MDedge Neurology

A high-profile, Washington-based consumer advocacy group is calling for the removal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s acting commissioner and two other top officials, saying that the agency’s approval of the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) was “reckless.”

In a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Michael A. Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said: “The FDA’s decision to approve aducanumab for anyone with Alzheimer’s disease, regardless of severity, showed a stunning disregard for science, eviscerated the agency’s standards for approving new drugs, and ranks as one of the most irresponsible and egregious decisions in the history of the agency.”

Public Citizen urged Mr. Becerra to seek the resignations or the removal of the three FDA officials it said were most responsible for the approval – Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD; Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Director Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD; and CDER’s Office of Neuroscience Director Billy Dunn, MD.

“This decision is a disastrous blow to the agency’s credibility, public health, and the financial sustainability of the Medicare program,” writes Dr. Carome, noting that Biogen said it would charge $56,000 annually for the infusion.

Aaron Kesselheim, MD, one of three FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs advisory committee members who resigned in the wake of the approval, agreed with Public Citizen that the agency’s credibility is suffering.

“The aducanumab decision is the worst example yet of the FDA’s movement away from its high standards,” Dr. Kesselheim, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Harvard colleague Jerry Avorn, MD, wrote in the New York Times on June 15.

“As physicians, we know well that Alzheimer’s disease is a terrible condition,” they wrote. However, they added, “approving a drug that has such poor evidence that it works and causes such worrisome side effects is not the solution.”

In his resignation letter, Dr. Kesselheim said he had also been dismayed by the agency’s 2016 approval of eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta Therapeutics) for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In both the eteplirsen and aducanumab approvals, the agency went against its advisers’ recommendations, Dr. Kesselheim said.
 

Advocates who backed approval decry cost

Aducanumab had a rocky road to approval but had unwavering backing from the Alzheimer’s Association and at least one other organization, UsAgainstAlzheimer’s.

The Alzheimer’s Association was particularly outspoken in its support and, in March, was accused of potential conflict of interest by Public Citizen and several neurologists because the association accepted at least $1.4 million from Biogen and its partner Eisai since fiscal year 2018.

The association applauded the FDA approval but, a few days later, expressed outrage over the $56,000-a-year price tag.

“This price is simply unacceptable,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in the statement. “For many, this price will pose an insurmountable barrier to access, it complicates and jeopardizes sustainable access to this treatment, and may further deepen issues of health equity,” the association said, adding, “We call on Biogen to change this price.”

UsAgainstAlzheimer’s also expressed concerns about access, even before it knew aducanumab’s price.  

“Shockingly, Medicare does not reimburse patients for the expensive PET scans important to determine whether someone is appropriate for this drug,” noted George Vradenburg, chairman and cofounder of the group, in a June 7 statement. “We intend to work with Biogen and Medicare to make access to this drug affordable for every American who needs it,” Mr. Vradenburg said.

Dr. Carome said the advocates’ complaints were hard to fathom.

“This should not have come as a surprise to anyone,” Dr. Carome said, adding that “it’s essentially the ballpark figure the company threw out weeks ago.”

“Fifty-six-thousand-dollars is particularly egregiously overpriced for a drug that doesn’t work,” Dr. Carome said. “If the [Alzheimer’s Association] truly finds this objectionable, hopefully they’ll stop accepting money from Biogen and its partner Eisai,” he added.

“The Alzheimer’s Association is recognizing that the genie is out of the bottle and that they are going to have trouble reining in the inevitable run-away costs,” said Mike Greicius, MD, MPH, associate professor of neurology at Stanford University’s Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford, California.

“In addition to the eye-popping annual cost that Biogen has invented, I hope the Alzheimer’s Association is also concerned about the dangerously loose and broad FDA labeling which does not require screening for amyloid-positivity and does not restrict use to the milder forms of disease studied in the Phase 3 trials,” Dr. Greicius said.

Another advocacy group, Patients For Affordable Drugs, commended the Alzheimer’s Association. Its statement “was nothing short of courageous, especially in light of the Alzheimer’s Association’s reliance on funding from drug corporations, including Biogen,” said David Mitchell, a cancer patient and founder of Patients For Affordable Drugs, in a statement.

Mr. Mitchell said his members “stand with the Alzheimer’s Association in its denunciation of the price set by Biogen” and called for a new law that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

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

A high-profile, Washington-based consumer advocacy group is calling for the removal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s acting commissioner and two other top officials, saying that the agency’s approval of the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) was “reckless.”

In a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Michael A. Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said: “The FDA’s decision to approve aducanumab for anyone with Alzheimer’s disease, regardless of severity, showed a stunning disregard for science, eviscerated the agency’s standards for approving new drugs, and ranks as one of the most irresponsible and egregious decisions in the history of the agency.”

Public Citizen urged Mr. Becerra to seek the resignations or the removal of the three FDA officials it said were most responsible for the approval – Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD; Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Director Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD; and CDER’s Office of Neuroscience Director Billy Dunn, MD.

“This decision is a disastrous blow to the agency’s credibility, public health, and the financial sustainability of the Medicare program,” writes Dr. Carome, noting that Biogen said it would charge $56,000 annually for the infusion.

Aaron Kesselheim, MD, one of three FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs advisory committee members who resigned in the wake of the approval, agreed with Public Citizen that the agency’s credibility is suffering.

“The aducanumab decision is the worst example yet of the FDA’s movement away from its high standards,” Dr. Kesselheim, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Harvard colleague Jerry Avorn, MD, wrote in the New York Times on June 15.

“As physicians, we know well that Alzheimer’s disease is a terrible condition,” they wrote. However, they added, “approving a drug that has such poor evidence that it works and causes such worrisome side effects is not the solution.”

In his resignation letter, Dr. Kesselheim said he had also been dismayed by the agency’s 2016 approval of eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta Therapeutics) for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In both the eteplirsen and aducanumab approvals, the agency went against its advisers’ recommendations, Dr. Kesselheim said.
 

Advocates who backed approval decry cost

Aducanumab had a rocky road to approval but had unwavering backing from the Alzheimer’s Association and at least one other organization, UsAgainstAlzheimer’s.

The Alzheimer’s Association was particularly outspoken in its support and, in March, was accused of potential conflict of interest by Public Citizen and several neurologists because the association accepted at least $1.4 million from Biogen and its partner Eisai since fiscal year 2018.

The association applauded the FDA approval but, a few days later, expressed outrage over the $56,000-a-year price tag.

“This price is simply unacceptable,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in the statement. “For many, this price will pose an insurmountable barrier to access, it complicates and jeopardizes sustainable access to this treatment, and may further deepen issues of health equity,” the association said, adding, “We call on Biogen to change this price.”

UsAgainstAlzheimer’s also expressed concerns about access, even before it knew aducanumab’s price.  

“Shockingly, Medicare does not reimburse patients for the expensive PET scans important to determine whether someone is appropriate for this drug,” noted George Vradenburg, chairman and cofounder of the group, in a June 7 statement. “We intend to work with Biogen and Medicare to make access to this drug affordable for every American who needs it,” Mr. Vradenburg said.

Dr. Carome said the advocates’ complaints were hard to fathom.

“This should not have come as a surprise to anyone,” Dr. Carome said, adding that “it’s essentially the ballpark figure the company threw out weeks ago.”

“Fifty-six-thousand-dollars is particularly egregiously overpriced for a drug that doesn’t work,” Dr. Carome said. “If the [Alzheimer’s Association] truly finds this objectionable, hopefully they’ll stop accepting money from Biogen and its partner Eisai,” he added.

“The Alzheimer’s Association is recognizing that the genie is out of the bottle and that they are going to have trouble reining in the inevitable run-away costs,” said Mike Greicius, MD, MPH, associate professor of neurology at Stanford University’s Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford, California.

“In addition to the eye-popping annual cost that Biogen has invented, I hope the Alzheimer’s Association is also concerned about the dangerously loose and broad FDA labeling which does not require screening for amyloid-positivity and does not restrict use to the milder forms of disease studied in the Phase 3 trials,” Dr. Greicius said.

Another advocacy group, Patients For Affordable Drugs, commended the Alzheimer’s Association. Its statement “was nothing short of courageous, especially in light of the Alzheimer’s Association’s reliance on funding from drug corporations, including Biogen,” said David Mitchell, a cancer patient and founder of Patients For Affordable Drugs, in a statement.

Mr. Mitchell said his members “stand with the Alzheimer’s Association in its denunciation of the price set by Biogen” and called for a new law that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

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

A high-profile, Washington-based consumer advocacy group is calling for the removal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s acting commissioner and two other top officials, saying that the agency’s approval of the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) was “reckless.”

In a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Michael A. Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said: “The FDA’s decision to approve aducanumab for anyone with Alzheimer’s disease, regardless of severity, showed a stunning disregard for science, eviscerated the agency’s standards for approving new drugs, and ranks as one of the most irresponsible and egregious decisions in the history of the agency.”

Public Citizen urged Mr. Becerra to seek the resignations or the removal of the three FDA officials it said were most responsible for the approval – Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD; Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Director Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD; and CDER’s Office of Neuroscience Director Billy Dunn, MD.

“This decision is a disastrous blow to the agency’s credibility, public health, and the financial sustainability of the Medicare program,” writes Dr. Carome, noting that Biogen said it would charge $56,000 annually for the infusion.

Aaron Kesselheim, MD, one of three FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs advisory committee members who resigned in the wake of the approval, agreed with Public Citizen that the agency’s credibility is suffering.

“The aducanumab decision is the worst example yet of the FDA’s movement away from its high standards,” Dr. Kesselheim, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Harvard colleague Jerry Avorn, MD, wrote in the New York Times on June 15.

“As physicians, we know well that Alzheimer’s disease is a terrible condition,” they wrote. However, they added, “approving a drug that has such poor evidence that it works and causes such worrisome side effects is not the solution.”

In his resignation letter, Dr. Kesselheim said he had also been dismayed by the agency’s 2016 approval of eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta Therapeutics) for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In both the eteplirsen and aducanumab approvals, the agency went against its advisers’ recommendations, Dr. Kesselheim said.
 

Advocates who backed approval decry cost

Aducanumab had a rocky road to approval but had unwavering backing from the Alzheimer’s Association and at least one other organization, UsAgainstAlzheimer’s.

The Alzheimer’s Association was particularly outspoken in its support and, in March, was accused of potential conflict of interest by Public Citizen and several neurologists because the association accepted at least $1.4 million from Biogen and its partner Eisai since fiscal year 2018.

The association applauded the FDA approval but, a few days later, expressed outrage over the $56,000-a-year price tag.

“This price is simply unacceptable,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in the statement. “For many, this price will pose an insurmountable barrier to access, it complicates and jeopardizes sustainable access to this treatment, and may further deepen issues of health equity,” the association said, adding, “We call on Biogen to change this price.”

UsAgainstAlzheimer’s also expressed concerns about access, even before it knew aducanumab’s price.  

“Shockingly, Medicare does not reimburse patients for the expensive PET scans important to determine whether someone is appropriate for this drug,” noted George Vradenburg, chairman and cofounder of the group, in a June 7 statement. “We intend to work with Biogen and Medicare to make access to this drug affordable for every American who needs it,” Mr. Vradenburg said.

Dr. Carome said the advocates’ complaints were hard to fathom.

“This should not have come as a surprise to anyone,” Dr. Carome said, adding that “it’s essentially the ballpark figure the company threw out weeks ago.”

“Fifty-six-thousand-dollars is particularly egregiously overpriced for a drug that doesn’t work,” Dr. Carome said. “If the [Alzheimer’s Association] truly finds this objectionable, hopefully they’ll stop accepting money from Biogen and its partner Eisai,” he added.

“The Alzheimer’s Association is recognizing that the genie is out of the bottle and that they are going to have trouble reining in the inevitable run-away costs,” said Mike Greicius, MD, MPH, associate professor of neurology at Stanford University’s Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Stanford, California.

“In addition to the eye-popping annual cost that Biogen has invented, I hope the Alzheimer’s Association is also concerned about the dangerously loose and broad FDA labeling which does not require screening for amyloid-positivity and does not restrict use to the milder forms of disease studied in the Phase 3 trials,” Dr. Greicius said.

Another advocacy group, Patients For Affordable Drugs, commended the Alzheimer’s Association. Its statement “was nothing short of courageous, especially in light of the Alzheimer’s Association’s reliance on funding from drug corporations, including Biogen,” said David Mitchell, a cancer patient and founder of Patients For Affordable Drugs, in a statement.

Mr. Mitchell said his members “stand with the Alzheimer’s Association in its denunciation of the price set by Biogen” and called for a new law that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

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

Gradually, we are emerging from the chaos, isolation, and anxiety of COVID-19. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adjusts its recommendations and vaccinations become more widely available, our communities are beginning to return to normalcy. We are encouraged to put aside our masks if vaccinated and rejoin society, to venture out with less hesitancy and anxiety. As family and friends reunite, memories of confusion, frustration, and fear are beginning to fade to black. Despite the prevailing belief that we should move on, look forward, and remember the past to safeguard our future, remnants of the pandemic remain.

shironosov/Getty Images

Unvaccinated individuals, notably children under the age of 12, are quite significant in number. The use of telehealth is now standard practice.

For several years, we were warned about the looming “mental health crisis.” The past year has demonstrated that a crisis no longer looms – it has arrived. Our patients can reveal the vulnerability COVID-19 has wrought – from the devastation of lives lost, supply shortages, loss of employment and financial stability – to a lack of access to computers and thereby, the risk of educational decline. Those factors, coupled with isolation and uncertainty about the future, have led to an influx of individuals with anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders seeking mental health treatment.
 

Doctors, others suffering

As result of a medical culture guided by the sacred oath to which care, compassion, and dedication held as true in ancient Greece as it does today, the focus centers on those around us – while signs of our own weariness are waved away as “a bad day.” Even though several support groups are readily available to offer a listening ear and mental health physicians who focus on the treatment of health care professionals are becoming more ubiquitous, the vestiges of past doctrine remain.

In this modern age of medical training, there is often as much sacrifice as there is attainment of knowledge. This philosophy is so ingrained that throughout training and practice one may come across colleagues experiencing an abundance of guilt when leave is needed for personal reasons. We are quick to recommend such steps for our patients, family, and friends, but hesitant to consider such for ourselves. Yet, of all the lessons this past year has wrought, the importance of mental health and self-care cannot be overstated. This raises the question: How do we incorporate wellness into our routines while navigating the complexity of medicine?

It is vital to accept our humanity as something not to repair, treat, or overcome but to understand. There is strength and power in vulnerability. If we do not perceive and validate this process within ourselves, how can we do so for others? In other words, the oxygen mask must be placed on us first before we can place it on anyone else – patients or otherwise.

Chiefly and above all else, the importance of identifying individual signs of stress is essential. Where do you hold tension? Are you prone to GI distress or headaches when taxed? Do you tend toward irritability, apathy, or exhaustion?

Once this is determined, it is important to assess your stress on a numerical scale, such as those used for pain. Are you a 5 or an 8? Finally, are there identifiable triggers or reliable alleviators? Is there a time of day or day of the week that is most difficult to manage? Can you anticipate potential stressors? Understanding your triggers, listening to your body, and practicing the language of self is the first step toward wellness.

Following introspection and observation, the next step is inventory. Take stock of your reserves. What replenishes? What depletes? What brings joy? What brings dread? Are there certain activities that mitigate stress? If so, how much time do they entail? Identify your number on a scale and associate that number with specific strategies or techniques. Remember that decompression for a 6 might be excessive for a 4. Furthermore, what is the duration of these feelings? Chronic stressors may incur gradual change verses sudden impact if acute. Through identifying personal signs, devising and using a scale, as well as escalating or de-escalating factors, individuals become more in tune with their bodies and therefore, more likely to intervene before burnout takes hold.

With this process well integrated, one can now consider stylized approaches for stress management. For example, those inclined toward mindfulness practices may find yoga, meditation, and relaxation exercises beneficial. Others may thrive on positive affirmations, gratitude, and thankfulness. While some might find relief in physical activity, be it strenuous or casual, the creative arts might appeal to those who find joy in painting, writing, or doing crafts. In addition, baking, reading, dancing, and/or listening to music might help lift stress.

Along with those discoveries, or in some cases, rediscoveries, basic needs such as dietary habits and nutrition, hydration, and sleep are vital toward emotional regulation, physiological homeostasis, and stress modulation. Remember HALT: Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired, Too hot, Too cold, Sad or Stressed. Those strategies are meant to guide self-care and highlight the importance of allowing time for self-awareness. Imagine yourself as if you are meeting a new patient. Establish rapport, identify symptoms, and explore options for treatment. When we give time to ourselves, we can give time more freely to others. With this in mind, try following the 5-minute wellness check that I formulated:

1. How am I feeling? What am I feeling?

2. Assess HALTS.

3. Identify the number on your scale.

4. Methods of quick de-escalation:

• Designate and schedule personal time.
• Write down daily goals.
• Repeat positive affirmations or write down words of gratitude.
• Use deep breathing exercises.
• Stretch or take a brief walk.
• Engage in mindfulness practices, such as meditation.

Once we develop a habit of monitoring, assessing, and practicing self-care, the process becomes more efficient and effective. Think of the way a seasoned attending can manage workflow with ease, compared with an intern. Recognizing signs and using these strategies routinely can become a quick daily measure of well-being.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.

Gradually, we are emerging from the chaos, isolation, and anxiety of COVID-19. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adjusts its recommendations and vaccinations become more widely available, our communities are beginning to return to normalcy. We are encouraged to put aside our masks if vaccinated and rejoin society, to venture out with less hesitancy and anxiety. As family and friends reunite, memories of confusion, frustration, and fear are beginning to fade to black. Despite the prevailing belief that we should move on, look forward, and remember the past to safeguard our future, remnants of the pandemic remain.

shironosov/Getty Images

Unvaccinated individuals, notably children under the age of 12, are quite significant in number. The use of telehealth is now standard practice.

For several years, we were warned about the looming “mental health crisis.” The past year has demonstrated that a crisis no longer looms – it has arrived. Our patients can reveal the vulnerability COVID-19 has wrought – from the devastation of lives lost, supply shortages, loss of employment and financial stability – to a lack of access to computers and thereby, the risk of educational decline. Those factors, coupled with isolation and uncertainty about the future, have led to an influx of individuals with anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders seeking mental health treatment.
 

Doctors, others suffering

As result of a medical culture guided by the sacred oath to which care, compassion, and dedication held as true in ancient Greece as it does today, the focus centers on those around us – while signs of our own weariness are waved away as “a bad day.” Even though several support groups are readily available to offer a listening ear and mental health physicians who focus on the treatment of health care professionals are becoming more ubiquitous, the vestiges of past doctrine remain.

In this modern age of medical training, there is often as much sacrifice as there is attainment of knowledge. This philosophy is so ingrained that throughout training and practice one may come across colleagues experiencing an abundance of guilt when leave is needed for personal reasons. We are quick to recommend such steps for our patients, family, and friends, but hesitant to consider such for ourselves. Yet, of all the lessons this past year has wrought, the importance of mental health and self-care cannot be overstated. This raises the question: How do we incorporate wellness into our routines while navigating the complexity of medicine?

It is vital to accept our humanity as something not to repair, treat, or overcome but to understand. There is strength and power in vulnerability. If we do not perceive and validate this process within ourselves, how can we do so for others? In other words, the oxygen mask must be placed on us first before we can place it on anyone else – patients or otherwise.

Chiefly and above all else, the importance of identifying individual signs of stress is essential. Where do you hold tension? Are you prone to GI distress or headaches when taxed? Do you tend toward irritability, apathy, or exhaustion?

Once this is determined, it is important to assess your stress on a numerical scale, such as those used for pain. Are you a 5 or an 8? Finally, are there identifiable triggers or reliable alleviators? Is there a time of day or day of the week that is most difficult to manage? Can you anticipate potential stressors? Understanding your triggers, listening to your body, and practicing the language of self is the first step toward wellness.

Following introspection and observation, the next step is inventory. Take stock of your reserves. What replenishes? What depletes? What brings joy? What brings dread? Are there certain activities that mitigate stress? If so, how much time do they entail? Identify your number on a scale and associate that number with specific strategies or techniques. Remember that decompression for a 6 might be excessive for a 4. Furthermore, what is the duration of these feelings? Chronic stressors may incur gradual change verses sudden impact if acute. Through identifying personal signs, devising and using a scale, as well as escalating or de-escalating factors, individuals become more in tune with their bodies and therefore, more likely to intervene before burnout takes hold.

With this process well integrated, one can now consider stylized approaches for stress management. For example, those inclined toward mindfulness practices may find yoga, meditation, and relaxation exercises beneficial. Others may thrive on positive affirmations, gratitude, and thankfulness. While some might find relief in physical activity, be it strenuous or casual, the creative arts might appeal to those who find joy in painting, writing, or doing crafts. In addition, baking, reading, dancing, and/or listening to music might help lift stress.

Along with those discoveries, or in some cases, rediscoveries, basic needs such as dietary habits and nutrition, hydration, and sleep are vital toward emotional regulation, physiological homeostasis, and stress modulation. Remember HALT: Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired, Too hot, Too cold, Sad or Stressed. Those strategies are meant to guide self-care and highlight the importance of allowing time for self-awareness. Imagine yourself as if you are meeting a new patient. Establish rapport, identify symptoms, and explore options for treatment. When we give time to ourselves, we can give time more freely to others. With this in mind, try following the 5-minute wellness check that I formulated:

1. How am I feeling? What am I feeling?

2. Assess HALTS.

3. Identify the number on your scale.

4. Methods of quick de-escalation:

• Designate and schedule personal time.
• Write down daily goals.
• Repeat positive affirmations or write down words of gratitude.
• Use deep breathing exercises.
• Stretch or take a brief walk.
• Engage in mindfulness practices, such as meditation.

Once we develop a habit of monitoring, assessing, and practicing self-care, the process becomes more efficient and effective. Think of the way a seasoned attending can manage workflow with ease, compared with an intern. Recognizing signs and using these strategies routinely can become a quick daily measure of well-being.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.

Gradually, we are emerging from the chaos, isolation, and anxiety of COVID-19. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adjusts its recommendations and vaccinations become more widely available, our communities are beginning to return to normalcy. We are encouraged to put aside our masks if vaccinated and rejoin society, to venture out with less hesitancy and anxiety. As family and friends reunite, memories of confusion, frustration, and fear are beginning to fade to black. Despite the prevailing belief that we should move on, look forward, and remember the past to safeguard our future, remnants of the pandemic remain.

shironosov/Getty Images

Unvaccinated individuals, notably children under the age of 12, are quite significant in number. The use of telehealth is now standard practice.

For several years, we were warned about the looming “mental health crisis.” The past year has demonstrated that a crisis no longer looms – it has arrived. Our patients can reveal the vulnerability COVID-19 has wrought – from the devastation of lives lost, supply shortages, loss of employment and financial stability – to a lack of access to computers and thereby, the risk of educational decline. Those factors, coupled with isolation and uncertainty about the future, have led to an influx of individuals with anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders seeking mental health treatment.
 

Doctors, others suffering

As result of a medical culture guided by the sacred oath to which care, compassion, and dedication held as true in ancient Greece as it does today, the focus centers on those around us – while signs of our own weariness are waved away as “a bad day.” Even though several support groups are readily available to offer a listening ear and mental health physicians who focus on the treatment of health care professionals are becoming more ubiquitous, the vestiges of past doctrine remain.

In this modern age of medical training, there is often as much sacrifice as there is attainment of knowledge. This philosophy is so ingrained that throughout training and practice one may come across colleagues experiencing an abundance of guilt when leave is needed for personal reasons. We are quick to recommend such steps for our patients, family, and friends, but hesitant to consider such for ourselves. Yet, of all the lessons this past year has wrought, the importance of mental health and self-care cannot be overstated. This raises the question: How do we incorporate wellness into our routines while navigating the complexity of medicine?

It is vital to accept our humanity as something not to repair, treat, or overcome but to understand. There is strength and power in vulnerability. If we do not perceive and validate this process within ourselves, how can we do so for others? In other words, the oxygen mask must be placed on us first before we can place it on anyone else – patients or otherwise.

Chiefly and above all else, the importance of identifying individual signs of stress is essential. Where do you hold tension? Are you prone to GI distress or headaches when taxed? Do you tend toward irritability, apathy, or exhaustion?

Once this is determined, it is important to assess your stress on a numerical scale, such as those used for pain. Are you a 5 or an 8? Finally, are there identifiable triggers or reliable alleviators? Is there a time of day or day of the week that is most difficult to manage? Can you anticipate potential stressors? Understanding your triggers, listening to your body, and practicing the language of self is the first step toward wellness.

Following introspection and observation, the next step is inventory. Take stock of your reserves. What replenishes? What depletes? What brings joy? What brings dread? Are there certain activities that mitigate stress? If so, how much time do they entail? Identify your number on a scale and associate that number with specific strategies or techniques. Remember that decompression for a 6 might be excessive for a 4. Furthermore, what is the duration of these feelings? Chronic stressors may incur gradual change verses sudden impact if acute. Through identifying personal signs, devising and using a scale, as well as escalating or de-escalating factors, individuals become more in tune with their bodies and therefore, more likely to intervene before burnout takes hold.

With this process well integrated, one can now consider stylized approaches for stress management. For example, those inclined toward mindfulness practices may find yoga, meditation, and relaxation exercises beneficial. Others may thrive on positive affirmations, gratitude, and thankfulness. While some might find relief in physical activity, be it strenuous or casual, the creative arts might appeal to those who find joy in painting, writing, or doing crafts. In addition, baking, reading, dancing, and/or listening to music might help lift stress.

Along with those discoveries, or in some cases, rediscoveries, basic needs such as dietary habits and nutrition, hydration, and sleep are vital toward emotional regulation, physiological homeostasis, and stress modulation. Remember HALT: Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired, Too hot, Too cold, Sad or Stressed. Those strategies are meant to guide self-care and highlight the importance of allowing time for self-awareness. Imagine yourself as if you are meeting a new patient. Establish rapport, identify symptoms, and explore options for treatment. When we give time to ourselves, we can give time more freely to others. With this in mind, try following the 5-minute wellness check that I formulated:

1. How am I feeling? What am I feeling?

2. Assess HALTS.

3. Identify the number on your scale.

4. Methods of quick de-escalation:

• Designate and schedule personal time.
• Write down daily goals.
• Repeat positive affirmations or write down words of gratitude.
• Use deep breathing exercises.
• Stretch or take a brief walk.
• Engage in mindfulness practices, such as meditation.

Once we develop a habit of monitoring, assessing, and practicing self-care, the process becomes more efficient and effective. Think of the way a seasoned attending can manage workflow with ease, compared with an intern. Recognizing signs and using these strategies routinely can become a quick daily measure of well-being.
 

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with interests in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. Dr. Thomas has no conflicts of interest.

A report by the American Medical Association’s medical education advisory body points to systemic racism or other systems of oppression as causing a lack of representation, exclusion, and marginalization in medical education and medicine.

The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.

The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.

The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.

The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
 

Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity

The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.

In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.

The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.

Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.

Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
 

Pathway programs can increase diversity

Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.

Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.

Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
 

AMA council’s report garners support from delegates

Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”

“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.

Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”

According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.

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

A report by the American Medical Association’s medical education advisory body points to systemic racism or other systems of oppression as causing a lack of representation, exclusion, and marginalization in medical education and medicine.

The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.

The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.

The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.

The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
 

Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity

The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.

In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.

The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.

Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.

Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
 

Pathway programs can increase diversity

Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.

Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.

Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
 

AMA council’s report garners support from delegates

Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”

“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.

Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”

According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.

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

A report by the American Medical Association’s medical education advisory body points to systemic racism or other systems of oppression as causing a lack of representation, exclusion, and marginalization in medical education and medicine.

The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.

The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.

The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.

The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
 

Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity

The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.

In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.

The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.

Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.

Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
 

Pathway programs can increase diversity

Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.

Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.

Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
 

AMA council’s report garners support from delegates

Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”

“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.

Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”

According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.

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

Advances in photobiomodulation have propelled the use of therapeutic applications in a variety of medical specialties, according to Juanita J. Anders, PhD.

During the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Anders, professor of anatomy, physiology, and genetics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., defined photobiomodulation (PBM) as the mechanism by which nonionizing optical radiation in the visible and near-infrared spectral range is absorbed by endogenous chromophores to elicit photophysical and photochemical events at various biological scales. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) involves the use of light sources including lasers, LEDs, and broadband light, that emit visible and/or near-infrared light to cause physiological changes in cells and tissues and result in therapeutic benefits.

In dermatology, LED light therapy devices are commonly used for PBMT in wavelengths that range from blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) to near infrared (830 nm). “Often, when PBMT is referred to by dermatologists it’s called LED therapy or LED light therapy,” Dr. Anders noted. “Some people are under the impression that this is different from PBMT. But remember: It’s not the device that’s producing the photons that is clinically relevant, but it’s the photons themselves. In both cases, the same radiances and fluence ranges are being used and the mechanisms are the same, so it’s all PBMT.”

The therapy is used to treat a wide variety of medical and aesthetic disorders including acne vulgaris, psoriasis, burns, and wound healing. It has also been used in conjunction with surgical aesthetic and resurfacing procedures and has been reported to reduce erythema, edema, bruising, and days to healing. It’s been shown that PBMT stimulates fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, and extracellular matrix resulting in lifting and tightening lax skin.

According to Dr. Anders, French dermatologists Linda Fouque, MD, and Michele Pelletier, MD, performed a series of in vivo and in vitro studies in which they tested the effects of yellow and red light for skin rejuvenation when used individually or in combination. “They found that fibroblasts and keratinocytes in vitro had great improvement in their morphology both with the yellow and red light, but the best improvement was seen with combination therapy,” Dr. Anders said. “This held true in their work looking at epidermal and dermal markers in the skin, where they found the best up-regulation in protein synthesis of such markers as collagens and fibronectin were produced when a combination wavelength light was used.”

Oral mucositis and pain

PBMT is also being used to treat oral mucositis (OM), a common adverse response to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, which causes pain, difficulty in swallowing and eating, and oral ulceration, and often interrupts the course of treatments. Authors of a recently published review on the risks and benefits of PBMT concluded that there is consistent evidence from a small number of high-quality studies that PBMT can help prevent the development of cancer therapy–induced OM, reduce pain intensity, as well as promote healing, and enhance patient quality of life.

“They also cautioned that, due to the limited long-term follow-up of patients, there is still concern for the potential long-term risks of PBMT in cancer cell mutation and amplification,” Dr. Anders said. “They advised that PBMT should be used carefully when the irradiation beam is in the direction of the tumor zone.”

Using PBMT for modulation of pain is another area of active research. Based on work from the laboratory of Dr. Anders and others, there are two methods to modulate pain. The first is to target tissue at irradiances below 100 mW/cm².

“In my laboratory, based on in vivo preclinical animal models of neuropathic pain, we used a 980-nm wavelength laser at 43.25 mW/cm² transcutaneously delivered to the level of the nerve for 20 seconds,” said Dr. Anders, who is a past president of the ASLMS. “Essentially, we found that the pain was modulated by reducing sensitivity to mechanical stimulation and also by causing an anti-inflammatory shift in microglial and macrophage phenotype in the dorsal root ganglion and spinal cord of affected segments.”

The second way to modulate pain, she continued, is to target tissue at irradiances above 250 mW/cm². She and her colleagues have conducted in vitro and in vivo studies, which indicate that treatment with an irradiance/fluence rate at 270 mW/cm² or higher at the nerve can rapidly block pain transmission.

“In vitro, we found that if we used an 810-nm wavelength light at 300 mW/cm², we got a disruption of microtubules in the DRG neurons in culture, specifically the small neurons, the nociceptive fibers, but we did not affect the proprioceptive fibers unless we increased the length of the treatment,” she said. “We essentially found the same thing in vivo in a rodent model of neuropathic pain.”

In a pilot study, Dr. Anders and coauthors examined the efficacy of laser irradiation of the dorsal root ganglion of the second lumbar spinal nerve for patients with chronic back pain.

They found that PBMT effectively reduced back pain equal to the effects of lidocaine.

Based on these two irradiation approaches of targeting tissue, Dr. Anders recommends that a combination therapy be used to modulate neuropathic pain going forward. “This approach would involve the initial use of a high-irradiance treatment [at least 250 mW/cm²] at the nerve to block the pain transmission,” she said. “That treatment would be followed by a series of low-irradiance treatments [10-100 mW/cm²] along the course of the involved nerve to alter chronic pathology and inflammation.”
 

Potential applications in neurology

Dr. Anders also discussed research efforts under way involving transcranial PBMT: the delivery of near-infrared light through the tissues of the scalp and skull to targeted brain regions to treat neurologic injuries and disorders. “There have been some exciting results in preclinical animal work and in small clinical pilot work that show that there could be possible beneficial effects in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and improvement in cognition and memory after a brain injury, such as a TBI,” she said.

“Initially, though, there were a lot of questions about whether you could really deliver light to the brain through the scalp. In my laboratory, we used slices of nonfixed brain and found that the sulci within the human brain act as light-wave guides. We used an 808-nm near-infrared wavelength of light, so that the light could penetrate more deeply.” Using nonfixed cadaver heads, where the light was applied at the scalp surface, Dr. Anders and colleagues were able to measure photons down to the depth of 4 cm. “It’s generally agreed now, though, that it’s to a maximum depth of 2.5-3 cm that enough photons are delivered that would cause a beneficial therapeutic effect,” she said.

Dr. Anders disclosed that she has received equipment from LiteCure, grant funding from the Department of Defense, and that she holds advisory board roles with LiteCure and Neurothera. She has also served in leadership roles for the Optical Society and holds intellectual property rights for the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine.

[email protected]

Advances in photobiomodulation have propelled the use of therapeutic applications in a variety of medical specialties, according to Juanita J. Anders, PhD.

During the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Anders, professor of anatomy, physiology, and genetics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., defined photobiomodulation (PBM) as the mechanism by which nonionizing optical radiation in the visible and near-infrared spectral range is absorbed by endogenous chromophores to elicit photophysical and photochemical events at various biological scales. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) involves the use of light sources including lasers, LEDs, and broadband light, that emit visible and/or near-infrared light to cause physiological changes in cells and tissues and result in therapeutic benefits.

In dermatology, LED light therapy devices are commonly used for PBMT in wavelengths that range from blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) to near infrared (830 nm). “Often, when PBMT is referred to by dermatologists it’s called LED therapy or LED light therapy,” Dr. Anders noted. “Some people are under the impression that this is different from PBMT. But remember: It’s not the device that’s producing the photons that is clinically relevant, but it’s the photons themselves. In both cases, the same radiances and fluence ranges are being used and the mechanisms are the same, so it’s all PBMT.”

The therapy is used to treat a wide variety of medical and aesthetic disorders including acne vulgaris, psoriasis, burns, and wound healing. It has also been used in conjunction with surgical aesthetic and resurfacing procedures and has been reported to reduce erythema, edema, bruising, and days to healing. It’s been shown that PBMT stimulates fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, and extracellular matrix resulting in lifting and tightening lax skin.

According to Dr. Anders, French dermatologists Linda Fouque, MD, and Michele Pelletier, MD, performed a series of in vivo and in vitro studies in which they tested the effects of yellow and red light for skin rejuvenation when used individually or in combination. “They found that fibroblasts and keratinocytes in vitro had great improvement in their morphology both with the yellow and red light, but the best improvement was seen with combination therapy,” Dr. Anders said. “This held true in their work looking at epidermal and dermal markers in the skin, where they found the best up-regulation in protein synthesis of such markers as collagens and fibronectin were produced when a combination wavelength light was used.”

Oral mucositis and pain

PBMT is also being used to treat oral mucositis (OM), a common adverse response to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, which causes pain, difficulty in swallowing and eating, and oral ulceration, and often interrupts the course of treatments. Authors of a recently published review on the risks and benefits of PBMT concluded that there is consistent evidence from a small number of high-quality studies that PBMT can help prevent the development of cancer therapy–induced OM, reduce pain intensity, as well as promote healing, and enhance patient quality of life.

“They also cautioned that, due to the limited long-term follow-up of patients, there is still concern for the potential long-term risks of PBMT in cancer cell mutation and amplification,” Dr. Anders said. “They advised that PBMT should be used carefully when the irradiation beam is in the direction of the tumor zone.”

Using PBMT for modulation of pain is another area of active research. Based on work from the laboratory of Dr. Anders and others, there are two methods to modulate pain. The first is to target tissue at irradiances below 100 mW/cm².

“In my laboratory, based on in vivo preclinical animal models of neuropathic pain, we used a 980-nm wavelength laser at 43.25 mW/cm² transcutaneously delivered to the level of the nerve for 20 seconds,” said Dr. Anders, who is a past president of the ASLMS. “Essentially, we found that the pain was modulated by reducing sensitivity to mechanical stimulation and also by causing an anti-inflammatory shift in microglial and macrophage phenotype in the dorsal root ganglion and spinal cord of affected segments.”

The second way to modulate pain, she continued, is to target tissue at irradiances above 250 mW/cm². She and her colleagues have conducted in vitro and in vivo studies, which indicate that treatment with an irradiance/fluence rate at 270 mW/cm² or higher at the nerve can rapidly block pain transmission.

“In vitro, we found that if we used an 810-nm wavelength light at 300 mW/cm², we got a disruption of microtubules in the DRG neurons in culture, specifically the small neurons, the nociceptive fibers, but we did not affect the proprioceptive fibers unless we increased the length of the treatment,” she said. “We essentially found the same thing in vivo in a rodent model of neuropathic pain.”

In a pilot study, Dr. Anders and coauthors examined the efficacy of laser irradiation of the dorsal root ganglion of the second lumbar spinal nerve for patients with chronic back pain.

They found that PBMT effectively reduced back pain equal to the effects of lidocaine.

Based on these two irradiation approaches of targeting tissue, Dr. Anders recommends that a combination therapy be used to modulate neuropathic pain going forward. “This approach would involve the initial use of a high-irradiance treatment [at least 250 mW/cm²] at the nerve to block the pain transmission,” she said. “That treatment would be followed by a series of low-irradiance treatments [10-100 mW/cm²] along the course of the involved nerve to alter chronic pathology and inflammation.”
 

Potential applications in neurology

Dr. Anders also discussed research efforts under way involving transcranial PBMT: the delivery of near-infrared light through the tissues of the scalp and skull to targeted brain regions to treat neurologic injuries and disorders. “There have been some exciting results in preclinical animal work and in small clinical pilot work that show that there could be possible beneficial effects in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and improvement in cognition and memory after a brain injury, such as a TBI,” she said.

“Initially, though, there were a lot of questions about whether you could really deliver light to the brain through the scalp. In my laboratory, we used slices of nonfixed brain and found that the sulci within the human brain act as light-wave guides. We used an 808-nm near-infrared wavelength of light, so that the light could penetrate more deeply.” Using nonfixed cadaver heads, where the light was applied at the scalp surface, Dr. Anders and colleagues were able to measure photons down to the depth of 4 cm. “It’s generally agreed now, though, that it’s to a maximum depth of 2.5-3 cm that enough photons are delivered that would cause a beneficial therapeutic effect,” she said.

Dr. Anders disclosed that she has received equipment from LiteCure, grant funding from the Department of Defense, and that she holds advisory board roles with LiteCure and Neurothera. She has also served in leadership roles for the Optical Society and holds intellectual property rights for the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine.

[email protected]

Advances in photobiomodulation have propelled the use of therapeutic applications in a variety of medical specialties, according to Juanita J. Anders, PhD.

During the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Anders, professor of anatomy, physiology, and genetics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., defined photobiomodulation (PBM) as the mechanism by which nonionizing optical radiation in the visible and near-infrared spectral range is absorbed by endogenous chromophores to elicit photophysical and photochemical events at various biological scales. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) involves the use of light sources including lasers, LEDs, and broadband light, that emit visible and/or near-infrared light to cause physiological changes in cells and tissues and result in therapeutic benefits.

In dermatology, LED light therapy devices are commonly used for PBMT in wavelengths that range from blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) to near infrared (830 nm). “Often, when PBMT is referred to by dermatologists it’s called LED therapy or LED light therapy,” Dr. Anders noted. “Some people are under the impression that this is different from PBMT. But remember: It’s not the device that’s producing the photons that is clinically relevant, but it’s the photons themselves. In both cases, the same radiances and fluence ranges are being used and the mechanisms are the same, so it’s all PBMT.”

The therapy is used to treat a wide variety of medical and aesthetic disorders including acne vulgaris, psoriasis, burns, and wound healing. It has also been used in conjunction with surgical aesthetic and resurfacing procedures and has been reported to reduce erythema, edema, bruising, and days to healing. It’s been shown that PBMT stimulates fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, and extracellular matrix resulting in lifting and tightening lax skin.

According to Dr. Anders, French dermatologists Linda Fouque, MD, and Michele Pelletier, MD, performed a series of in vivo and in vitro studies in which they tested the effects of yellow and red light for skin rejuvenation when used individually or in combination. “They found that fibroblasts and keratinocytes in vitro had great improvement in their morphology both with the yellow and red light, but the best improvement was seen with combination therapy,” Dr. Anders said. “This held true in their work looking at epidermal and dermal markers in the skin, where they found the best up-regulation in protein synthesis of such markers as collagens and fibronectin were produced when a combination wavelength light was used.”

Oral mucositis and pain

PBMT is also being used to treat oral mucositis (OM), a common adverse response to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, which causes pain, difficulty in swallowing and eating, and oral ulceration, and often interrupts the course of treatments. Authors of a recently published review on the risks and benefits of PBMT concluded that there is consistent evidence from a small number of high-quality studies that PBMT can help prevent the development of cancer therapy–induced OM, reduce pain intensity, as well as promote healing, and enhance patient quality of life.

“They also cautioned that, due to the limited long-term follow-up of patients, there is still concern for the potential long-term risks of PBMT in cancer cell mutation and amplification,” Dr. Anders said. “They advised that PBMT should be used carefully when the irradiation beam is in the direction of the tumor zone.”

Using PBMT for modulation of pain is another area of active research. Based on work from the laboratory of Dr. Anders and others, there are two methods to modulate pain. The first is to target tissue at irradiances below 100 mW/cm².

“In my laboratory, based on in vivo preclinical animal models of neuropathic pain, we used a 980-nm wavelength laser at 43.25 mW/cm² transcutaneously delivered to the level of the nerve for 20 seconds,” said Dr. Anders, who is a past president of the ASLMS. “Essentially, we found that the pain was modulated by reducing sensitivity to mechanical stimulation and also by causing an anti-inflammatory shift in microglial and macrophage phenotype in the dorsal root ganglion and spinal cord of affected segments.”

The second way to modulate pain, she continued, is to target tissue at irradiances above 250 mW/cm². She and her colleagues have conducted in vitro and in vivo studies, which indicate that treatment with an irradiance/fluence rate at 270 mW/cm² or higher at the nerve can rapidly block pain transmission.

“In vitro, we found that if we used an 810-nm wavelength light at 300 mW/cm², we got a disruption of microtubules in the DRG neurons in culture, specifically the small neurons, the nociceptive fibers, but we did not affect the proprioceptive fibers unless we increased the length of the treatment,” she said. “We essentially found the same thing in vivo in a rodent model of neuropathic pain.”

In a pilot study, Dr. Anders and coauthors examined the efficacy of laser irradiation of the dorsal root ganglion of the second lumbar spinal nerve for patients with chronic back pain.

They found that PBMT effectively reduced back pain equal to the effects of lidocaine.

Based on these two irradiation approaches of targeting tissue, Dr. Anders recommends that a combination therapy be used to modulate neuropathic pain going forward. “This approach would involve the initial use of a high-irradiance treatment [at least 250 mW/cm²] at the nerve to block the pain transmission,” she said. “That treatment would be followed by a series of low-irradiance treatments [10-100 mW/cm²] along the course of the involved nerve to alter chronic pathology and inflammation.”
 

Potential applications in neurology

Dr. Anders also discussed research efforts under way involving transcranial PBMT: the delivery of near-infrared light through the tissues of the scalp and skull to targeted brain regions to treat neurologic injuries and disorders. “There have been some exciting results in preclinical animal work and in small clinical pilot work that show that there could be possible beneficial effects in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and improvement in cognition and memory after a brain injury, such as a TBI,” she said.

“Initially, though, there were a lot of questions about whether you could really deliver light to the brain through the scalp. In my laboratory, we used slices of nonfixed brain and found that the sulci within the human brain act as light-wave guides. We used an 808-nm near-infrared wavelength of light, so that the light could penetrate more deeply.” Using nonfixed cadaver heads, where the light was applied at the scalp surface, Dr. Anders and colleagues were able to measure photons down to the depth of 4 cm. “It’s generally agreed now, though, that it’s to a maximum depth of 2.5-3 cm that enough photons are delivered that would cause a beneficial therapeutic effect,” she said.

Dr. Anders disclosed that she has received equipment from LiteCure, grant funding from the Department of Defense, and that she holds advisory board roles with LiteCure and Neurothera. She has also served in leadership roles for the Optical Society and holds intellectual property rights for the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine.

[email protected]

Chilblain-like lesions seen in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic are nonischemic and not related to systemic or localized SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests a case series from Italy.

These lesions are “most likely are benign” and resolve on their own after 2-6 weeks, Valentina Discepolo, MD, PhD, University of Naples Federico II, told this news organization.

“They do not seem to be the manifestation of systemic inflammatory or autoimmune phenomena. According to our experience, they should not require a SARS-CoV-2–specific molecular or serological test since in all cases in our series they were negative,” said Dr. Discepolo.

The study was published online June 10, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘COVID toes’ a fallacy?

The temporal association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing number of chilblain-like lesions has led some in the media to call it “COVID toes,” the investigators wrote. However, data on the association with SARS-CoV-2 are controversial.

For this report, Dr. Discepolo and colleagues evaluated 17 adolescents who presented with chilblain-like lesions of the toes during the first wave of the pandemic in southern Italy.

None had evidence of current, past, or local SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“In our experience, chilblain-like lesions are not a manifestation of COVID-19, as shown by negative serological and molecular specific for SARS-CoV2,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

The lesions were bilaterally distributed in 16 adolescents (94.1%) and heel skin was involved in 7 (41.2%). Ulceration complicated one patient during the active phase of the disease, and desquamation developed over time in three patients (17.6%). Only two patients (11.8%) had concurrent involvement of the fingers.

Self-administered therapies included topical antibiotics and/or corticosteroids, disinfectants, and antifungal agents; systemic antibiotics or corticosteroids were used rarely.

None of the therapies substantially changed the course of the lesions. Duration was “extremely variable,” ranging from 49 to 145 days; however, at follow-up, all patients had full resolution.

Almost invariably, the lesions were characterized by a triad of red dots, white rosettes, and white streaks on an erythematous background, the investigators reported.

In more than half the patients (56%), red dots often appeared as dotted and comma-shaped congested vessels that surrounded the rosettes in the early stage of the lesions. In later stages, red dots were still present, but the rosettes had disappeared.

Although found inconsistently in inflammatory cutaneous conditions, these three signs do not characterize the dermoscopic picture of perniosis, suggesting a distinct disease process, the investigators said.

 

Don’t blame it on ischemia, clots

Histologic analysis revealed “remodeling of the dermal blood vessels with a lobular arrangement, wall thickening, and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate,” they noted.

Punch biopsy of the involved skin mostly showed endothelial hyperplasia, mild lymphocytic infiltrate, and vessels’ architecture disruption with no papillary dermal edema or eosinophilic or neutrophilic infiltrate.

Pathology did not reveal any ischemic changes, which argues against systemic vasculopathy, Farzam Gorouhi, MD, from Kaiser Permanente, South Sacramento Medical Center, noted in a linked editorial. “Thus, this study provides further evidence against the thromboembolic nature of the presented pattern in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Results of capillaroscopy, used to investigate structural changes in peripheral microcirculation, were either completely normal or showed rare ectasias, supporting a lack of systemic inflammatory process.

“The lack of capillaroscopic features of a major vasculopathic event in the study by Discepolo et al. argues against the ischemic nature of this disease and, thus, indicates that this presentation is not associated with systemic ischemia or an embolic event,” Dr. Gorouhi noted.

Chilblain-like lesions have been one of the most commonly described cutaneous manifestations during the COVID-19 pandemic, but their etiopathogenesis, including the role of SARS-CoV-2, has remained elusive, the investigators wrote.

The findings in this case series do not support the association of the lesions with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they concluded.

The fact that only three new cases of chilblain-like lesions were reported during the highest peaks of the pandemic further supports a lack of association with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they noted.

In addition, none of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and all three cases during the second wave occurred in the winter months, suggesting that exposure to the cold might, at least in some cases, trigger the skin lesions, the investigators said.

In line with this hypothesis, seven of the adolescents in this case series (41.2%) relapsed during the winter months while again testing negative for SARS-CoV-2.

“We believe that lifestyle modifications [reduced physical activity, microtraumatisms caused by walking barefoot at home] during the first strict lockdown played a role, likely promoting a local inflammatory process promoted by vascular stasis that led in genetically susceptible individuals to the onset of these lesions,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

This research had no specific funding. The investigators and Dr. Gorouhi declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Chilblain-like lesions seen in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic are nonischemic and not related to systemic or localized SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests a case series from Italy.

These lesions are “most likely are benign” and resolve on their own after 2-6 weeks, Valentina Discepolo, MD, PhD, University of Naples Federico II, told this news organization.

“They do not seem to be the manifestation of systemic inflammatory or autoimmune phenomena. According to our experience, they should not require a SARS-CoV-2–specific molecular or serological test since in all cases in our series they were negative,” said Dr. Discepolo.

The study was published online June 10, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘COVID toes’ a fallacy?

The temporal association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing number of chilblain-like lesions has led some in the media to call it “COVID toes,” the investigators wrote. However, data on the association with SARS-CoV-2 are controversial.

For this report, Dr. Discepolo and colleagues evaluated 17 adolescents who presented with chilblain-like lesions of the toes during the first wave of the pandemic in southern Italy.

None had evidence of current, past, or local SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“In our experience, chilblain-like lesions are not a manifestation of COVID-19, as shown by negative serological and molecular specific for SARS-CoV2,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

The lesions were bilaterally distributed in 16 adolescents (94.1%) and heel skin was involved in 7 (41.2%). Ulceration complicated one patient during the active phase of the disease, and desquamation developed over time in three patients (17.6%). Only two patients (11.8%) had concurrent involvement of the fingers.

Self-administered therapies included topical antibiotics and/or corticosteroids, disinfectants, and antifungal agents; systemic antibiotics or corticosteroids were used rarely.

None of the therapies substantially changed the course of the lesions. Duration was “extremely variable,” ranging from 49 to 145 days; however, at follow-up, all patients had full resolution.

Almost invariably, the lesions were characterized by a triad of red dots, white rosettes, and white streaks on an erythematous background, the investigators reported.

In more than half the patients (56%), red dots often appeared as dotted and comma-shaped congested vessels that surrounded the rosettes in the early stage of the lesions. In later stages, red dots were still present, but the rosettes had disappeared.

Although found inconsistently in inflammatory cutaneous conditions, these three signs do not characterize the dermoscopic picture of perniosis, suggesting a distinct disease process, the investigators said.

 

Don’t blame it on ischemia, clots

Histologic analysis revealed “remodeling of the dermal blood vessels with a lobular arrangement, wall thickening, and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate,” they noted.

Punch biopsy of the involved skin mostly showed endothelial hyperplasia, mild lymphocytic infiltrate, and vessels’ architecture disruption with no papillary dermal edema or eosinophilic or neutrophilic infiltrate.

Pathology did not reveal any ischemic changes, which argues against systemic vasculopathy, Farzam Gorouhi, MD, from Kaiser Permanente, South Sacramento Medical Center, noted in a linked editorial. “Thus, this study provides further evidence against the thromboembolic nature of the presented pattern in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Results of capillaroscopy, used to investigate structural changes in peripheral microcirculation, were either completely normal or showed rare ectasias, supporting a lack of systemic inflammatory process.

“The lack of capillaroscopic features of a major vasculopathic event in the study by Discepolo et al. argues against the ischemic nature of this disease and, thus, indicates that this presentation is not associated with systemic ischemia or an embolic event,” Dr. Gorouhi noted.

Chilblain-like lesions have been one of the most commonly described cutaneous manifestations during the COVID-19 pandemic, but their etiopathogenesis, including the role of SARS-CoV-2, has remained elusive, the investigators wrote.

The findings in this case series do not support the association of the lesions with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they concluded.

The fact that only three new cases of chilblain-like lesions were reported during the highest peaks of the pandemic further supports a lack of association with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they noted.

In addition, none of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and all three cases during the second wave occurred in the winter months, suggesting that exposure to the cold might, at least in some cases, trigger the skin lesions, the investigators said.

In line with this hypothesis, seven of the adolescents in this case series (41.2%) relapsed during the winter months while again testing negative for SARS-CoV-2.

“We believe that lifestyle modifications [reduced physical activity, microtraumatisms caused by walking barefoot at home] during the first strict lockdown played a role, likely promoting a local inflammatory process promoted by vascular stasis that led in genetically susceptible individuals to the onset of these lesions,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

This research had no specific funding. The investigators and Dr. Gorouhi declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Chilblain-like lesions seen in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic are nonischemic and not related to systemic or localized SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests a case series from Italy.

These lesions are “most likely are benign” and resolve on their own after 2-6 weeks, Valentina Discepolo, MD, PhD, University of Naples Federico II, told this news organization.

“They do not seem to be the manifestation of systemic inflammatory or autoimmune phenomena. According to our experience, they should not require a SARS-CoV-2–specific molecular or serological test since in all cases in our series they were negative,” said Dr. Discepolo.

The study was published online June 10, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘COVID toes’ a fallacy?

The temporal association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing number of chilblain-like lesions has led some in the media to call it “COVID toes,” the investigators wrote. However, data on the association with SARS-CoV-2 are controversial.

For this report, Dr. Discepolo and colleagues evaluated 17 adolescents who presented with chilblain-like lesions of the toes during the first wave of the pandemic in southern Italy.

None had evidence of current, past, or local SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“In our experience, chilblain-like lesions are not a manifestation of COVID-19, as shown by negative serological and molecular specific for SARS-CoV2,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

The lesions were bilaterally distributed in 16 adolescents (94.1%) and heel skin was involved in 7 (41.2%). Ulceration complicated one patient during the active phase of the disease, and desquamation developed over time in three patients (17.6%). Only two patients (11.8%) had concurrent involvement of the fingers.

Self-administered therapies included topical antibiotics and/or corticosteroids, disinfectants, and antifungal agents; systemic antibiotics or corticosteroids were used rarely.

None of the therapies substantially changed the course of the lesions. Duration was “extremely variable,” ranging from 49 to 145 days; however, at follow-up, all patients had full resolution.

Almost invariably, the lesions were characterized by a triad of red dots, white rosettes, and white streaks on an erythematous background, the investigators reported.

In more than half the patients (56%), red dots often appeared as dotted and comma-shaped congested vessels that surrounded the rosettes in the early stage of the lesions. In later stages, red dots were still present, but the rosettes had disappeared.

Although found inconsistently in inflammatory cutaneous conditions, these three signs do not characterize the dermoscopic picture of perniosis, suggesting a distinct disease process, the investigators said.

 

Don’t blame it on ischemia, clots

Histologic analysis revealed “remodeling of the dermal blood vessels with a lobular arrangement, wall thickening, and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate,” they noted.

Punch biopsy of the involved skin mostly showed endothelial hyperplasia, mild lymphocytic infiltrate, and vessels’ architecture disruption with no papillary dermal edema or eosinophilic or neutrophilic infiltrate.

Pathology did not reveal any ischemic changes, which argues against systemic vasculopathy, Farzam Gorouhi, MD, from Kaiser Permanente, South Sacramento Medical Center, noted in a linked editorial. “Thus, this study provides further evidence against the thromboembolic nature of the presented pattern in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Results of capillaroscopy, used to investigate structural changes in peripheral microcirculation, were either completely normal or showed rare ectasias, supporting a lack of systemic inflammatory process.

“The lack of capillaroscopic features of a major vasculopathic event in the study by Discepolo et al. argues against the ischemic nature of this disease and, thus, indicates that this presentation is not associated with systemic ischemia or an embolic event,” Dr. Gorouhi noted.

Chilblain-like lesions have been one of the most commonly described cutaneous manifestations during the COVID-19 pandemic, but their etiopathogenesis, including the role of SARS-CoV-2, has remained elusive, the investigators wrote.

The findings in this case series do not support the association of the lesions with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they concluded.

The fact that only three new cases of chilblain-like lesions were reported during the highest peaks of the pandemic further supports a lack of association with SARS-CoV-2 infection, they noted.

In addition, none of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and all three cases during the second wave occurred in the winter months, suggesting that exposure to the cold might, at least in some cases, trigger the skin lesions, the investigators said.

In line with this hypothesis, seven of the adolescents in this case series (41.2%) relapsed during the winter months while again testing negative for SARS-CoV-2.

“We believe that lifestyle modifications [reduced physical activity, microtraumatisms caused by walking barefoot at home] during the first strict lockdown played a role, likely promoting a local inflammatory process promoted by vascular stasis that led in genetically susceptible individuals to the onset of these lesions,” Dr. Discepolo said in an interview.

This research had no specific funding. The investigators and Dr. Gorouhi declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

In early June the Food and Drug Administration – amid a storm of controversy – approved aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody developed to treat Alzheimer’s disease. The approval was hailed by advocacy groups and some practitioners as a victory for patients and families, as the drug – the first anti-Alzheimer’s agent to reach the market in 18 years – is a potentially disease-modifying therapy, which acts to clear amyloid plaques from the brain.

But several prominent Alzheimer’s researchers lambasted the agency’s decision, citing unclear evidence of benefit, trials that did not meet their primary endpoints, and reliance on a post hoc analysis of a high-dose subgroup of patients in a halted trial to argue that aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen, and Eisai), slowed cognitive and functional decline by 22% on one measure. In November 2020, 10 of 11 members of an independent FDA advisory committee voted against aducanumab’s approval, citing holes in the data and concerns about the quality of the evidence. After the agency went on to approve anyway, three members of that committee resigned in protest.

The FDA decision on aducanumab was made using the agency’s accelerated approval pathway, which allows for the use of a surrogate endpoint – in this case imaging that showed amyloid clearance from the brain – to predict clinical benefit. But amyloid clearance, which a number of experimental antiamyloid antibodies have been shown capable of, has not been definitively linked to clinical benefit. Aducanumab, which is delivered by monthly intravenous infusion, will be marketed pending results from a phase 4 clinical trial, which the manufacturer has nearly a decade to complete. The drug’s price was announced at $56,000 per year, underscoring concern over its modest-at-best benefits.

Clinicians prescribing aducanumab must obtain magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and repeatedly during the course of treatment to detect brain edema and microhemorrhages, which occurred in a third of high-dose patients in clinical trials. Beyond this, there are few restrictions. The FDA label allows for its use in any patient deemed to have Alzheimer’s disease, without stipulations as to disease stage or evidence of brain amyloid. Payers, of course, are likely to restrict use to certain patient groups, and to require evidence of amyloid positivity. The FDA offered no guidance on when treatment should be ceased, leaving payers to make that call as well. Whatever aducanumab’s value and role turns out to be, the first-in-class treatment for Alzheimer’s disease is likely to have a major impact on how patients are assessed and treated in the coming years, and embolden manufactures of similar agents to seek FDA approval.

This news organization reached out to researchers, advocates, and specialists in the community to learn how they see this change playing out.
 

Fielding broad interest

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association, which was a strong proponent of aducanumab’s approval, acknowledged in an interview that the months to come are likely to be confusing for practitioners and families alike as the drug makes its way into community practices.

“We understand that off the bat millions of Americans will not have access to this tomorrow, but over time that will build. And the physician community, the specialists most likely to be prescribing this, over the next few years will even expand further,” Dr. Carrillo said.

For now, those specialists are mostly just struggling to respond responsibly to a deluge of inquiries from patients and their families.

“I’ve gotten like 20 calls in the just the past 2 days,” said neurologist Philip R. Delio, MD, who practices in Santa Barbara, Calif. “This is a longstanding issue that physicians have with patients’ access to information. Patients are getting information about a drug which isn’t available yet. They don’t know that it’s not ready to be sold. They don’t necessarily realize that a biopharma company won’t go into production until the FDA approves the drug.”

The challenge of delivery

Intravenous infusions are new to Alzheimer’s disease and pose all sorts of logistical hurdles. The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo described the situation as “manageable,” noting that infusions are standard of care for many diseases, and that neurologists now have more than 15 years’ experience with them for multiple sclerosis.

Still, most clinicians treating Alzheimer’s disease in the community – neurologists, geriatricians, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians – do not have infusion centers in their practices. Virtually none have experience with or access to PET-amyloid, or with screening for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities–edema (ARIA-e) on MRI, as required by the FDA.

“I contacted the hospital infusion center we use and said I could end up sending five or six patients a week, can you handle this? They only have so many chairs,” Dr. Delio said. “I am one neurologist in a local community, and I might have 50 candidates for this drug. That’s a lot for them.” Patients with cognitive impairment are also difficult to infuse and may need to be treated at home, he noted.

“MRIs are easy enough to do,” Dr. Delio said. “But do we know what ARIA-e looks like on imaging? You’d have to talk to the radiologists – this is another element of uncertainty. Do we even know what we’re looking for with these scans? Will we recognize this?”

Neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a vocal proponent of aducanumab and lead author of a May 2021 paper defending the evidence for it, acknowledged that the field was unprepared for a wide-scale adoption of infusions in dementia treatment, pointing to a Rand Corporation study from 2017 that warned that screening, diagnosis, and availability of infusion chairs would have to be drastically scaled up to meet demand.

“There are few clinicians who know how to identify MCI, too few imaging centers, too few radiologists who know how to identify ARIA-e on MRI, so all of these things will be required to be put into place. The label doesn’t specify any of this, but good clinical practice will require that, and getting this up and running will take 18 to 24 months,” Dr. Cummings said.

Neurologist David S. Knopman, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., a leading critic of the evidence for aducanumab who recently resigned his position on the independent committee that advises the FDA on neurology drugs, said that for large research institutions like his that have served as trial sites, the transition to offering PET-amyloid, MRI, and infusions in clinical practice will be easier.

Uncertainty over costs

Aducanumab’s true costs, to patients and to taxpayers, remain unknown. The $56,000 per year currently cited by its manufacturer “doesn’t count the PET scans and MRIs,” Dr. Knopman noted. “We’re probably pushing $100,00 a year for the first year of treatment.”

Most of that expense will likely be borne by Medicare, he said, and if not, “that will exacerbate existing health care disparities. People who can pay out of pocket are a pretty limited group.”

Dr. Scharre agreed that the costs of treatment were concerning, and that “at least you should be able to narrow it down and hopefully just use health care dollars for people who might stand to benefit,” he said – namely patients in an earlier stage of disease.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s Dr. Carrillo declined to address the high price of aducanumab or its implications, saying only that the association is “very invested in all aspects of access including covering costs associated with the drug and the rest of treatment.”

Access also means “infrastructure, access to physicians to diagnose, access to diagnostics,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Dr. Cummings said aducanumab’s price would likely come down through negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, copayments, and bulk purchases.

The FDA has offered no guidance on how long treatment with aducanumab should last, or what should prompt withdrawal of treatment, meaning that patients could, in theory, stay on it to the end of their lives – raising costs further.

Critics have also noted that a built-in financial incentive under Medicare Part B, which covers infusion drugs, could result in overprescription of aducanumab. Under Medicare Part B, prescribing physicians are reimbursed 6% of a drug’s average sales price.
 

Geriatricians wary

On social media and in the lay press, geriatricians have been among the most outspoken opponents of the FDA decision and the Alzheimer’s Association’s advocacy of aducanumab.

Eric Widera, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the specialty might be less likely than others to embrace aducanumab. “I think part of the reasons geriatricians don’t make a lot of money is they have strong commitment to their values,” Dr. Widera said.

A fractured research community

Ever since October 2019, when Biogen and Eisai announced that despite two trials halted for futility, they would go ahead and seek FDA approval for aducanumab, the Alzheimer’s research community has been bitterly divided over the drug and the FDA’s accelerated approval process.

Top researchers published critical editorials in journals, with some eventually taking their case to major newspapers as well. The Alzheimer’s Association’s position on the drug has clashed with that of many researchers whose work it supports.

“The Alzheimer’s community has been wonderfully collegial – we all have a common purpose,” Dr. Cummings said. “Now we have people taking extreme positions and I’m hoping this will not result in a permanent fracturing of the community.”

Chief among the critics’ concerns is that the FDA decision ratified the use of antiamyloid therapies based on biomarker evidence, opening the door for makers of similar drugs – those still under development or even those whose development has been halted – to seek approval on weak evidence of clinical benefit.

Whether the approval will chill research into drugs targeting pathways other than amyloid is uncertain.

Dr. Cummings said he felt that while the aducanumab decision would spur other manufacturers of antiamyloid drugs to seek accelerated approval, other classes of Alzheimer’s therapies in development also stand to get a boost. Many Alzheimer’s experts believe that a combination of drugs targeting different elements of the disease pathway – not just amyloid – will be needed in the long run.

Dr. Scharre said that the buzz over aducanumab’s approval will have at least one concrete benefit: people getting into doctors’ offices sooner.

“The people who come into our memory centers represent only a fraction of people walking around with MCI – there are people out there who may have heard that it’s normal aging; they have decreased insight; there’s denial, there’s embarrassment – there’s hundreds of reasons people avoid getting seen,” he said.

“Perhaps they come in and learn that they don’t have any degenerative process but their thyroid is out of whack, or there’s something else causing cognitive impairment. And if they do have a degenerative process, they’ll have time to start [aducanumab], and hopefully get to see a reduction in the decline.”

Dr. Knopman was a site investigator for the Biogen aducanumab trials and has consulted for Samus Therapeutics, Third Rock, Roche, and Alzeca Biosciences. A former member of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, he was recused from the Nov. 6, 2020, meeting that voted against aducanumab. Dr. Cummings has consulted for Biogen, Eisai, and other manufacturers. Dr. Scharre reports financial relationships with Biogen, Brain Test, Acadia, and Vascular Scientific. Dr. Widera has no disclosures. Dr. Delio is a speaker for Gore Medical, Allergan, and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.

Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
 

A promising start

Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.

Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.

The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.

The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.

“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.

The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.

Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.

ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
 

A ‘strong’ recommendation

The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.

But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.

Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.

Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.

The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.

The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.

[email protected]

The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.

Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
 

A promising start

Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.

Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.

The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.

The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.

“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.

The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.

Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.

ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
 

A ‘strong’ recommendation

The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.

But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.

Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.

Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.

The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.

The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.

[email protected]

The results from three small studies of targeted therapy for rare brain tumors were “remarkable,” according to Jaishri Blakeley, MD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who discussed the studies after they were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.

Although most patients don’t have targetable mutations, molecular testing “is well worth the effort,” for those that do. “I think it’s fair to say that precision medicine” – well established in other tumor types – “is finally here in full force for neuro-oncology,” Dr. Blakeley said.
 

A promising start

Fifteen of 16 patients (94%) in one study had newly diagnosed and untreated papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCPs) that harbored BRAF V600E mutations, a common finding in PCPs, which have no effective medical treatment.

Tumors shrunk 68%-99% in 14 patients (93%) after treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib plus the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib, which was included to stave off resistance to vemurafenib. The 24-month progression free survival was 93%.

The combination resulted in significant response in all patients who received at least one cycle of therapy, with a median 91% volume reduction. “Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP, with the potential to avoid the morbidity associated with radiation and surgery,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Priscilla K. Brastianos, MD, associate professor of medicine at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston.

Thirty-three people in the second study had a mix of high and low grade gliomas or other CNS tumors positive for TRK gene fusions, a known oncogenic driver; the majority were children. They were treated with the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib after progressing on other systemic therapies.

The objective response rate was 30%, and the disease control rate was 73% at 24 weeks, with a median time to best response of 1.9 months. Tumors shrank in 82% of evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival was 18.3 months, and overall survival was not reached.

“These results support testing for TRK gene fusions for all patients with CNS tumors, especially if there is no known driver and especially in infants,” concluded lead investigator and presenter Sebastien Perreault, MD, a clinical assistant neurosciences professor at the University of Montreal.

The third study tested ALK inhibitors such as crizotinib in seven patients with adult-onset neuroblastoma, a rare and almost invariably fatal tumor known to be enriched for ALK mutations; the subjects were positive for them.

Their disease remained stable anywhere from 3.4 to 37.4 months. Median time to progression was 15.5 months, and median overall survival was 46.5 months.

ALK inhibitors “can be a well-tolerated options for treatment, improving time to progression. Development of resistance to one agent does not preclude use of other agents in the same drug class. ALK inhibitors should be considered when treating patients with this diagnosis,” said lead investigator and presenter Jessica Stiefel, MD, a pediatric hematology oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
 

A ‘strong’ recommendation

The data “are great news” across the board. Targeted therapy applied to the right CNS tumor can have “dramatic” benefit for tumor control, Dr. Blakeley said.

But organizing molecular testing is not straightforward and requires strategies to balance “the use of precious resources, such as time money, and tissue,” with the potential benefit. Interpretation of testing results isn’t straightforward either, and is best handled by a molecular tumor board. Clinical pharmacists are also key to accessing expensive medications off label for CNS tumors.

Adverse events are also a consideration. Most of the subjects in the PCP study had grade 3/4 toxicity. Three patients in the ALK inhibitor study had to stop because of adverse events. Almost 40% on larotrectinib had grade 3 or 4 toxicity; nobody came off treatment, but a third had to skip doses.

Once an actionable mutation is identified, Dr. Blakeley’s “strong recommendation” is to enroll patients in a clinical trial that targets it, to take advantage the structure already in place to secure treatment, managed patients, and assess outcomes.

The National Cancer Institute’s MATCH trial is one of several options.

The BRAF/MEK inhibitor study was funded by Genentech and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brastianos had ties to numerous companies, including Pfizer, Lilly, and Merck. The TRK inhibitor study was funded by Bayer/Lilly. Dr. Perreault is a speaker and researcher for the company and has other ties. Dr. Blakeley is an adviser and/or researcher for a number of companies, including AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, and Exelixis. Dr. Stiefel didn’t have any disclosures, and didn’t report outside funding.

[email protected]

Patients with a disorder of consciousness (DoC) following a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) often regain consciousness and even functional independence during rehabilitation, according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.

“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).

Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).

Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
 

When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope

The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.

“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.

That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?

“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
 

Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists

“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”

“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”

She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.

“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with a disorder of consciousness (DoC) following a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) often regain consciousness and even functional independence during rehabilitation, according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.

“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).

Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).

Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
 

When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope

The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.

“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.

That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?

“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
 

Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists

“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”

“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”

She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.

“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with a disorder of consciousness (DoC) following a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) often regain consciousness and even functional independence during rehabilitation, according to a study of 3 decades of TBI survivors.

“Caution is warranted in consideration of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining therapies in patients with severe TBI and DoC,” wrote Robert G. Kowalski, MBBCh, MS, of the department of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues. The study was published in JAMA Neurology.

To determine the likelihood of returning to consciousness in the weeks that follow a serious brain injury, along with any notable contributing factors, the researchers launched a retrospective analysis of 17,470 patients with moderate to severe TBI. All participants had been enrolled in the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems database from January 1989 to June 2019 after being admitted to any 1 of 23 inpatient rehabilitation centers. The cohort had a median age of 39 (interquartile range, 25-56), with 74% being male and 66% being white. Their median duration of acute hospital care was 16 days (IQR, 9-26).

Unconsciousness was defined by the researchers as not being able to follow commands or having a Glasgow Coma Scale motor score in the ED of lower than 6 or a Disability Rating Scale motor score greater than 0. Of the overall cohort, 7,547 (57%) patients initially lost consciousness and 2,058 (12%) remained unconscious as they were admitted to rehab. Of that subgroup, 1,674 (82%) recovered consciousness during rehab. The 414 patients who still had a DoC at completion of rehab had a longer median stay (37 days; IQR, 22-65), compared with the patients who recovered consciousness (19 days; IQR, 12-30; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, the factors most associated with recovery of consciousness were the absence of intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.532-0.863; P = .002) and the absence of intracranial mass effect (aOR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.595-0.968; P = .03).

Though all patients experienced an improvement in functional status during rehabilitation, patients with DoC had an increase in median Functional Independence Measure total score from 19 to 71 while patients without DoC increased from 54 to 96 (change in total score, +43 versus +37; P = .002). After multivariate analysis, younger age and male sex were both associated with better functional outcomes during rehab and at discharge.
 

When it comes to TBI patients, don’t give up hope

The choice to withdraw care in TBI patients is a complicated and daunting one, and this study is further evidence that physicians should delay that decision in many scenarios, wrote Jennifer A. Kim, MD, PhD, and Kevin N. Sheth, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in an accompanying editorial.

“By showing that a large proportion of patients with persistent DoC recover during acute rehabilitation, this article further challenges our potential toward overly nihilistic notions of who may or may not ultimately recover consciousness long term,” they added.

That said, they also recognized the questions that still persist: What are the reasons for late-stage withdrawal of lifesaving therapy? What is the recovery rate of all hospitalized patients with TBI, not just those in rehabilitation facilities? And is it possible to detect covert consciousness using MRI and electroencephalography, which this study did not include?

“Defining both good and poor prognostic risk factors is critical to portending recovery,” they wrote, emphasizing the need for physicians to rely on scientifically based predictions when making such important assessments.
 

Patience is a virtue for TBI specialists

“A lot of people write notes on hospital charts, ‘poor prognosis.’ You don’t know, that early in the game, in the acute care setting, how TBI patients are going to do,” said Jamie S. Ullman, MD, of the department of neurosurgery at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., in an interview. “It’s over the long term that we really have to judge that.”

“Of course, there may be some characteristics that patients might have that may portend for a worse outcome, like brain stem damage,” she added. “But in general, there is plenty of literature to suggest that not only can even the worst-looking patients have some kind of functional outcome but that it takes 18 months or more to actually realize an outcome from a traumatic brain injury.”

She emphasized that each patient with TBI is unique; beyond their current status, you have to consider the significance of their injury, the thoughts of their families or partner, and their own previously stated wishes and willingness to tolerate disability. Nonetheless, this study is another step toward distilling the “nihilistic thinking” that can lead physicians to expect the worst regarding patients who may still have a path toward a functional life.

“As traumatic brain injury specialists,” she said, “we need to see what we can do to give patients as good a chance as possible at a recovery.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including an inability to account for 3 decades of variations in treatment regimens and its limited generalizability because of the cohort being composed of only TBI survivors admitted to inpatient rehab. In addition, they noted a possible referential bias for the study’s mostly young TBI patients in rehab facilities, another reason why these findings “may not be directly applicable to the overall population of patients with moderate or severe TBI.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research; the Department of Health & Human Services; and the Veterans Health Administration Central Office VA TBI Model Systems Program of Research. The authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and support from various government agencies and pharmaceutical companies.

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

I’m not an academic. Never will be.

I’m also a crappy statistician. Neither my university nor medical school required statistics classes, so I never really learned them. In medicine you pick up an idea of how to interpret them as part of the job, but I’m certainly not a pro with numbers.

Which brings me to the word of the day, Aduhelm, AKA aducanumab.

A lot of drugs have come and gone in the 30 years since my medical school pharmacology class, but very few with this one’s degree of uncertainty.

Clearly its mechanism works: It removes amyloid from the brain. I don’t think anyone will argue that. But the real question is whether this translates into actual clinical benefit.

The water is murky here, and even its most ardent supporters admit the evidence isn’t exactly overwhelming. To some extent the approval basically puts it in a huge open-label clinical trial, with the Food and Drug Administration saying that it will be withdrawn if success isn’t seen in follow-up studies.

I’m not a statistics person, but I understand that, when numbers are marginal, they can be spun to mean whatever someone wants them to mean. And the stakes here, both medically and financially, are pretty high.

Alzheimer’s disease, unquestionably, is a devastating illness. The best treatments we have for it are modest at best. The demand for new treatments is huge.

But “new” doesn’t mean the same as “effective.” This is where the statistics, and their supporters and detractors, come in.

Patients and their families aren’t (usually) doctors. They want a treatment that’s both effective and reasonably safe, especially for a disease where a tragic prognosis is well established. With this drug (and similar ones in development) we face a balance between uncertain benefits and a clear risk of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. The best we can do is explain these vagaries to people so they understand the uncertainties involved.

Perhaps more troubling is the possibility lurking in the background: The amyloid comes out, but the prognosis doesn’t improve. This brings us to the possibility (already voiced in journals) that the whole amyloid theory is wrong, and we’ve spent all this time and money chasing the wrong villain. As Morpheus, in The Matrix, implies, our whole reality on this may not be real.

Regrettably, in science (and medicine is a science) the only way to find out what works and what doesn’t is through trial and error. Computer modeling can take us only so far. Whether Aduhelm succeeds or fails will all be in the numbers.

But if it (and similar agents) fail in the general population, then it may be time to accept that we’re chasing the wrong bad guy.

That’s what data and statistics do.

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

I’m not an academic. Never will be.

I’m also a crappy statistician. Neither my university nor medical school required statistics classes, so I never really learned them. In medicine you pick up an idea of how to interpret them as part of the job, but I’m certainly not a pro with numbers.

Which brings me to the word of the day, Aduhelm, AKA aducanumab.

A lot of drugs have come and gone in the 30 years since my medical school pharmacology class, but very few with this one’s degree of uncertainty.

Clearly its mechanism works: It removes amyloid from the brain. I don’t think anyone will argue that. But the real question is whether this translates into actual clinical benefit.

The water is murky here, and even its most ardent supporters admit the evidence isn’t exactly overwhelming. To some extent the approval basically puts it in a huge open-label clinical trial, with the Food and Drug Administration saying that it will be withdrawn if success isn’t seen in follow-up studies.

I’m not a statistics person, but I understand that, when numbers are marginal, they can be spun to mean whatever someone wants them to mean. And the stakes here, both medically and financially, are pretty high.

Alzheimer’s disease, unquestionably, is a devastating illness. The best treatments we have for it are modest at best. The demand for new treatments is huge.

But “new” doesn’t mean the same as “effective.” This is where the statistics, and their supporters and detractors, come in.

Patients and their families aren’t (usually) doctors. They want a treatment that’s both effective and reasonably safe, especially for a disease where a tragic prognosis is well established. With this drug (and similar ones in development) we face a balance between uncertain benefits and a clear risk of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. The best we can do is explain these vagaries to people so they understand the uncertainties involved.

Perhaps more troubling is the possibility lurking in the background: The amyloid comes out, but the prognosis doesn’t improve. This brings us to the possibility (already voiced in journals) that the whole amyloid theory is wrong, and we’ve spent all this time and money chasing the wrong villain. As Morpheus, in The Matrix, implies, our whole reality on this may not be real.

Regrettably, in science (and medicine is a science) the only way to find out what works and what doesn’t is through trial and error. Computer modeling can take us only so far. Whether Aduhelm succeeds or fails will all be in the numbers.

But if it (and similar agents) fail in the general population, then it may be time to accept that we’re chasing the wrong bad guy.

That’s what data and statistics do.

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

I’m not an academic. Never will be.

I’m also a crappy statistician. Neither my university nor medical school required statistics classes, so I never really learned them. In medicine you pick up an idea of how to interpret them as part of the job, but I’m certainly not a pro with numbers.

Which brings me to the word of the day, Aduhelm, AKA aducanumab.

A lot of drugs have come and gone in the 30 years since my medical school pharmacology class, but very few with this one’s degree of uncertainty.

Clearly its mechanism works: It removes amyloid from the brain. I don’t think anyone will argue that. But the real question is whether this translates into actual clinical benefit.

The water is murky here, and even its most ardent supporters admit the evidence isn’t exactly overwhelming. To some extent the approval basically puts it in a huge open-label clinical trial, with the Food and Drug Administration saying that it will be withdrawn if success isn’t seen in follow-up studies.

I’m not a statistics person, but I understand that, when numbers are marginal, they can be spun to mean whatever someone wants them to mean. And the stakes here, both medically and financially, are pretty high.

Alzheimer’s disease, unquestionably, is a devastating illness. The best treatments we have for it are modest at best. The demand for new treatments is huge.

But “new” doesn’t mean the same as “effective.” This is where the statistics, and their supporters and detractors, come in.

Patients and their families aren’t (usually) doctors. They want a treatment that’s both effective and reasonably safe, especially for a disease where a tragic prognosis is well established. With this drug (and similar ones in development) we face a balance between uncertain benefits and a clear risk of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. The best we can do is explain these vagaries to people so they understand the uncertainties involved.

Perhaps more troubling is the possibility lurking in the background: The amyloid comes out, but the prognosis doesn’t improve. This brings us to the possibility (already voiced in journals) that the whole amyloid theory is wrong, and we’ve spent all this time and money chasing the wrong villain. As Morpheus, in The Matrix, implies, our whole reality on this may not be real.

Regrettably, in science (and medicine is a science) the only way to find out what works and what doesn’t is through trial and error. Computer modeling can take us only so far. Whether Aduhelm succeeds or fails will all be in the numbers.

But if it (and similar agents) fail in the general population, then it may be time to accept that we’re chasing the wrong bad guy.

That’s what data and statistics do.

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