood stream, but once it becomes encapsulated and fully integrated into the blood vessel wall, the risks of thrombosis diminish.”
 

Greater independence

Researchers also recorded signal fidelity and stability over 12 months and use of the brain-computer interface to perform routine tasks. All participants learned to use the motor neuro-prostheses with eye tracking for computer use. Eye tracking technology helps a computer determine what a person is looking at.

Using the system, patients were able to complete tasks without help. These included text messaging and managing finances. “Since the device is fully implanted and easy for patients to use, they can use the technology independently and in their own home,” said Dr. Weber.

Although the study started with patients with ALS, those paralyzed from other causes, such as an upper spinal cord injury or brain-stem stroke could also benefit from this technology, Dr. Weber said. In addition, the technology could be expanded to broaden brain communication capabilities potentially to include robotic limbs, he said.

There’s even the potential to use this minimally invasive brain interface technology to deliver therapies like deep brain stimulation, which Dr. Weber noted is a growing field. “It’s [the] early days, but it’s a very exciting new direction for brain interface technology,” he said.

Researchers are now recruiting patients for the first U.S.-based feasibility trial of the device that will be funded by the NIH, said Dr. Weber. A limitation of the research was the study’s small size.
 

Advancing the field

Reached for a comment, Kevin C. Davis, an MD and PhD student in the department of biomedical engineering, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, said this new work moves the field forward in an important way.

Dr. Davis and colleagues have shown the effectiveness of another technology used to overcome paralysis – a small portable system that facilitates hand grasp of a patient with a spinal cord injury. He reported on this DBS-based BCI system at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Developing effective brain-computer interfaces, and motor neural prosthetics that avoid surgery, as the team did in this new study, is “worth exploring,” said Dr. Davis.

However, although the device used in this new study avoids cranial surgery, “sole vascular access may limit the device’s ability to reach other areas of the brain more suitable for upper-limb motor prosthetics,” he said.

“Determining how much function such a device could provide to individuals with locked-in syndrome or paralysis will be important in determining its viability as an eventual clinical tool for patients.”

The study was supported by Synchron, the maker of the device, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office of Naval Research, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Australian Federal Government Foundation, and the Motor Neuron Disease Research Institute of Australia.

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

A novel endovascular brain-computer interface is safe and effective, allowing paralyzed patients to use their thoughts to perform daily tasks, results of a small, first-in-human study show.

A potential life changer for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the minimally invasive device enables patients to carry out important activities of daily living.

“Our participants are able to use the device to perform tasks like sending email, texting loved ones and caregivers, browsing the web, and doing personal finances such as online banking,” study investigator Douglas J. Weber, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering and neuroscience, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, told a press briefing.

The technology allowed one patient to write a book (due out later this year) and another patient to maintain communication despite losing his ability to speak, said the study’s lead investigator, Bruce Campbell, MBBS, PhD, professor of neurology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne.

“In addition to providing patients with communicative capabilities not possible as a result of their disease, it is our goal to enable patients to be more independently involved in their care going forward, by enabling effective and faster communication directly with their caregiver and physician,” said Dr. Campbell.

The findings were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Minimally invasive

ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. Patients with ALS eventually lose the ability to control muscle movement, often leading to total paralysis.

“Extending the period in which patients are able to communicate with loved ones and caregivers could provide a very meaningful benefit to patients with ALS,” said Dr. Weber.

Brain-computer interfaces measure and translate brain signals, with some functioning as motor neuro-prostheses. These devices provide direct communication between the brain and an external device by recording and decoding signals from the precentral gyrus as the result of movement intention.

“The technology has potential to empower the more than five million people in the U.S. who are severely paralyzed to once again perform important activities of daily living independently,” said Dr. Weber.

Until now, motor neuro-prostheses required surgery to remove a portion of the skull and place electrodes on to the brain. However, the new minimally invasive motor neuro-prostheses reach the brain by vascular access, dispensing with the need for a craniotomy.

“The brain-computer interface device used in our study is unique in that it does not require invasive open surgery to implant,” said Dr. Weber. “Instead this is an endovascular brain-computer interface.”

Using a catheter, surgeons feed the BCI through one of two jugular veins in the neck. They position an array of 16 sensors or electrodes on a stent-like scaffold that deploys against the walls of the superior sagittal sinus.
 

No adverse events

Describing the device, Dr. Weber said the electrodes or sensing elements are tiny and the body of the stent, which serves as a scaffold to support the electrodes, resembles a standard endovascular stent.

“It’s very small at the time of delivery because it’s held within the body of a catheter, but then when deployed it expands to contact the wall of the vein.”

The device transmits brain signals from the motor cortex to an electronics unit, located in a subcutaneous pocket that decodes movement signals. The machine-learning decoder is programmed as follows: When a trainer asked participants to attempt certain movements, like tapping their foot or extending their knee, the decoder analyzes nerve cell signals from those movement attempts. The decoder is able to translate movement signals into computer navigation.

The study included four patients with ALS who were paralyzed because of the disease and were trained to use the device.

A key safety endpoint was device-related serious adverse events resulting in death or increased disability during the post-implant evaluation period. Results showed all four participants successfully completed the 12-month follow-up with no serious adverse events.

Researchers also assessed target vessel patency and incidence of device migration at 3 and 12 months. Postoperative imaging showed that in all participants, the blood vessel that held the implanted device remained open and stayed in place.

Addressing the potential for blood clots, Dr. Weber said that so far there has been no sign of clotting or vascular occlusion.

“The device itself integrates well into the walls of the blood vessel over time,” he said. “Within the acute period after implantation, there’s time where the device is exposed to the blood stream, but once it becomes encapsulated and fully integrated into the blood vessel wall, the risks of thrombosis diminish.”
 

Greater independence

Researchers also recorded signal fidelity and stability over 12 months and use of the brain-computer interface to perform routine tasks. All participants learned to use the motor neuro-prostheses with eye tracking for computer use. Eye tracking technology helps a computer determine what a person is looking at.

Using the system, patients were able to complete tasks without help. These included text messaging and managing finances. “Since the device is fully implanted and easy for patients to use, they can use the technology independently and in their own home,” said Dr. Weber.

Although the study started with patients with ALS, those paralyzed from other causes, such as an upper spinal cord injury or brain-stem stroke could also benefit from this technology, Dr. Weber said. In addition, the technology could be expanded to broaden brain communication capabilities potentially to include robotic limbs, he said.

There’s even the potential to use this minimally invasive brain interface technology to deliver therapies like deep brain stimulation, which Dr. Weber noted is a growing field. “It’s [the] early days, but it’s a very exciting new direction for brain interface technology,” he said.

Researchers are now recruiting patients for the first U.S.-based feasibility trial of the device that will be funded by the NIH, said Dr. Weber. A limitation of the research was the study’s small size.
 

Advancing the field

Reached for a comment, Kevin C. Davis, an MD and PhD student in the department of biomedical engineering, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, said this new work moves the field forward in an important way.

Dr. Davis and colleagues have shown the effectiveness of another technology used to overcome paralysis – a small portable system that facilitates hand grasp of a patient with a spinal cord injury. He reported on this DBS-based BCI system at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Developing effective brain-computer interfaces, and motor neural prosthetics that avoid surgery, as the team did in this new study, is “worth exploring,” said Dr. Davis.

However, although the device used in this new study avoids cranial surgery, “sole vascular access may limit the device’s ability to reach other areas of the brain more suitable for upper-limb motor prosthetics,” he said.

“Determining how much function such a device could provide to individuals with locked-in syndrome or paralysis will be important in determining its viability as an eventual clinical tool for patients.”

The study was supported by Synchron, the maker of the device, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office of Naval Research, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Australian Federal Government Foundation, and the Motor Neuron Disease Research Institute of Australia.

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