MDedge Neurology

“It’s in the computer.”

How many times a week do you hear that?

The advent of the modern EMR has created a new belief in many patients: That all medical office computers are connected, and information from one can be obtained from any of them. So when I ask patients if they had labs, or an MRI, or what their medications are, that’s what I sometimes hear back.

“It’s in the computer.”

True, but not MY computer.

Then they get perplexed, and irritated. Didn’t someone at the other office, or their friends, or something they read online, tell them I’d have access to it? Isn’t all medical info in a giant online database, somewhere, and all doctors can get into it?

Admittedly, I’m probably in better shape than other solo-practice docs. I have access codes to two local radiology places, two large labs, and the largest health care system in my corner of Phoenix. So although I’m not technically a part of them, I can still pull records when I need them for patient care. But if the patient is in my office right then, it takes a minute. My office wifi isn’t the fastest, I have to enter passwords, then do two-factor authentication.

I understand – very much – the importance of the added layers of security, but it adds time to the visit.

Some people, with perhaps more faith in technology than is justified, still don’t understand this. Another doctor sent them to see me, so why don’t I have the results of previous tests and labs? If they tell us what tests they had, and where, and when they make the appointment I can often be prepared for them. But this isn’t consistent.

On the surface some sort of large-scale medical database for everyone sounds good. It would be nice to not have to scramble to get past test results when people come in, and would probably save a lot of money on duplicated labs. But there are legitimate concerns about security and privacy, too.

Not only that, but “it’s in the computer” is also only as good as the people working them. Recently I got a call from an office in a local health care system asking for my notes on a patient. I’d sent them, but they insisted they hadn’t received them. From my desk I logged into their system and found my notes, neatly scanned in and labeled with my name and specialty. When I picked up the phone and told the young lady where to look, she was nice enough to apologize.

I get that. I often overlook things under my own nose, too. But no amount of technology will fix that issue for me or anyone else.

Unfortunately, this misplaced faith in technology doesn’t seem to be going away. People will still keep believing that it works much better than it really does.

That’s human nature, too.

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

“It’s in the computer.”

How many times a week do you hear that?

The advent of the modern EMR has created a new belief in many patients: That all medical office computers are connected, and information from one can be obtained from any of them. So when I ask patients if they had labs, or an MRI, or what their medications are, that’s what I sometimes hear back.

“It’s in the computer.”

True, but not MY computer.

Then they get perplexed, and irritated. Didn’t someone at the other office, or their friends, or something they read online, tell them I’d have access to it? Isn’t all medical info in a giant online database, somewhere, and all doctors can get into it?

Admittedly, I’m probably in better shape than other solo-practice docs. I have access codes to two local radiology places, two large labs, and the largest health care system in my corner of Phoenix. So although I’m not technically a part of them, I can still pull records when I need them for patient care. But if the patient is in my office right then, it takes a minute. My office wifi isn’t the fastest, I have to enter passwords, then do two-factor authentication.

I understand – very much – the importance of the added layers of security, but it adds time to the visit.

Some people, with perhaps more faith in technology than is justified, still don’t understand this. Another doctor sent them to see me, so why don’t I have the results of previous tests and labs? If they tell us what tests they had, and where, and when they make the appointment I can often be prepared for them. But this isn’t consistent.

On the surface some sort of large-scale medical database for everyone sounds good. It would be nice to not have to scramble to get past test results when people come in, and would probably save a lot of money on duplicated labs. But there are legitimate concerns about security and privacy, too.

Not only that, but “it’s in the computer” is also only as good as the people working them. Recently I got a call from an office in a local health care system asking for my notes on a patient. I’d sent them, but they insisted they hadn’t received them. From my desk I logged into their system and found my notes, neatly scanned in and labeled with my name and specialty. When I picked up the phone and told the young lady where to look, she was nice enough to apologize.

I get that. I often overlook things under my own nose, too. But no amount of technology will fix that issue for me or anyone else.

Unfortunately, this misplaced faith in technology doesn’t seem to be going away. People will still keep believing that it works much better than it really does.

That’s human nature, too.

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

“It’s in the computer.”

How many times a week do you hear that?

The advent of the modern EMR has created a new belief in many patients: That all medical office computers are connected, and information from one can be obtained from any of them. So when I ask patients if they had labs, or an MRI, or what their medications are, that’s what I sometimes hear back.

“It’s in the computer.”

True, but not MY computer.

Then they get perplexed, and irritated. Didn’t someone at the other office, or their friends, or something they read online, tell them I’d have access to it? Isn’t all medical info in a giant online database, somewhere, and all doctors can get into it?

Admittedly, I’m probably in better shape than other solo-practice docs. I have access codes to two local radiology places, two large labs, and the largest health care system in my corner of Phoenix. So although I’m not technically a part of them, I can still pull records when I need them for patient care. But if the patient is in my office right then, it takes a minute. My office wifi isn’t the fastest, I have to enter passwords, then do two-factor authentication.

I understand – very much – the importance of the added layers of security, but it adds time to the visit.

Some people, with perhaps more faith in technology than is justified, still don’t understand this. Another doctor sent them to see me, so why don’t I have the results of previous tests and labs? If they tell us what tests they had, and where, and when they make the appointment I can often be prepared for them. But this isn’t consistent.

On the surface some sort of large-scale medical database for everyone sounds good. It would be nice to not have to scramble to get past test results when people come in, and would probably save a lot of money on duplicated labs. But there are legitimate concerns about security and privacy, too.

Not only that, but “it’s in the computer” is also only as good as the people working them. Recently I got a call from an office in a local health care system asking for my notes on a patient. I’d sent them, but they insisted they hadn’t received them. From my desk I logged into their system and found my notes, neatly scanned in and labeled with my name and specialty. When I picked up the phone and told the young lady where to look, she was nice enough to apologize.

I get that. I often overlook things under my own nose, too. But no amount of technology will fix that issue for me or anyone else.

Unfortunately, this misplaced faith in technology doesn’t seem to be going away. People will still keep believing that it works much better than it really does.

That’s human nature, too.

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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?

Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.

I think both arguments fail. Pharma should follow the lead of other Western companies and suspend their involvement with Putin’s Russia.

We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?

Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.

To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.

“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”

The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.

Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.

There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.

How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.

Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.

The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.

Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.



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

Twelve physicians in Michigan and Ohio were sentenced to prison because of their involvement in distributing 6.6 million opioid pills, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The defendants’s activities also resulted in more than $250 million in false billings.

“It is unconscionable that doctors and health care professionals would violate their oath to do no harm and exploit vulnerable patients struggling with addiction,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the announcement. “These are not just crimes of greed, these are crimes that make this country’s opioid crisis even worse – and that is why the department will continue to relentlessly pursue these cases.”

Francisco Patino, MD, 66, a Wayne County, Michigan-based emergency medicine physician and part owner of one of the clinics involved, purchased cars, jewelry, and vacations as a result of the fraudulent activity, according to federal officials. He will face sentencing at a later date on a variety of counts related to defrauding the United States, health care fraud, money laundering, and wire fraud after his conviction in a 2021 trial.

Prosecutors also allege that he laundered money through a diet program and spent funds on sponsoring mixed martial arts fighters, the Detroit News reported.

Mashiyat Rashid, Dr. Patino’s business partner and part owner of the Tri-County Wellness Group, was sentenced to 15 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $51 million in restitution in connection with his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, in addition to one count of money laundering. As a result of the scheme, Mr. Rashid bought courtside tickets to the NBA Finals, expensive real estate, and private jet flights, according to the DOJ.

Gold bars, indoor basketball courts, luxury cars, and swimming pools were purchases secured by other defendants who were involved in the fraudulent scheme.

Court documents and evidence show that the physicians required that patients receive unnecessary and costly back injections in return for opioids, per the agency charged with enforcing federal law. The scheme, which took place from 2007 to 2018, involved a network of pain clinics across multiple states. Referred to as “pill mills” by the DOJ, the pain clinics dispensed the high-dosage prescriptions, such as oxycodone, to drug dealers and patients with opioid use disorder.

The procedures, billed to insurance, were for facet joint injections. According to the DOJ, the injections were chosen because they generated high reimbursements rather than being medically necessary.

The Detroit News reported in September that some of the medically unnecessary drugs prescribed by Dr. Patino, which included fentanyl, oxycodone, and oxymorphone, per an indictment, were resold “on the street.” Dr. Patino wrote prescriptions for more than 2.2 million pills between 2016 and 2017.

Dr. Patino and Mr. Rashid join physicians and others in the health care field, who are charged or sentenced for their involvement in the scheme. In total, five physicians were convicted in two separate trials and 18 defendants pleaded guilty, per the DOJ. Meanwhile, seven defendants await sentencing.

Included in this group were:

• Spilios Pappas, MD, 63, an emergency medicine specialist in Lucas County, Ohio, sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to pay $32.2 million in restitution
• Joseph Betro, DO, 60, an emergency medicine physician from Oakland County, Mich., sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to pay $27.4 million in restitution
• Tariq Omar, MD, 63, a pulmonologist from Oakland County, Mich., sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to pay $24.2 million in restitution
• Mohammed Zahoor, MD, 53, a neurologist from Oakland County, Mich., sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to pay $36.6 million in restitution

The four physicians worked at various clinics under the Tri-County Wellness Group, operated by Mr. Rashid, according to federal officials. During their employment with the clinics, they defrauded Medicare of more than $150 million through the scheme that involved opioids for medically unnecessary services, the DOJ noted.

Shortly after being indicted, Dr. Pappas posted a fundraising page for his legal services, claiming he and the other doctors had no idea what was going on and that he was “sickened and nauseous” when learning of the details of the case.

More than $16 million was forfeited by the defendants to the United States, according to the DOJ.

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

Twelve physicians in Michigan and Ohio were sentenced to prison because of their involvement in distributing 6.6 million opioid pills, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The defendants’s activities also resulted in more than $250 million in false billings.

“It is unconscionable that doctors and health care professionals would violate their oath to do no harm and exploit vulnerable patients struggling with addiction,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the announcement. “These are not just crimes of greed, these are crimes that make this country’s opioid crisis even worse – and that is why the department will continue to relentlessly pursue these cases.”

Francisco Patino, MD, 66, a Wayne County, Michigan-based emergency medicine physician and part owner of one of the clinics involved, purchased cars, jewelry, and vacations as a result of the fraudulent activity, according to federal officials. He will face sentencing at a later date on a variety of counts related to defrauding the United States, health care fraud, money laundering, and wire fraud after his conviction in a 2021 trial.

Prosecutors also allege that he laundered money through a diet program and spent funds on sponsoring mixed martial arts fighters, the Detroit News reported.

Mashiyat Rashid, Dr. Patino’s business partner and part owner of the Tri-County Wellness Group, was sentenced to 15 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $51 million in restitution in connection with his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, in addition to one count of money laundering. As a result of the scheme, Mr. Rashid bought courtside tickets to the NBA Finals, expensive real estate, and private jet flights, according to the DOJ.

Gold bars, indoor basketball courts, luxury cars, and swimming pools were purchases secured by other defendants who were involved in the fraudulent scheme.

Court documents and evidence show that the physicians required that patients receive unnecessary and costly back injections in return for opioids, per the agency charged with enforcing federal law. The scheme, which took place from 2007 to 2018, involved a network of pain clinics across multiple states. Referred to as “pill mills” by the DOJ, the pain clinics dispensed the high-dosage prescriptions, such as oxycodone, to drug dealers and patients with opioid use disorder.

The procedures, billed to insurance, were for facet joint injections. According to the DOJ, the injections were chosen because they generated high reimbursements rather than being medically necessary.

The Detroit News reported in September that some of the medically unnecessary drugs prescribed by Dr. Patino, which included fentanyl, oxycodone, and oxymorphone, per an indictment, were resold “on the street.” Dr. Patino wrote prescriptions for more than 2.2 million pills between 2016 and 2017.

Dr. Patino and Mr. Rashid join physicians and others in the health care field, who are charged or sentenced for their involvement in the scheme. In total, five physicians were convicted in two separate trials and 18 defendants pleaded guilty, per the DOJ. Meanwhile, seven defendants await sentencing.

Included in this group were:

• Spilios Pappas, MD, 63, an emergency medicine specialist in Lucas County, Ohio, sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to pay $32.2 million in restitution
• Joseph Betro, DO, 60, an emergency medicine physician from Oakland County, Mich., sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to pay $27.4 million in restitution
• Tariq Omar, MD, 63, a pulmonologist from Oakland County, Mich., sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to pay $24.2 million in restitution
• Mohammed Zahoor, MD, 53, a neurologist from Oakland County, Mich., sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to pay $36.6 million in restitution

The four physicians worked at various clinics under the Tri-County Wellness Group, operated by Mr. Rashid, according to federal officials. During their employment with the clinics, they defrauded Medicare of more than $150 million through the scheme that involved opioids for medically unnecessary services, the DOJ noted.

Shortly after being indicted, Dr. Pappas posted a fundraising page for his legal services, claiming he and the other doctors had no idea what was going on and that he was “sickened and nauseous” when learning of the details of the case.

More than $16 million was forfeited by the defendants to the United States, according to the DOJ.

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

Twelve physicians in Michigan and Ohio were sentenced to prison because of their involvement in distributing 6.6 million opioid pills, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The defendants’s activities also resulted in more than $250 million in false billings.

“It is unconscionable that doctors and health care professionals would violate their oath to do no harm and exploit vulnerable patients struggling with addiction,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the announcement. “These are not just crimes of greed, these are crimes that make this country’s opioid crisis even worse – and that is why the department will continue to relentlessly pursue these cases.”

Francisco Patino, MD, 66, a Wayne County, Michigan-based emergency medicine physician and part owner of one of the clinics involved, purchased cars, jewelry, and vacations as a result of the fraudulent activity, according to federal officials. He will face sentencing at a later date on a variety of counts related to defrauding the United States, health care fraud, money laundering, and wire fraud after his conviction in a 2021 trial.

Prosecutors also allege that he laundered money through a diet program and spent funds on sponsoring mixed martial arts fighters, the Detroit News reported.

Mashiyat Rashid, Dr. Patino’s business partner and part owner of the Tri-County Wellness Group, was sentenced to 15 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $51 million in restitution in connection with his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, in addition to one count of money laundering. As a result of the scheme, Mr. Rashid bought courtside tickets to the NBA Finals, expensive real estate, and private jet flights, according to the DOJ.

Gold bars, indoor basketball courts, luxury cars, and swimming pools were purchases secured by other defendants who were involved in the fraudulent scheme.

Court documents and evidence show that the physicians required that patients receive unnecessary and costly back injections in return for opioids, per the agency charged with enforcing federal law. The scheme, which took place from 2007 to 2018, involved a network of pain clinics across multiple states. Referred to as “pill mills” by the DOJ, the pain clinics dispensed the high-dosage prescriptions, such as oxycodone, to drug dealers and patients with opioid use disorder.

The procedures, billed to insurance, were for facet joint injections. According to the DOJ, the injections were chosen because they generated high reimbursements rather than being medically necessary.

The Detroit News reported in September that some of the medically unnecessary drugs prescribed by Dr. Patino, which included fentanyl, oxycodone, and oxymorphone, per an indictment, were resold “on the street.” Dr. Patino wrote prescriptions for more than 2.2 million pills between 2016 and 2017.

Dr. Patino and Mr. Rashid join physicians and others in the health care field, who are charged or sentenced for their involvement in the scheme. In total, five physicians were convicted in two separate trials and 18 defendants pleaded guilty, per the DOJ. Meanwhile, seven defendants await sentencing.

Included in this group were:

• Spilios Pappas, MD, 63, an emergency medicine specialist in Lucas County, Ohio, sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to pay $32.2 million in restitution
• Joseph Betro, DO, 60, an emergency medicine physician from Oakland County, Mich., sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to pay $27.4 million in restitution
• Tariq Omar, MD, 63, a pulmonologist from Oakland County, Mich., sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to pay $24.2 million in restitution
• Mohammed Zahoor, MD, 53, a neurologist from Oakland County, Mich., sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to pay $36.6 million in restitution

The four physicians worked at various clinics under the Tri-County Wellness Group, operated by Mr. Rashid, according to federal officials. During their employment with the clinics, they defrauded Medicare of more than $150 million through the scheme that involved opioids for medically unnecessary services, the DOJ noted.

Shortly after being indicted, Dr. Pappas posted a fundraising page for his legal services, claiming he and the other doctors had no idea what was going on and that he was “sickened and nauseous” when learning of the details of the case.

More than $16 million was forfeited by the defendants to the United States, according to the DOJ.

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

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

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. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

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. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

Even as the war in Ukraine has prompted an exodus of international companies — from fast-food chains and oil producers to luxury retailers — from Russia, U.S. and global drug companies said they would continue manufacturing and selling their products there.

Airlines, automakers, banks, and technology giants — at least 320 companies by one count — are among the businesses curtailing operations or making high-profile exits from Russia as its invasion of Ukraine intensifies. McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola announced a pause in sales recently.

But drugmakers, medical device manufacturers, and health care companies, which are exempted from U.S. and European sanctions, said Russians need access to medicines and medical equipment and contend that international humanitarian law requires they keep supply chains open.

“As a health care company, we have an important purpose, which is why at this time we continue to serve people in all countries in which we operate who depend on us for essential products, some life-sustaining,” said Scott Stoffel, divisional vice president for Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories, which manufactures and sells medicines in Russia for oncology, women’s health, pancreatic insufficiency, and liver health.

Johnson & Johnson — which has corporate offices in Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg — said in a statement, “We remain committed to providing essential health products to those in need in Ukraine, Russia, and the region, in compliance with current sanctions and while adapting to the rapidly changing situation on the ground.”

The reluctance of drugmakers to pause operations in Russia is being met with a growing chorus of criticism.

Pharmaceutical companies that say they must continue to manufacture drugs in Russia for humanitarian reasons are “being misguided at best, cynical in the medium case, and outright deplorably misleading and deceptive,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, DBA, a professor at the Yale School of Management who is tracking which companies have curtailed operations in Russia. He noted that banks and technology companies also provide essential services.

“Russians are put in a tragic position of unearned suffering. If we continue to make life palatable for them, then we are continuing to support the regime,” Dr. Sonnenfeld said. “These drug companies will be seen as complicit with the most vicious operation on the planet. Instead of protecting life, they are going to be seen as destroying life. The goal here is to show that Putin is not in control of all sectors of the economy.”

U.S. pharmaceutical and medical companies have operated in Russia for decades, and many ramped up operations after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, navigating the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia amid sanctions. In 2010, Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, announced an ambitious national plan for the Russian pharmaceutical industry that would be a pillar in his efforts to reestablish his country as an influential superpower and wean the country off Western pharmaceutical imports. Under the plan, called “Pharma-2020” and “Pharma-2030,” the government required Western pharmaceutical companies eager to sell to Russia’s growing middle class to locate production inside the country.

Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Abbott are among the drugmakers that manufacture pharmaceutical drugs at facilities in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in the country and typically sell those drugs as branded generics or under Russian brands.

Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, said on CBS that the giant drugmaker is not going to make further investments in Russia, but that it will not cut ties with Russia, as multinational companies in other industries are doing.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Kaluga, a major manufacturing center for Volkswagen and Volvo southwest of Moscow, have been funded through a partnership between Rusnano, a state-owned venture that promotes the development of high-tech enterprises, and U.S. venture capital firms.

Russia also has sought to position itself as an attractive research market, offering an inexpensive and lax regulatory environment for clinical drug trials. Last year, Pfizer conducted in Russia clinical trials of Paxlovid, its experimental antiviral pill to treat covid-19. Before the invasion began in late February, 3,072 trials were underway in Russia and 503 were underway in Ukraine, according to BioWorld, a reporting hub focused on drug development that features data from Cortellis.

AstraZeneca is the top sponsor of clinical trials in Russia, with 49 trials, followed by a subsidiary of Merck, with 48 trials.

So far, drugmakers’ response to the Ukraine invasion has largely centered on public pledges to donate essential medicines and vaccines to Ukrainian patients and refugees. They’ve also made general comments about the need to keep open the supply of medicines flowing within Russia.

Abbott has pledged $2 million to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, and Pfizer, based in New York, said it has supplied $1 million in humanitarian grants. Swiss drug maker Novartis said it was expanding humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and working to “ensure the continued supply of our medicines in Ukraine.”

But no major pharmaceutical or medical device maker has announced plans to shutter manufacturing plants or halt sales inside Russia.

In an open letter, hundreds of leaders of mainly smaller biotechnology companies have called on industry members to cease business activities in Russia, including “investment in Russian companies and new investment within the borders of Russia,” and to halt trade and collaboration with Russian companies, except for supplying food and medicines. How many of the signatories have business operations in Russia was unclear.

Ulrich Neumann, director for market access at Janssen, a Johnson & Johnson company, was among those who signed the letter, but whether he was speaking for the company was unclear. In its own statement posted on social media, the company said it’s “committed to providing access to our essential medical products in the countries where we operate, in compliance with current international sanctions.”

GlaxoSmithKline, headquartered in the United Kingdom, said in a statement that it’s stopping all advertising in Russia and will not enter into contracts that “directly support the Russian administration or military.” But the company said that as a “supplier of needed medicines, vaccines and everyday health products, we have a responsibility to do all we can to make them available. For this reason, we will continue to supply our products to the people of Russia, while we can.”

Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, an investment consulting firm, noted that drug companies have been treated differently than other industries during previous global conflicts. For example, some corporate ethicists advised against pharmaceutical companies’ total divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime to ensure essential medicines flowed to the country.

“There is a difference between a hamburger and a pill,” Mr. Minow said. Companies should strongly condemn Russia’s actions, she said, but unless the United States enters directly into a war with Russia, companies that make essential medicines and health care products should continue to operate. Before U.S. involvement in World War II, she added, there were “some American companies that did business with Germany until the last minute.”
 

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. KHN senior correspondent Arthur Allen contributed to this article.

A randomized, controlled trial of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) showed improvement in a secondary outcome measure – cognition – and provided evidence that the technique can be employed outside of a physician’s office.

The primary outcome of the sham-controlled trial was fatigue, but the findings presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) focused on a secondary cognitive measure, called the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS).

The intervention may still be a work in progress as far as a treatment technique “but the more important point is that there is a path to remote cognitive rehab interventions which, as a concept, is important,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., who was asked to comment on the study.
 

Adaptive mechanisms

The study grew out of work done with BrainHQ, which is a brain-training program available commercially through Posit Science. It employs an algorithm to recommend and tailor exercises for participants and to adjust the difficulty of the exercises in order to maintain engagement. “We believe the key ingredient is really the adaptive mechanisms that adjust to users in real time, for instance slowing down when the user slows down or speeding up to drive the learning to maintain a level of engagement. The games are designed to target processing speed that then has a transfer effect to other aspects of cognitive function,” Leigh Charvet, PhD, said during her presentation of the study results. Dr. Charvet is director of MS research and a professor of neurology at New York University.

The researchers previously conducted a large trial in patients with MS and showed that the adaptive mechanism, used for 60 hours over 12 weeks, could improve cognitive functioning. “We had two learnings from that trial: One that the brain training in at least a very intense dose was beneficial for cognitive functioning, and the second was that at-home treatments are very popular,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the most recent trial, the researchers turned to tDCS in an effort to boost the effect of brain training. “The idea is that if you can stimulate the region of the brain that is engaged with the training activity, you can boost or potentiate the outcomes of the training,” said Dr. Charvet. The tDCS treatment applies 1.0-4.0 mA current to the scalp, where it can be placed to specifically affect a brain region of interest. The study targeted the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is a key region for executive function and cognitive flexibility.

The team developed a protocol that would allow the intervention to be conducted at home, with live supervision via HIPAA-compliant teleconferencing and technology that was designed for ease of use. The tDCS devices were preprogrammed and operated on an unlock code, which initiated active or sham tDCS. “We replicated onsite lab standards, but delivered it to people at home,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the new study, 106 patients with MS who had fatigue, but not depression, underwent 30 20-minute training sessions over a 6-week period, with active or sham tDCS. The participants were tested before and after treatment using the BICAMS. The sham group had a mean change of –0.17 in the BICAMS z score, compared with a mean of +0.05 in the tDCS group (P = .027).

One of the tests that make up the BICAMS battery, the single digit modalities test (SDMT), showed a trend toward improvement in the tDCS group (z sore, +0.09 versus –0.19; P = .058). There was no significant difference between the groups In the Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test or the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised.
 

What about fatigue?

The emphasis on a secondary outcome drew some criticism. “It’s odd, because the primary outcome was fatigue. They didn’t report the primary outcome, they focused on a secondary outcome of cognitive measure,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

“I think the most important finding in this study was that they were able to deliver the transcranial direct current stimulation at home, via computer. They were able to do this study by computer with their patients at home, and it was a fairly large number. You could consider it broadly as a proof of principle that this can be done,” said Dr. Coyle, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook MS Comprehensive Care Center.

The study was funded by the National MS Society. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accord-ant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alker-mes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

A randomized, controlled trial of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) showed improvement in a secondary outcome measure – cognition – and provided evidence that the technique can be employed outside of a physician’s office.

The primary outcome of the sham-controlled trial was fatigue, but the findings presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) focused on a secondary cognitive measure, called the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS).

The intervention may still be a work in progress as far as a treatment technique “but the more important point is that there is a path to remote cognitive rehab interventions which, as a concept, is important,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., who was asked to comment on the study.
 

Adaptive mechanisms

The study grew out of work done with BrainHQ, which is a brain-training program available commercially through Posit Science. It employs an algorithm to recommend and tailor exercises for participants and to adjust the difficulty of the exercises in order to maintain engagement. “We believe the key ingredient is really the adaptive mechanisms that adjust to users in real time, for instance slowing down when the user slows down or speeding up to drive the learning to maintain a level of engagement. The games are designed to target processing speed that then has a transfer effect to other aspects of cognitive function,” Leigh Charvet, PhD, said during her presentation of the study results. Dr. Charvet is director of MS research and a professor of neurology at New York University.

The researchers previously conducted a large trial in patients with MS and showed that the adaptive mechanism, used for 60 hours over 12 weeks, could improve cognitive functioning. “We had two learnings from that trial: One that the brain training in at least a very intense dose was beneficial for cognitive functioning, and the second was that at-home treatments are very popular,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the most recent trial, the researchers turned to tDCS in an effort to boost the effect of brain training. “The idea is that if you can stimulate the region of the brain that is engaged with the training activity, you can boost or potentiate the outcomes of the training,” said Dr. Charvet. The tDCS treatment applies 1.0-4.0 mA current to the scalp, where it can be placed to specifically affect a brain region of interest. The study targeted the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is a key region for executive function and cognitive flexibility.

The team developed a protocol that would allow the intervention to be conducted at home, with live supervision via HIPAA-compliant teleconferencing and technology that was designed for ease of use. The tDCS devices were preprogrammed and operated on an unlock code, which initiated active or sham tDCS. “We replicated onsite lab standards, but delivered it to people at home,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the new study, 106 patients with MS who had fatigue, but not depression, underwent 30 20-minute training sessions over a 6-week period, with active or sham tDCS. The participants were tested before and after treatment using the BICAMS. The sham group had a mean change of –0.17 in the BICAMS z score, compared with a mean of +0.05 in the tDCS group (P = .027).

One of the tests that make up the BICAMS battery, the single digit modalities test (SDMT), showed a trend toward improvement in the tDCS group (z sore, +0.09 versus –0.19; P = .058). There was no significant difference between the groups In the Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test or the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised.
 

What about fatigue?

The emphasis on a secondary outcome drew some criticism. “It’s odd, because the primary outcome was fatigue. They didn’t report the primary outcome, they focused on a secondary outcome of cognitive measure,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

“I think the most important finding in this study was that they were able to deliver the transcranial direct current stimulation at home, via computer. They were able to do this study by computer with their patients at home, and it was a fairly large number. You could consider it broadly as a proof of principle that this can be done,” said Dr. Coyle, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook MS Comprehensive Care Center.

The study was funded by the National MS Society. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accord-ant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alker-mes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

A randomized, controlled trial of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) showed improvement in a secondary outcome measure – cognition – and provided evidence that the technique can be employed outside of a physician’s office.

The primary outcome of the sham-controlled trial was fatigue, but the findings presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) focused on a secondary cognitive measure, called the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS).

The intervention may still be a work in progress as far as a treatment technique “but the more important point is that there is a path to remote cognitive rehab interventions which, as a concept, is important,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., who was asked to comment on the study.
 

Adaptive mechanisms

The study grew out of work done with BrainHQ, which is a brain-training program available commercially through Posit Science. It employs an algorithm to recommend and tailor exercises for participants and to adjust the difficulty of the exercises in order to maintain engagement. “We believe the key ingredient is really the adaptive mechanisms that adjust to users in real time, for instance slowing down when the user slows down or speeding up to drive the learning to maintain a level of engagement. The games are designed to target processing speed that then has a transfer effect to other aspects of cognitive function,” Leigh Charvet, PhD, said during her presentation of the study results. Dr. Charvet is director of MS research and a professor of neurology at New York University.

The researchers previously conducted a large trial in patients with MS and showed that the adaptive mechanism, used for 60 hours over 12 weeks, could improve cognitive functioning. “We had two learnings from that trial: One that the brain training in at least a very intense dose was beneficial for cognitive functioning, and the second was that at-home treatments are very popular,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the most recent trial, the researchers turned to tDCS in an effort to boost the effect of brain training. “The idea is that if you can stimulate the region of the brain that is engaged with the training activity, you can boost or potentiate the outcomes of the training,” said Dr. Charvet. The tDCS treatment applies 1.0-4.0 mA current to the scalp, where it can be placed to specifically affect a brain region of interest. The study targeted the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is a key region for executive function and cognitive flexibility.

The team developed a protocol that would allow the intervention to be conducted at home, with live supervision via HIPAA-compliant teleconferencing and technology that was designed for ease of use. The tDCS devices were preprogrammed and operated on an unlock code, which initiated active or sham tDCS. “We replicated onsite lab standards, but delivered it to people at home,” said Dr. Charvet.

In the new study, 106 patients with MS who had fatigue, but not depression, underwent 30 20-minute training sessions over a 6-week period, with active or sham tDCS. The participants were tested before and after treatment using the BICAMS. The sham group had a mean change of –0.17 in the BICAMS z score, compared with a mean of +0.05 in the tDCS group (P = .027).

One of the tests that make up the BICAMS battery, the single digit modalities test (SDMT), showed a trend toward improvement in the tDCS group (z sore, +0.09 versus –0.19; P = .058). There was no significant difference between the groups In the Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test or the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test–Revised.
 

What about fatigue?

The emphasis on a secondary outcome drew some criticism. “It’s odd, because the primary outcome was fatigue. They didn’t report the primary outcome, they focused on a secondary outcome of cognitive measure,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, who was asked to comment on the study.

“I think the most important finding in this study was that they were able to deliver the transcranial direct current stimulation at home, via computer. They were able to do this study by computer with their patients at home, and it was a fairly large number. You could consider it broadly as a proof of principle that this can be done,” said Dr. Coyle, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook MS Comprehensive Care Center.

The study was funded by the National MS Society. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accord-ant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alker-mes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Women with multiple sclerosis (MS) undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have an increased relapse risk if they are not treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT), new research suggests. In a cohort study of women undergoing ART, those who did not receive DMTs had a significantly higher relapse risk than their peers who were treated with the drugs.

In addition, the likelihood of achieving pregnancy through ART while having MS appeared favorable, researchers noted.

“In this modern case series and the largest cohort to date, we identified a lower risk of relapses after ART than previously reported,” Edith L. Graham, MD, of the department of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues  wrote. “Importantly, continuing DMT during ART may reduce risk of relapse during this period of marked hormonal fluctuations and stressors,” they added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Study details

Previous research shows a wide range of relapse risk in patients with MS undergoing ART.

To investigate the potential role of DMTs in mitigating relapse risk, the researchers evaluated data on 37 women with either relapsing-remitting MS (n = 31) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS; n = 6) who underwent ART. The women all had low disability, with a median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 1.0. All participants had undergone one to five cycles of reproductive therapy between 2010 and 2021.

Most (78%) were receiving ART because of infertility or a need for preimplantation genetic testing, whereas 22% were undergoing the treatment for the preservation of fertility. Average age of the participants was 35 years and average disease duration was 7.4 years.

Among 19 of the 37 patients who were taking DMTs prior to ART, 10 remained on the medication throughout ovarian hyperstimulation.

In those who received DMTs in the 12 months prior to ART, treatment included glatiramer acetate (n = 9), interferons (n = 3), and dimethyl fumarate (n = 1). Three participants received B-cell–depleting agents.

In addition, three women received medication in response to a rebound after discontinuation. Of these, two received fingolimod and one natalizumab.

Five patients (13.5%) experienced MS relapses in the 12 months following ART therapy. Among those experiencing relapse, none were treated with DMTs during the preceding 12 months.

Of the relapses, three occurred within 3 months of the ART treatment, one within 6 months, and one within 12 months.
 

High rate of successful pregnancy

Overall, 24 of 29 women (83%) underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) with embryo transfer as part of ART achieved pregnancy. The remaining five patients were undergoing egg cryopreservation.

Although 14 of the 24 who achieved pregnancy were on DMTs and 2 of 5 who did not achieve pregnancy were on the therapies, Dr. Graham noted, “these numbers seem too small to draw conclusions.”

In particular, patients may benefit from treatment with rituximab or ocrelizumab 3-6 months prior to ART, “which gives better protection during ART cycle with low risk of fetal exposure,” she said.

“Treatment does not need to be discontinued if undergoing embryo banking only,” Dr. Graham added. “The risk to the fetus occurs only after embryo transfer.”

Although there is a lack of research examining whether MS relapse lowers the chance of pregnancy, Dr. Graham noted, “in theory, relapsing MS may compromise ART success because [patients] may have a narrower window to undergo ART treatments if they are trying to mitigate DMT exposure to the fetus.” 

However, the study’s results generally suggest favorable outcomes with ART among women with MS, she added. “We found that overall ART is actually very successful among people with MS. I was actually very surprised by this high rate of successful pregnancy,” Dr. Graham said.

She noted that as women with MS increasingly undergo IVF as well as egg cryopreservation, research on these issues is gaining importance for clinicians. “This is going to be something that MS specialists need to know more about, particularly the safety of ART in their patients,” said Dr. Graham.

“What’s important is there are no [formal] recommendations along these lines, so this represents an opportunity to get the word out to clinicians that you want to make sure patients with MS are protected throughout the ART cycle and that you’re not discontinuing their DMT too early,” she added.
 

Protective against relapse?

Commenting on the study, Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, medical director of the Barlo Multiple Sclerosis Program at St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, noted that, while there are many guidelines/recommendations regarding use of older DMTs peripregnancy, data on many newer therapies is more limited.

“Often, when people do not have definitive evidence, they tend to take a conservative approach, which is why there is likely reluctance to keep patients on DMTs during ART as well as in early pregnancy,” said Dr. Oh, who was not involved in the research.

Importantly, there is also no definitive evidence of a relationship between MS relapses and ART success or pregnancy outcomes, she noted. However, “from a common-sense perspective, most clinicians worry that extreme stress or disability may negatively affect both ART and pregnancy outcomes,” she added.

Dr. Oh agreed that ocrelizumab is an appropriate choice in terms of preventing relapse during ART. “Ocrevus is one of our highest-efficacy DMTs and is only dosed every 6 months. So this allows for ART cycles and conception without worrying about fetal drug exposure and the drug affecting ART cycles,” she said.

She noted the study’s findings “are in keeping with some prior studies, but not others, demonstrating there may be a higher risk of relapse with ART” in patients who are not taking a DMT.

“However, in my mind the most important conclusion from this study is that being on a DMT seems to be protective of relapse risk, which is an important point that will be useful to provide patients with clinical guidance,” Dr. Oh said.

Dr. Graham reported having received consulting fees from Genentech. Dr. Oh reported having received consulting or speaking fees from Alexion, Biogen Idec, BMS, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and Roche.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Women with multiple sclerosis (MS) undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have an increased relapse risk if they are not treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT), new research suggests. In a cohort study of women undergoing ART, those who did not receive DMTs had a significantly higher relapse risk than their peers who were treated with the drugs.

In addition, the likelihood of achieving pregnancy through ART while having MS appeared favorable, researchers noted.

“In this modern case series and the largest cohort to date, we identified a lower risk of relapses after ART than previously reported,” Edith L. Graham, MD, of the department of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues  wrote. “Importantly, continuing DMT during ART may reduce risk of relapse during this period of marked hormonal fluctuations and stressors,” they added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Study details

Previous research shows a wide range of relapse risk in patients with MS undergoing ART.

To investigate the potential role of DMTs in mitigating relapse risk, the researchers evaluated data on 37 women with either relapsing-remitting MS (n = 31) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS; n = 6) who underwent ART. The women all had low disability, with a median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 1.0. All participants had undergone one to five cycles of reproductive therapy between 2010 and 2021.

Most (78%) were receiving ART because of infertility or a need for preimplantation genetic testing, whereas 22% were undergoing the treatment for the preservation of fertility. Average age of the participants was 35 years and average disease duration was 7.4 years.

Among 19 of the 37 patients who were taking DMTs prior to ART, 10 remained on the medication throughout ovarian hyperstimulation.

In those who received DMTs in the 12 months prior to ART, treatment included glatiramer acetate (n = 9), interferons (n = 3), and dimethyl fumarate (n = 1). Three participants received B-cell–depleting agents.

In addition, three women received medication in response to a rebound after discontinuation. Of these, two received fingolimod and one natalizumab.

Five patients (13.5%) experienced MS relapses in the 12 months following ART therapy. Among those experiencing relapse, none were treated with DMTs during the preceding 12 months.

Of the relapses, three occurred within 3 months of the ART treatment, one within 6 months, and one within 12 months.
 

High rate of successful pregnancy

Overall, 24 of 29 women (83%) underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) with embryo transfer as part of ART achieved pregnancy. The remaining five patients were undergoing egg cryopreservation.

Although 14 of the 24 who achieved pregnancy were on DMTs and 2 of 5 who did not achieve pregnancy were on the therapies, Dr. Graham noted, “these numbers seem too small to draw conclusions.”

In particular, patients may benefit from treatment with rituximab or ocrelizumab 3-6 months prior to ART, “which gives better protection during ART cycle with low risk of fetal exposure,” she said.

“Treatment does not need to be discontinued if undergoing embryo banking only,” Dr. Graham added. “The risk to the fetus occurs only after embryo transfer.”

Although there is a lack of research examining whether MS relapse lowers the chance of pregnancy, Dr. Graham noted, “in theory, relapsing MS may compromise ART success because [patients] may have a narrower window to undergo ART treatments if they are trying to mitigate DMT exposure to the fetus.” 

However, the study’s results generally suggest favorable outcomes with ART among women with MS, she added. “We found that overall ART is actually very successful among people with MS. I was actually very surprised by this high rate of successful pregnancy,” Dr. Graham said.

She noted that as women with MS increasingly undergo IVF as well as egg cryopreservation, research on these issues is gaining importance for clinicians. “This is going to be something that MS specialists need to know more about, particularly the safety of ART in their patients,” said Dr. Graham.

“What’s important is there are no [formal] recommendations along these lines, so this represents an opportunity to get the word out to clinicians that you want to make sure patients with MS are protected throughout the ART cycle and that you’re not discontinuing their DMT too early,” she added.
 

Protective against relapse?

Commenting on the study, Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, medical director of the Barlo Multiple Sclerosis Program at St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, noted that, while there are many guidelines/recommendations regarding use of older DMTs peripregnancy, data on many newer therapies is more limited.

“Often, when people do not have definitive evidence, they tend to take a conservative approach, which is why there is likely reluctance to keep patients on DMTs during ART as well as in early pregnancy,” said Dr. Oh, who was not involved in the research.

Importantly, there is also no definitive evidence of a relationship between MS relapses and ART success or pregnancy outcomes, she noted. However, “from a common-sense perspective, most clinicians worry that extreme stress or disability may negatively affect both ART and pregnancy outcomes,” she added.

Dr. Oh agreed that ocrelizumab is an appropriate choice in terms of preventing relapse during ART. “Ocrevus is one of our highest-efficacy DMTs and is only dosed every 6 months. So this allows for ART cycles and conception without worrying about fetal drug exposure and the drug affecting ART cycles,” she said.

She noted the study’s findings “are in keeping with some prior studies, but not others, demonstrating there may be a higher risk of relapse with ART” in patients who are not taking a DMT.

“However, in my mind the most important conclusion from this study is that being on a DMT seems to be protective of relapse risk, which is an important point that will be useful to provide patients with clinical guidance,” Dr. Oh said.

Dr. Graham reported having received consulting fees from Genentech. Dr. Oh reported having received consulting or speaking fees from Alexion, Biogen Idec, BMS, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and Roche.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Women with multiple sclerosis (MS) undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have an increased relapse risk if they are not treated with disease-modifying therapy (DMT), new research suggests. In a cohort study of women undergoing ART, those who did not receive DMTs had a significantly higher relapse risk than their peers who were treated with the drugs.

In addition, the likelihood of achieving pregnancy through ART while having MS appeared favorable, researchers noted.

“In this modern case series and the largest cohort to date, we identified a lower risk of relapses after ART than previously reported,” Edith L. Graham, MD, of the department of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues  wrote. “Importantly, continuing DMT during ART may reduce risk of relapse during this period of marked hormonal fluctuations and stressors,” they added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
 

Study details

Previous research shows a wide range of relapse risk in patients with MS undergoing ART.

To investigate the potential role of DMTs in mitigating relapse risk, the researchers evaluated data on 37 women with either relapsing-remitting MS (n = 31) or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS; n = 6) who underwent ART. The women all had low disability, with a median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 1.0. All participants had undergone one to five cycles of reproductive therapy between 2010 and 2021.

Most (78%) were receiving ART because of infertility or a need for preimplantation genetic testing, whereas 22% were undergoing the treatment for the preservation of fertility. Average age of the participants was 35 years and average disease duration was 7.4 years.

Among 19 of the 37 patients who were taking DMTs prior to ART, 10 remained on the medication throughout ovarian hyperstimulation.

In those who received DMTs in the 12 months prior to ART, treatment included glatiramer acetate (n = 9), interferons (n = 3), and dimethyl fumarate (n = 1). Three participants received B-cell–depleting agents.

In addition, three women received medication in response to a rebound after discontinuation. Of these, two received fingolimod and one natalizumab.

Five patients (13.5%) experienced MS relapses in the 12 months following ART therapy. Among those experiencing relapse, none were treated with DMTs during the preceding 12 months.

Of the relapses, three occurred within 3 months of the ART treatment, one within 6 months, and one within 12 months.
 

High rate of successful pregnancy

Overall, 24 of 29 women (83%) underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) with embryo transfer as part of ART achieved pregnancy. The remaining five patients were undergoing egg cryopreservation.

Although 14 of the 24 who achieved pregnancy were on DMTs and 2 of 5 who did not achieve pregnancy were on the therapies, Dr. Graham noted, “these numbers seem too small to draw conclusions.”

In particular, patients may benefit from treatment with rituximab or ocrelizumab 3-6 months prior to ART, “which gives better protection during ART cycle with low risk of fetal exposure,” she said.

“Treatment does not need to be discontinued if undergoing embryo banking only,” Dr. Graham added. “The risk to the fetus occurs only after embryo transfer.”

Although there is a lack of research examining whether MS relapse lowers the chance of pregnancy, Dr. Graham noted, “in theory, relapsing MS may compromise ART success because [patients] may have a narrower window to undergo ART treatments if they are trying to mitigate DMT exposure to the fetus.” 

However, the study’s results generally suggest favorable outcomes with ART among women with MS, she added. “We found that overall ART is actually very successful among people with MS. I was actually very surprised by this high rate of successful pregnancy,” Dr. Graham said.

She noted that as women with MS increasingly undergo IVF as well as egg cryopreservation, research on these issues is gaining importance for clinicians. “This is going to be something that MS specialists need to know more about, particularly the safety of ART in their patients,” said Dr. Graham.

“What’s important is there are no [formal] recommendations along these lines, so this represents an opportunity to get the word out to clinicians that you want to make sure patients with MS are protected throughout the ART cycle and that you’re not discontinuing their DMT too early,” she added.
 

Protective against relapse?

Commenting on the study, Jiwon Oh, MD, PhD, medical director of the Barlo Multiple Sclerosis Program at St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, noted that, while there are many guidelines/recommendations regarding use of older DMTs peripregnancy, data on many newer therapies is more limited.

“Often, when people do not have definitive evidence, they tend to take a conservative approach, which is why there is likely reluctance to keep patients on DMTs during ART as well as in early pregnancy,” said Dr. Oh, who was not involved in the research.

Importantly, there is also no definitive evidence of a relationship between MS relapses and ART success or pregnancy outcomes, she noted. However, “from a common-sense perspective, most clinicians worry that extreme stress or disability may negatively affect both ART and pregnancy outcomes,” she added.

Dr. Oh agreed that ocrelizumab is an appropriate choice in terms of preventing relapse during ART. “Ocrevus is one of our highest-efficacy DMTs and is only dosed every 6 months. So this allows for ART cycles and conception without worrying about fetal drug exposure and the drug affecting ART cycles,” she said.

She noted the study’s findings “are in keeping with some prior studies, but not others, demonstrating there may be a higher risk of relapse with ART” in patients who are not taking a DMT.

“However, in my mind the most important conclusion from this study is that being on a DMT seems to be protective of relapse risk, which is an important point that will be useful to provide patients with clinical guidance,” Dr. Oh said.

Dr. Graham reported having received consulting fees from Genentech. Dr. Oh reported having received consulting or speaking fees from Alexion, Biogen Idec, BMS, EMD Serono, Genzyme, Novartis, and Roche.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 170 million Americans – or about half of U.S. adults – were exposed to harmful levels of lead as children, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.

“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.

“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.

The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.

The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.

They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.

They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.

The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.

At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.

“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.

Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.

“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.

Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.

“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”

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

More than 170 million Americans – or about half of U.S. adults – were exposed to harmful levels of lead as children, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.

“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.

“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.

The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.

The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.

They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.

They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.

The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.

At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.

“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.

Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.

“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.

Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.

“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”

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

More than 170 million Americans – or about half of U.S. adults – were exposed to harmful levels of lead as children, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.

“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.

“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.

The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.

The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.

They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.

They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.

The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.

At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.

“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.

Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.

“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.

Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.

“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”

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

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Drink a day could age your brain

There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.

According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!

The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.

Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?

Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
 

A big dose of meta-cine

The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.

Piqsels

That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.

Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.

Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
 

Please don’t eat the winner

Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.

Frank_P_AJJ74/Pixabay

Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?

Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?

Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.

Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?

In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”

Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!

Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
 

Turning back the egg timer

The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.

If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.

The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.

“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”

We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!

Multiple sclerosis (MS) remains a challenging disease to diagnose, but recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have the potential to improve both the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis. One method involves use of MRI to detect central vein sign (CVS) in MRI images. The CVS is a hypointense vessel at the center of a hyperintense focal lesion, and various retrospective analyses have revealed an association between a greater percentage of lesions being CVS and a diagnosis of MS.

“This is a very frequent finding in MS patients, but it’s a very infrequent finding in non-MS patients, specifically radiological mimics or clinical mimics that are typically confused with MS at the time of clinical diagnosis, and could lead to misdiagnosis. The idea here of a central vein sign is to use it diagnostically as early as possible in the evaluation of the MS, and use it as complementary to the existing McDonald criteria to improve sensitivity and specificity,” Pascal Sati, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sati presented an overview of the topic at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS). He is associate professor of neurology at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and the director of the neuroimaging program in the department of neurology at Cedars Sinai.

The findings could address an important issue in MS. “Misdiagnosis is a big problem in multiple sclerosis, and it has been for a long time. There are recent surveys of physicians that show that something like 95% of MS physicians have seen a case of misdiagnosis in the last year,” Kevin Patel, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Patel is assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and moderated the session where Dr. Sati presented.
 

What is the diagnostic threshold of CVS positivity?

A key question is what percentage of lesions should be CVS positive (CVS+) to predict a diagnosis of MS. One meta-analysis found that an average of 73% CVS positivity in MS patients, but levels below 40% in conditions that can mimic MS, such as migraine (22%), cerebral small vessel disease (28.5%), and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (33.5%). However, both biological and technical effects can influence that percentage. The percentage is lower among older patients with MS, and those with vascular comorbidities, likely due to noninflammatory or ischemic plaques, or other lesion types, said Dr. Sati.

On the technical side, lower field strengths tend to reveal a lower proportion of CVS than higher field strengths, which are more sensitive. However, the choice of MRI technique can influence sensitivity, and the optimized T2* EPI and FLAIR* techniques have been shown to reveal higher percentages of CVS, even at lower field strengths like the commonly available 3-T.

Forty percent CVS positivity has been suggested as a diagnostic for MS, but this can be time consuming to determine in patients with large numbers of lesions. An alternative is to analyze a subset of lesions and make a diagnosis if these lesions display the CVS. For example, ‘Select 3*’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 3 brain lesions have the CVS, or the ‘6-lesion rule’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 6 out 10 brain lesions have the CVS. Recent retrospective studies have supported these simplified diagnostic criteria, suggesting that these approaches perform similarly to the 40% rule.
 

What will change clinical practice?

However, retrospective studies aren’t enough to change international diagnostic guidelines and clinical practice. Dr. Sati is part of a group of investigators from the North American Imaging in MS (NAIMS) Cooperative that is conducting a large prospective diagnostic study (CAVS-MS) with a $7.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health, which is currently recruiting 400 patients being evaluated for MS. The MRI protocol will use the optimized T2* EPI/FLAIR* techniques developed by Dr. Sati on 3-T scanners. “It’s a twofold goal: First the evaluation of the diagnostic power of the central vein sign in a real-world cohort, and then the validation of the advanced MRI technology that we’re developing to image the central vein sign clinically,” said Dr. Sati.

Neurologists generally are becoming more aware of these techniques, according to Dr. Patel, but they aren’t yet widely used outside of research settings.

“We haven’t collected enough evidence to really warrant wide implementation. I suspect that that’s one of the major reasons why it is that we don’t see this deployed more widely. I think there’ll be a bit of time before this is integrated to the standard sequences that are done for evaluation of multiple sclerosis,” said Dr. Patel.

The technique must contend with comorbid factors, especially vascular comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, or high cholesterol, that can cause white matter hyperintensities as individuals age. “This can create difficulties with using this procedure, because if you have small vessel disease at the same time you have MS, you have much more T2 lesion volume. It becomes a little bit more difficult to suss out whether the person has MS. So there’s a little bit of work that needs to be done along those lines as well,” said Dr. Patel.

With more research, the technology has the potential to improve MS diagnosis, both among community neurologists and even among specialists, according to Dr. Patel. “There are definitely cases that are rather ambiguous that even though they present at a major academic center, it’s sometimes very difficult for us to determine as to whether the person has multiple sclerosis or not. And this sort of technique can potentially help us in distinguishing those cases. Sometimes even after they see folks at tertiary centers, folks still don’t have a definitive diagnosis,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Sati and Dr. Patel have no relevant financial disclosures.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) remains a challenging disease to diagnose, but recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have the potential to improve both the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis. One method involves use of MRI to detect central vein sign (CVS) in MRI images. The CVS is a hypointense vessel at the center of a hyperintense focal lesion, and various retrospective analyses have revealed an association between a greater percentage of lesions being CVS and a diagnosis of MS.

“This is a very frequent finding in MS patients, but it’s a very infrequent finding in non-MS patients, specifically radiological mimics or clinical mimics that are typically confused with MS at the time of clinical diagnosis, and could lead to misdiagnosis. The idea here of a central vein sign is to use it diagnostically as early as possible in the evaluation of the MS, and use it as complementary to the existing McDonald criteria to improve sensitivity and specificity,” Pascal Sati, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sati presented an overview of the topic at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS). He is associate professor of neurology at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and the director of the neuroimaging program in the department of neurology at Cedars Sinai.

The findings could address an important issue in MS. “Misdiagnosis is a big problem in multiple sclerosis, and it has been for a long time. There are recent surveys of physicians that show that something like 95% of MS physicians have seen a case of misdiagnosis in the last year,” Kevin Patel, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Patel is assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and moderated the session where Dr. Sati presented.
 

What is the diagnostic threshold of CVS positivity?

A key question is what percentage of lesions should be CVS positive (CVS+) to predict a diagnosis of MS. One meta-analysis found that an average of 73% CVS positivity in MS patients, but levels below 40% in conditions that can mimic MS, such as migraine (22%), cerebral small vessel disease (28.5%), and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (33.5%). However, both biological and technical effects can influence that percentage. The percentage is lower among older patients with MS, and those with vascular comorbidities, likely due to noninflammatory or ischemic plaques, or other lesion types, said Dr. Sati.

On the technical side, lower field strengths tend to reveal a lower proportion of CVS than higher field strengths, which are more sensitive. However, the choice of MRI technique can influence sensitivity, and the optimized T2* EPI and FLAIR* techniques have been shown to reveal higher percentages of CVS, even at lower field strengths like the commonly available 3-T.

Forty percent CVS positivity has been suggested as a diagnostic for MS, but this can be time consuming to determine in patients with large numbers of lesions. An alternative is to analyze a subset of lesions and make a diagnosis if these lesions display the CVS. For example, ‘Select 3*’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 3 brain lesions have the CVS, or the ‘6-lesion rule’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 6 out 10 brain lesions have the CVS. Recent retrospective studies have supported these simplified diagnostic criteria, suggesting that these approaches perform similarly to the 40% rule.
 

What will change clinical practice?

However, retrospective studies aren’t enough to change international diagnostic guidelines and clinical practice. Dr. Sati is part of a group of investigators from the North American Imaging in MS (NAIMS) Cooperative that is conducting a large prospective diagnostic study (CAVS-MS) with a $7.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health, which is currently recruiting 400 patients being evaluated for MS. The MRI protocol will use the optimized T2* EPI/FLAIR* techniques developed by Dr. Sati on 3-T scanners. “It’s a twofold goal: First the evaluation of the diagnostic power of the central vein sign in a real-world cohort, and then the validation of the advanced MRI technology that we’re developing to image the central vein sign clinically,” said Dr. Sati.

Neurologists generally are becoming more aware of these techniques, according to Dr. Patel, but they aren’t yet widely used outside of research settings.

“We haven’t collected enough evidence to really warrant wide implementation. I suspect that that’s one of the major reasons why it is that we don’t see this deployed more widely. I think there’ll be a bit of time before this is integrated to the standard sequences that are done for evaluation of multiple sclerosis,” said Dr. Patel.

The technique must contend with comorbid factors, especially vascular comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, or high cholesterol, that can cause white matter hyperintensities as individuals age. “This can create difficulties with using this procedure, because if you have small vessel disease at the same time you have MS, you have much more T2 lesion volume. It becomes a little bit more difficult to suss out whether the person has MS. So there’s a little bit of work that needs to be done along those lines as well,” said Dr. Patel.

With more research, the technology has the potential to improve MS diagnosis, both among community neurologists and even among specialists, according to Dr. Patel. “There are definitely cases that are rather ambiguous that even though they present at a major academic center, it’s sometimes very difficult for us to determine as to whether the person has multiple sclerosis or not. And this sort of technique can potentially help us in distinguishing those cases. Sometimes even after they see folks at tertiary centers, folks still don’t have a definitive diagnosis,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Sati and Dr. Patel have no relevant financial disclosures.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) remains a challenging disease to diagnose, but recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have the potential to improve both the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis. One method involves use of MRI to detect central vein sign (CVS) in MRI images. The CVS is a hypointense vessel at the center of a hyperintense focal lesion, and various retrospective analyses have revealed an association between a greater percentage of lesions being CVS and a diagnosis of MS.

“This is a very frequent finding in MS patients, but it’s a very infrequent finding in non-MS patients, specifically radiological mimics or clinical mimics that are typically confused with MS at the time of clinical diagnosis, and could lead to misdiagnosis. The idea here of a central vein sign is to use it diagnostically as early as possible in the evaluation of the MS, and use it as complementary to the existing McDonald criteria to improve sensitivity and specificity,” Pascal Sati, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sati presented an overview of the topic at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS). He is associate professor of neurology at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and the director of the neuroimaging program in the department of neurology at Cedars Sinai.

The findings could address an important issue in MS. “Misdiagnosis is a big problem in multiple sclerosis, and it has been for a long time. There are recent surveys of physicians that show that something like 95% of MS physicians have seen a case of misdiagnosis in the last year,” Kevin Patel, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Patel is assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and moderated the session where Dr. Sati presented.
 

What is the diagnostic threshold of CVS positivity?

A key question is what percentage of lesions should be CVS positive (CVS+) to predict a diagnosis of MS. One meta-analysis found that an average of 73% CVS positivity in MS patients, but levels below 40% in conditions that can mimic MS, such as migraine (22%), cerebral small vessel disease (28.5%), and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (33.5%). However, both biological and technical effects can influence that percentage. The percentage is lower among older patients with MS, and those with vascular comorbidities, likely due to noninflammatory or ischemic plaques, or other lesion types, said Dr. Sati.

On the technical side, lower field strengths tend to reveal a lower proportion of CVS than higher field strengths, which are more sensitive. However, the choice of MRI technique can influence sensitivity, and the optimized T2* EPI and FLAIR* techniques have been shown to reveal higher percentages of CVS, even at lower field strengths like the commonly available 3-T.

Forty percent CVS positivity has been suggested as a diagnostic for MS, but this can be time consuming to determine in patients with large numbers of lesions. An alternative is to analyze a subset of lesions and make a diagnosis if these lesions display the CVS. For example, ‘Select 3*’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 3 brain lesions have the CVS, or the ‘6-lesion rule’ would establish an MS diagnosis if at least 6 out 10 brain lesions have the CVS. Recent retrospective studies have supported these simplified diagnostic criteria, suggesting that these approaches perform similarly to the 40% rule.
 

What will change clinical practice?

However, retrospective studies aren’t enough to change international diagnostic guidelines and clinical practice. Dr. Sati is part of a group of investigators from the North American Imaging in MS (NAIMS) Cooperative that is conducting a large prospective diagnostic study (CAVS-MS) with a $7.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health, which is currently recruiting 400 patients being evaluated for MS. The MRI protocol will use the optimized T2* EPI/FLAIR* techniques developed by Dr. Sati on 3-T scanners. “It’s a twofold goal: First the evaluation of the diagnostic power of the central vein sign in a real-world cohort, and then the validation of the advanced MRI technology that we’re developing to image the central vein sign clinically,” said Dr. Sati.

Neurologists generally are becoming more aware of these techniques, according to Dr. Patel, but they aren’t yet widely used outside of research settings.

“We haven’t collected enough evidence to really warrant wide implementation. I suspect that that’s one of the major reasons why it is that we don’t see this deployed more widely. I think there’ll be a bit of time before this is integrated to the standard sequences that are done for evaluation of multiple sclerosis,” said Dr. Patel.

The technique must contend with comorbid factors, especially vascular comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, or high cholesterol, that can cause white matter hyperintensities as individuals age. “This can create difficulties with using this procedure, because if you have small vessel disease at the same time you have MS, you have much more T2 lesion volume. It becomes a little bit more difficult to suss out whether the person has MS. So there’s a little bit of work that needs to be done along those lines as well,” said Dr. Patel.

With more research, the technology has the potential to improve MS diagnosis, both among community neurologists and even among specialists, according to Dr. Patel. “There are definitely cases that are rather ambiguous that even though they present at a major academic center, it’s sometimes very difficult for us to determine as to whether the person has multiple sclerosis or not. And this sort of technique can potentially help us in distinguishing those cases. Sometimes even after they see folks at tertiary centers, folks still don’t have a definitive diagnosis,” said Dr. Patel.

Dr. Sati and Dr. Patel have no relevant financial disclosures.