Neurology Reviews

People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.

Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.

This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.

 

Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes

A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.

“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom. 

Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said. 

“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”

She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.

“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.” 

Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.

 

The Impacts

Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.

The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.

Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.

 

What Can Be Done?

“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”

Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.

“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”

Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.

“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.

Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.

This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.

 

Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes

A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.

“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom. 

Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said. 

“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”

She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.

“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.” 

Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.

 

The Impacts

Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.

The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.

Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.

 

What Can Be Done?

“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”

Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.

“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”

Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.

“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.

Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.

This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.

 

Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes

A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.

“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom. 

Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said. 

“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”

She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.

“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.” 

Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.

 

The Impacts

Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.

The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.

Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.

 

What Can Be Done?

“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”

Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.

“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”

Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.

“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The emergence of vorasidenib, the first targeted therapy for certain gliomas with IDH mutations, has ignited a wave of excitement in both patient and physician spaces.

After years with limited treatment options, experts hailed vorasidenib “a promising breakthrough,” “a paradigm shift,” a “new hope,” and “probably the most important advance in the treatment of low-grade gliomas in the last decade.”

Promising results from vorasidenib’s pivotal INDIGO trial fueled petitions and patient advocacy circles to push for the drug’s approval. And, in August 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vorasidenib for grade 2 astrocytomas or oligodendrogliomas with an IDH1 or IDH2 mutation.

But following the approval, some experts expressed concerns and doubts about the drug and the INDIGO trial, bringing a host of unanswered questions into sharper focus.

In an editorial, Stanislav Lazarev, MD, and Kunal K. Sindhu, MD, both radiation oncologists from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, suggest that the FDA approval “might be premature given the high cost of this drug and lack of clear benefit over standard treatments.”

Another recent critique also pointed to the lack of clear evidence that vorasidenib is superior to the prevailing standard of care, despite the drug’s high cost. These authors noted that “patients want to live longer, and if not, at least live better,” but “based on the INDIGO study, it is impossible to say whether vorasidenib can provide either.”

Vorasidenib is now one of the most expensive cancer therapies, with an annual cost of nearly $500,000, but the INDIGO trial did not explore whether the drug led to improved overall survival or better quality of life. Among the trial’s design flaws, experts called out the use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome, instead of overall survival, and the use of an inappropriate comparator group.

INDIGO was a phase 3 trial that included 331 adult patients (median age, 40.5 years) with grade-2 IDH-mutant recurrent or residual glioma after surgery. To be eligible, patients had to be followed for at least 1 year, and up to 5 years, post surgery and had to be considered appropriate candidates for a watch-and-wait approach.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 40 mg of vorasidenib or a matching placebo orally, once daily, in continuous 28-day cycles until imaging-confirmed tumor disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, at which point crossover to vorasidenib from placebo was permitted. Over one third (n = 58) of patients in the placebo group crossed over and 90% of them (n = 52) received vorasidenib.

Median progression-free survival was significantly better in the vorasidenib group at 27.7 months vs 11.1 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39).

A key secondary endpoint — time to next intervention — was also significant; the likelihood of being alive and not receiving further treatment at 18 months was 85.6% in the vorasidenib group and 47.4% in the placebo group (HR, 0.26). This finding indicates that most patients receiving vorasidenib could delay chemoradiation for 18 months or longer.

Despite these impressive outcomes, some experts noted that using progression-free survival as the primary endpoint was a major flaw of the INDIGO trial because, currently, there is no evidence that progression-free survival is a reliable surrogate endpoint for overall survival in this setting.

The high rate of crossover to vorasidenib is another issue because it may limit a longer-term analysis of overall survival. If, for instance, overall survival is the same between the groups, it could signal that the drug is effective in both groups or, alternatively, that the drug has no effect on survival in either group.

“That is a legitimate concern,” Seema Nagpal, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Stanford University in California, and a site principal investigator for the INDIGO trial, said in an interview. “We don’t know that this drug changes overall survival, and I think we’re not going to get a super clean answer on that.”

Another major issue centers on the standard of care assigned to control patients in the INDIGO trial.

In the trial, vorasidenib was compared with placebo — an appropriate standard-of-care comparison for patients with low-risk gliomas. These patients often initially undergo watch-and-wait to delay chemoradiation. But Lazarev and Sindhu argue that the patients in INDIGO were really high risk, which means the control group should have received the standard of care for these patients: Chemoradiation following surgery.

This question about the appropriate standard of care stems from ongoing uncertainty about the distinction between high- and low-risk gliomas.

The classification for gliomas falls into either low risk or high risk for early disease progression. The RTOG 9802 criteria, often used for glioma risk stratification, defines low-risk patients as those younger than 40 years with gross total resection and high-risk patients as those aged 40 years or older with any extent of resection or those younger than 40 years with subtotal or biopsy resection.

But an evolving understanding of genetic anomalies that affect prognoses in this tumor type has muddied the current high- and low-risk distinctions.

“People haven’t totally figured out what high and low risk means,” Nagpal acknowledged.

This uncertainty has spilled over into the INDIGO trial.

While the trial excluded patients who had any features indicating high risk, such as brain stem involvement or neurocognitive deficits, the researchers also did not explicitly define patients as low risk. However, the inclusion criteria specified that patients had to be observed for at least 1 year after surgery and be considered appropriate for a watch-and-wait protocol, which does suggest patients were considered low risk, said Nagpal.

Still, some experts argue that the patients in INDIGO were not low risk.

Patients had residual or recurrent disease so “wouldn’t be classified as low risk,” said Sindhu in an interview. The standard of care for these patients is chemoradiation, Lazarev added.

“The definition of a phase 3 clinical trial is that you compare the novel intervention to the standard of care,” said Lazarev. “Level 1 evidence clearly shows that omitting chemoradiation leads to worse outcomes, with patients literally dying sooner. For the investigators to knowingly exclude this proven treatment raises serious ethical and methodological questions about the study’s design.” 

In a recent opinion piece, Nagpal agreed that most patients selected for INDIGO would not have been considered low risk by many providers. All patients selected for INDIGO had postoperative residual/recurrent disease and many were older than 40 years.

But, Nagpal explained, the risk stratification of the INDIGO patients was still lower than what is commonly considered high risk. The patients had all been observed for a year or more already, “so by definition, the clinician treating them already decided they were not high risk,” she said.

In another recent opinion piece, oncologists suggested that, because patients in the INDIGO trial do not squarely fall into either category, instead representing a “grey area,” it’s time to create a new risk category.

“Perhaps the time has come to abandon the old binary risk stratification (“low risk” vs “high risk”), which still contains arbitrary elements (such as the age cutoff), proving impractical in real-world clinical decision-making, and to adopt a new one, also taking into account many emerging prognostic biomarkers,” the authors wrote.

Despite the uncertainty surrounding risk categories, the INDIGO authors justified their study design.

A watch-and-wait period for patients in the trial, which “represents the earliest clinical phase in tumorigenesis of IDH-mutant WHO grade 2 glioma,” is “an opportunity to detect a clear signal of antitumor activity for new therapies in placebo-controlled trials” and “postpone the use of radiation therapy and chemotherapy,” the authors explained.

Lazarev, however, questioned the premise that chemoradiation should be delayed.

Oncologists’ desire to delay chemoradiation for their patients reflects “a limited understanding of modern irradiation therapy,” Lazarev said. “Modern technology has improved dramatically. We’re more precise, our understanding about late side effects is better. So, the big picture is that the absolute risk of late neurocognitive affects that actually will affect patients’ quality of life, their ability to work, go to school, succeed on a personal or professional level is exceedingly low.”

Nagpal strongly disagreed.

“Please come to my clinic and ask an actual patient,” said Nagpal. “Once a radiation oncologist has irradiated the patient, they almost never seen them again. People who are on the medical side, who follow these patients from beginning to end, recognize that delaying radiation is a huge deal.”

Although vorasidenib isn’t a cure, Nagpal said, it is a less toxic way to delay radiation “because that is a real and disabling thing” for patients and is why neuro-oncologists are excited about alternative treatment options.

Another issue surrounding the vorasidenib approval lies in the FDA’s vague prescribing information. The prescribing information does not specify that patients should be followed for at least 1 year post surgery or that patients need to be lower risk. Prescribing physicians may, therefore, think vorasidenib is appropriate for any patient with a grade-2 IDH mutant glioma at any time and defer or not offer chemoradiation to high-risk patients.

Amid lingering questions about the INDIGO trial design and ongoing uncertainties about how to define and treat this patient population, experts remain divided on whether vorasidenib is worth it.

“If vorasidenib is truly transformative, it should be feasible to demonstrate its superiority over chemoradiotherapy,” Lazarev and Sindhu wrote. “For a drug with such a staggering price tag, an imperative should be placed on the investigators and manufacturer to provide clear evidence of efficacy, whether in terms of improved [overall survival] or quality of life, before vorasidenib is recommended for the treatment of IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas.”

The INDIGO trial was supported by Servier, the manufacturer of vorasidenib. Many of the study authors reported employment or support from the company. Nagpal reported consulting fees from Servier and AnHeart Therapeutics. Lazarev and Sindhu reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The emergence of vorasidenib, the first targeted therapy for certain gliomas with IDH mutations, has ignited a wave of excitement in both patient and physician spaces.

After years with limited treatment options, experts hailed vorasidenib “a promising breakthrough,” “a paradigm shift,” a “new hope,” and “probably the most important advance in the treatment of low-grade gliomas in the last decade.”

Promising results from vorasidenib’s pivotal INDIGO trial fueled petitions and patient advocacy circles to push for the drug’s approval. And, in August 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vorasidenib for grade 2 astrocytomas or oligodendrogliomas with an IDH1 or IDH2 mutation.

But following the approval, some experts expressed concerns and doubts about the drug and the INDIGO trial, bringing a host of unanswered questions into sharper focus.

In an editorial, Stanislav Lazarev, MD, and Kunal K. Sindhu, MD, both radiation oncologists from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, suggest that the FDA approval “might be premature given the high cost of this drug and lack of clear benefit over standard treatments.”

Another recent critique also pointed to the lack of clear evidence that vorasidenib is superior to the prevailing standard of care, despite the drug’s high cost. These authors noted that “patients want to live longer, and if not, at least live better,” but “based on the INDIGO study, it is impossible to say whether vorasidenib can provide either.”

Vorasidenib is now one of the most expensive cancer therapies, with an annual cost of nearly $500,000, but the INDIGO trial did not explore whether the drug led to improved overall survival or better quality of life. Among the trial’s design flaws, experts called out the use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome, instead of overall survival, and the use of an inappropriate comparator group.

INDIGO was a phase 3 trial that included 331 adult patients (median age, 40.5 years) with grade-2 IDH-mutant recurrent or residual glioma after surgery. To be eligible, patients had to be followed for at least 1 year, and up to 5 years, post surgery and had to be considered appropriate candidates for a watch-and-wait approach.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 40 mg of vorasidenib or a matching placebo orally, once daily, in continuous 28-day cycles until imaging-confirmed tumor disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, at which point crossover to vorasidenib from placebo was permitted. Over one third (n = 58) of patients in the placebo group crossed over and 90% of them (n = 52) received vorasidenib.

Median progression-free survival was significantly better in the vorasidenib group at 27.7 months vs 11.1 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39).

A key secondary endpoint — time to next intervention — was also significant; the likelihood of being alive and not receiving further treatment at 18 months was 85.6% in the vorasidenib group and 47.4% in the placebo group (HR, 0.26). This finding indicates that most patients receiving vorasidenib could delay chemoradiation for 18 months or longer.

Despite these impressive outcomes, some experts noted that using progression-free survival as the primary endpoint was a major flaw of the INDIGO trial because, currently, there is no evidence that progression-free survival is a reliable surrogate endpoint for overall survival in this setting.

The high rate of crossover to vorasidenib is another issue because it may limit a longer-term analysis of overall survival. If, for instance, overall survival is the same between the groups, it could signal that the drug is effective in both groups or, alternatively, that the drug has no effect on survival in either group.

“That is a legitimate concern,” Seema Nagpal, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Stanford University in California, and a site principal investigator for the INDIGO trial, said in an interview. “We don’t know that this drug changes overall survival, and I think we’re not going to get a super clean answer on that.”

Another major issue centers on the standard of care assigned to control patients in the INDIGO trial.

In the trial, vorasidenib was compared with placebo — an appropriate standard-of-care comparison for patients with low-risk gliomas. These patients often initially undergo watch-and-wait to delay chemoradiation. But Lazarev and Sindhu argue that the patients in INDIGO were really high risk, which means the control group should have received the standard of care for these patients: Chemoradiation following surgery.

This question about the appropriate standard of care stems from ongoing uncertainty about the distinction between high- and low-risk gliomas.

The classification for gliomas falls into either low risk or high risk for early disease progression. The RTOG 9802 criteria, often used for glioma risk stratification, defines low-risk patients as those younger than 40 years with gross total resection and high-risk patients as those aged 40 years or older with any extent of resection or those younger than 40 years with subtotal or biopsy resection.

But an evolving understanding of genetic anomalies that affect prognoses in this tumor type has muddied the current high- and low-risk distinctions.

“People haven’t totally figured out what high and low risk means,” Nagpal acknowledged.

This uncertainty has spilled over into the INDIGO trial.

While the trial excluded patients who had any features indicating high risk, such as brain stem involvement or neurocognitive deficits, the researchers also did not explicitly define patients as low risk. However, the inclusion criteria specified that patients had to be observed for at least 1 year after surgery and be considered appropriate for a watch-and-wait protocol, which does suggest patients were considered low risk, said Nagpal.

Still, some experts argue that the patients in INDIGO were not low risk.

Patients had residual or recurrent disease so “wouldn’t be classified as low risk,” said Sindhu in an interview. The standard of care for these patients is chemoradiation, Lazarev added.

“The definition of a phase 3 clinical trial is that you compare the novel intervention to the standard of care,” said Lazarev. “Level 1 evidence clearly shows that omitting chemoradiation leads to worse outcomes, with patients literally dying sooner. For the investigators to knowingly exclude this proven treatment raises serious ethical and methodological questions about the study’s design.” 

In a recent opinion piece, Nagpal agreed that most patients selected for INDIGO would not have been considered low risk by many providers. All patients selected for INDIGO had postoperative residual/recurrent disease and many were older than 40 years.

But, Nagpal explained, the risk stratification of the INDIGO patients was still lower than what is commonly considered high risk. The patients had all been observed for a year or more already, “so by definition, the clinician treating them already decided they were not high risk,” she said.

In another recent opinion piece, oncologists suggested that, because patients in the INDIGO trial do not squarely fall into either category, instead representing a “grey area,” it’s time to create a new risk category.

“Perhaps the time has come to abandon the old binary risk stratification (“low risk” vs “high risk”), which still contains arbitrary elements (such as the age cutoff), proving impractical in real-world clinical decision-making, and to adopt a new one, also taking into account many emerging prognostic biomarkers,” the authors wrote.

Despite the uncertainty surrounding risk categories, the INDIGO authors justified their study design.

A watch-and-wait period for patients in the trial, which “represents the earliest clinical phase in tumorigenesis of IDH-mutant WHO grade 2 glioma,” is “an opportunity to detect a clear signal of antitumor activity for new therapies in placebo-controlled trials” and “postpone the use of radiation therapy and chemotherapy,” the authors explained.

Lazarev, however, questioned the premise that chemoradiation should be delayed.

Oncologists’ desire to delay chemoradiation for their patients reflects “a limited understanding of modern irradiation therapy,” Lazarev said. “Modern technology has improved dramatically. We’re more precise, our understanding about late side effects is better. So, the big picture is that the absolute risk of late neurocognitive affects that actually will affect patients’ quality of life, their ability to work, go to school, succeed on a personal or professional level is exceedingly low.”

Nagpal strongly disagreed.

“Please come to my clinic and ask an actual patient,” said Nagpal. “Once a radiation oncologist has irradiated the patient, they almost never seen them again. People who are on the medical side, who follow these patients from beginning to end, recognize that delaying radiation is a huge deal.”

Although vorasidenib isn’t a cure, Nagpal said, it is a less toxic way to delay radiation “because that is a real and disabling thing” for patients and is why neuro-oncologists are excited about alternative treatment options.

Another issue surrounding the vorasidenib approval lies in the FDA’s vague prescribing information. The prescribing information does not specify that patients should be followed for at least 1 year post surgery or that patients need to be lower risk. Prescribing physicians may, therefore, think vorasidenib is appropriate for any patient with a grade-2 IDH mutant glioma at any time and defer or not offer chemoradiation to high-risk patients.

Amid lingering questions about the INDIGO trial design and ongoing uncertainties about how to define and treat this patient population, experts remain divided on whether vorasidenib is worth it.

“If vorasidenib is truly transformative, it should be feasible to demonstrate its superiority over chemoradiotherapy,” Lazarev and Sindhu wrote. “For a drug with such a staggering price tag, an imperative should be placed on the investigators and manufacturer to provide clear evidence of efficacy, whether in terms of improved [overall survival] or quality of life, before vorasidenib is recommended for the treatment of IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas.”

The INDIGO trial was supported by Servier, the manufacturer of vorasidenib. Many of the study authors reported employment or support from the company. Nagpal reported consulting fees from Servier and AnHeart Therapeutics. Lazarev and Sindhu reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The emergence of vorasidenib, the first targeted therapy for certain gliomas with IDH mutations, has ignited a wave of excitement in both patient and physician spaces.

After years with limited treatment options, experts hailed vorasidenib “a promising breakthrough,” “a paradigm shift,” a “new hope,” and “probably the most important advance in the treatment of low-grade gliomas in the last decade.”

Promising results from vorasidenib’s pivotal INDIGO trial fueled petitions and patient advocacy circles to push for the drug’s approval. And, in August 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vorasidenib for grade 2 astrocytomas or oligodendrogliomas with an IDH1 or IDH2 mutation.

But following the approval, some experts expressed concerns and doubts about the drug and the INDIGO trial, bringing a host of unanswered questions into sharper focus.

In an editorial, Stanislav Lazarev, MD, and Kunal K. Sindhu, MD, both radiation oncologists from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, suggest that the FDA approval “might be premature given the high cost of this drug and lack of clear benefit over standard treatments.”

Another recent critique also pointed to the lack of clear evidence that vorasidenib is superior to the prevailing standard of care, despite the drug’s high cost. These authors noted that “patients want to live longer, and if not, at least live better,” but “based on the INDIGO study, it is impossible to say whether vorasidenib can provide either.”

Vorasidenib is now one of the most expensive cancer therapies, with an annual cost of nearly $500,000, but the INDIGO trial did not explore whether the drug led to improved overall survival or better quality of life. Among the trial’s design flaws, experts called out the use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome, instead of overall survival, and the use of an inappropriate comparator group.

INDIGO was a phase 3 trial that included 331 adult patients (median age, 40.5 years) with grade-2 IDH-mutant recurrent or residual glioma after surgery. To be eligible, patients had to be followed for at least 1 year, and up to 5 years, post surgery and had to be considered appropriate candidates for a watch-and-wait approach.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 40 mg of vorasidenib or a matching placebo orally, once daily, in continuous 28-day cycles until imaging-confirmed tumor disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, at which point crossover to vorasidenib from placebo was permitted. Over one third (n = 58) of patients in the placebo group crossed over and 90% of them (n = 52) received vorasidenib.

Median progression-free survival was significantly better in the vorasidenib group at 27.7 months vs 11.1 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39).

A key secondary endpoint — time to next intervention — was also significant; the likelihood of being alive and not receiving further treatment at 18 months was 85.6% in the vorasidenib group and 47.4% in the placebo group (HR, 0.26). This finding indicates that most patients receiving vorasidenib could delay chemoradiation for 18 months or longer.

Despite these impressive outcomes, some experts noted that using progression-free survival as the primary endpoint was a major flaw of the INDIGO trial because, currently, there is no evidence that progression-free survival is a reliable surrogate endpoint for overall survival in this setting.

The high rate of crossover to vorasidenib is another issue because it may limit a longer-term analysis of overall survival. If, for instance, overall survival is the same between the groups, it could signal that the drug is effective in both groups or, alternatively, that the drug has no effect on survival in either group.

“That is a legitimate concern,” Seema Nagpal, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Stanford University in California, and a site principal investigator for the INDIGO trial, said in an interview. “We don’t know that this drug changes overall survival, and I think we’re not going to get a super clean answer on that.”

Another major issue centers on the standard of care assigned to control patients in the INDIGO trial.

In the trial, vorasidenib was compared with placebo — an appropriate standard-of-care comparison for patients with low-risk gliomas. These patients often initially undergo watch-and-wait to delay chemoradiation. But Lazarev and Sindhu argue that the patients in INDIGO were really high risk, which means the control group should have received the standard of care for these patients: Chemoradiation following surgery.

This question about the appropriate standard of care stems from ongoing uncertainty about the distinction between high- and low-risk gliomas.

The classification for gliomas falls into either low risk or high risk for early disease progression. The RTOG 9802 criteria, often used for glioma risk stratification, defines low-risk patients as those younger than 40 years with gross total resection and high-risk patients as those aged 40 years or older with any extent of resection or those younger than 40 years with subtotal or biopsy resection.

But an evolving understanding of genetic anomalies that affect prognoses in this tumor type has muddied the current high- and low-risk distinctions.

“People haven’t totally figured out what high and low risk means,” Nagpal acknowledged.

This uncertainty has spilled over into the INDIGO trial.

While the trial excluded patients who had any features indicating high risk, such as brain stem involvement or neurocognitive deficits, the researchers also did not explicitly define patients as low risk. However, the inclusion criteria specified that patients had to be observed for at least 1 year after surgery and be considered appropriate for a watch-and-wait protocol, which does suggest patients were considered low risk, said Nagpal.

Still, some experts argue that the patients in INDIGO were not low risk.

Patients had residual or recurrent disease so “wouldn’t be classified as low risk,” said Sindhu in an interview. The standard of care for these patients is chemoradiation, Lazarev added.

“The definition of a phase 3 clinical trial is that you compare the novel intervention to the standard of care,” said Lazarev. “Level 1 evidence clearly shows that omitting chemoradiation leads to worse outcomes, with patients literally dying sooner. For the investigators to knowingly exclude this proven treatment raises serious ethical and methodological questions about the study’s design.” 

In a recent opinion piece, Nagpal agreed that most patients selected for INDIGO would not have been considered low risk by many providers. All patients selected for INDIGO had postoperative residual/recurrent disease and many were older than 40 years.

But, Nagpal explained, the risk stratification of the INDIGO patients was still lower than what is commonly considered high risk. The patients had all been observed for a year or more already, “so by definition, the clinician treating them already decided they were not high risk,” she said.

In another recent opinion piece, oncologists suggested that, because patients in the INDIGO trial do not squarely fall into either category, instead representing a “grey area,” it’s time to create a new risk category.

“Perhaps the time has come to abandon the old binary risk stratification (“low risk” vs “high risk”), which still contains arbitrary elements (such as the age cutoff), proving impractical in real-world clinical decision-making, and to adopt a new one, also taking into account many emerging prognostic biomarkers,” the authors wrote.

Despite the uncertainty surrounding risk categories, the INDIGO authors justified their study design.

A watch-and-wait period for patients in the trial, which “represents the earliest clinical phase in tumorigenesis of IDH-mutant WHO grade 2 glioma,” is “an opportunity to detect a clear signal of antitumor activity for new therapies in placebo-controlled trials” and “postpone the use of radiation therapy and chemotherapy,” the authors explained.

Lazarev, however, questioned the premise that chemoradiation should be delayed.

Oncologists’ desire to delay chemoradiation for their patients reflects “a limited understanding of modern irradiation therapy,” Lazarev said. “Modern technology has improved dramatically. We’re more precise, our understanding about late side effects is better. So, the big picture is that the absolute risk of late neurocognitive affects that actually will affect patients’ quality of life, their ability to work, go to school, succeed on a personal or professional level is exceedingly low.”

Nagpal strongly disagreed.

“Please come to my clinic and ask an actual patient,” said Nagpal. “Once a radiation oncologist has irradiated the patient, they almost never seen them again. People who are on the medical side, who follow these patients from beginning to end, recognize that delaying radiation is a huge deal.”

Although vorasidenib isn’t a cure, Nagpal said, it is a less toxic way to delay radiation “because that is a real and disabling thing” for patients and is why neuro-oncologists are excited about alternative treatment options.

Another issue surrounding the vorasidenib approval lies in the FDA’s vague prescribing information. The prescribing information does not specify that patients should be followed for at least 1 year post surgery or that patients need to be lower risk. Prescribing physicians may, therefore, think vorasidenib is appropriate for any patient with a grade-2 IDH mutant glioma at any time and defer or not offer chemoradiation to high-risk patients.

Amid lingering questions about the INDIGO trial design and ongoing uncertainties about how to define and treat this patient population, experts remain divided on whether vorasidenib is worth it.

“If vorasidenib is truly transformative, it should be feasible to demonstrate its superiority over chemoradiotherapy,” Lazarev and Sindhu wrote. “For a drug with such a staggering price tag, an imperative should be placed on the investigators and manufacturer to provide clear evidence of efficacy, whether in terms of improved [overall survival] or quality of life, before vorasidenib is recommended for the treatment of IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas.”

The INDIGO trial was supported by Servier, the manufacturer of vorasidenib. Many of the study authors reported employment or support from the company. Nagpal reported consulting fees from Servier and AnHeart Therapeutics. Lazarev and Sindhu reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Heather K. Schopper, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania, wasn’t long into her career when she began feeling its physical demands. Standing for 12 hours at a time, holding awkward positions for long periods, and working with surgical tables and instruments made for doctors much taller and larger meant severe back, shoulder, and neck pain at the end of every shift.

“You just want to lie down on the floor at the end of the day,” Schopper explained. “The wear and tear of our profession is really challenging.”

Here’s the thing: At the time Schopper wasn’t particularly out of shape. She only knew she needed to build up her body for long days and a long career. What, physically, would that look like?

This was the catalyst for what she calls a “health and fitness journey” that transformed the way she practices.

“Medicine is unique in its physical demands,” said Meghan Wieser, PT, DPT, a doctor of physical therapy at Recharge Health and Fitness in Ellicott City, Maryland. Wieser frequently works with physicians and others in high-stress career environments, and she’s observed the serious toll that physically demanding medical practice can take on the body.

It’s not just about preventing acute or chronic injury, she said. It’s about performing better for longer periods. And every doctor knows the only way to build a more functional body is training.

 

The Fantasy of Physical Perfection vs the Reality of, Well, Reality

Jordan D. Metzl, MD, is a sports medicine physician at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York City. He’s also a lifelong triathlete and marathon runner and has parlayed that passion into an online fitness community of more than 10,000 people called Ironstrength. Through that, Metzl has led free exercise classes in Central Park for years. He doesn’t dabble. Three times a year he leads a boot camp class of more than 1000 people on the flight deck of the USS Intrepid on the Hudson River.

“I get it, being a doctor is all about the hours,” he said. “The time sacrifices get brutal and you have to cut something out, sometimes every day. For a lot of us, that’s exercise.”

Metzl understands it so well that he recently began leading twice-monthly boot camp classes just for his HSS physician colleagues on Wednesday mornings. He says those doctors both want and need that extra boost and will be aggressive about making time for it.

“The better shape you’re in, the better job you’ll do as a physician,” he said. “You’ll feel better when the hours get long. In my own career, I have always been a better doctor when I’m active and in shape.”

Knowledge isn’t really the issue for physicians. Reality is. And reality dictates that doctors have just as much issue with achieving consistency as any patient they prescribe exercise to.

Metzl suggests total body functional training to mimic real-world movement, particularly core and lower body to keep you upright for hours at a time. How do you schedule that? He uses early mornings and weekends to train for his races and run his fitness classes, which is why his primary advice is to focus not on the activity, but on time.

“Schedule full workouts when you can and steal the rest,” he said.

Schopper agrees. “You may not be able to fit in 60 minutes of exercise every day, but 20-30 minutes of intentional movement is key,” she explained. “When you have a day off, prioritize a longer session of something you can’t fit in on workdays.”

Those shorter bouts of exercise might include “bookending” the day with 10 minutes of burpees in the morning and then 10 minutes of bodyweight strength moves like planks, push-ups, and air squats in the evening.

“Bodyweight exercises are low-hanging fruit,” said Wieser. “If you’ve got a short window, aim for something that can shoot your heart rate up quickly.”

You can also throw in “movement snacks” throughout the day — skip the elevator and run up a flight of stairs, walk around during a quick lunch break, or throw in a set of jumping jacks between patients. (Don’t worry — you won’t be dripping sweat when they walk in.)

Remember, the rehab room in the orthopedic wing may have a few dumbbells and exercise bands you can utilize when you have 5 extra minutes in your day. “Any way you can squeeze in extra movement counts,” said Wieser.

 

Feats of Strength? Neighborhood Sprints? It All Matters

Kissinger Goldman, DO, a Florida-based ER physician, began his dedication to exercise 17 years ago, after a high-cholesterol diagnosis. “Did I have time to exercise in medical school and residency? Yes,” Goldman admitted. “But I didn’t have the same commitment to my health until I received that number. I set about to change everything.”

Goldman follows the approach of dividing up his exercise routine into short or long sessions, depending on his schedule. “If I’m off, I’ll aim for 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of strength and core work,” he explained. “When I have to work, I’ll do a compressed version of that routine as soon as I wake up, and make sure the cardio is very intense — I’ll sprint in my neighborhood, for instance.”

Matt Klein, a doctor of physical therapy and professor at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, who has treated many doctors, says that, when pushed for time, just 20 minutes of “heavy” strength training can deliver good results. “The definition of heavy will vary, but aim for a weight that is challenging, whether a beginner or a more experienced exerciser,” he said. “Most doctors won’t have time to go to the gym, so a simple set of dumbbells or kettlebells will work just fine. The easier it is to access, the more likely you are to do it consistently.”

Klein is a fan of strength training with good reason: “Strength is a predictor of chronic disease, so doing some high-level strength training or power training can go a long way,” he said.

The endorphin high and overall sense of improved well-being are an extra bonus. Goldman credits it with ensuring he rarely misses a workout.

 

Get Hardcore About Sleep

Consider the following passage: “There are clear negative effects of sleep deprivation on performance, including reaction time, accuracy, vigor, submaximal strength, and endurance. Cognitive functions such as judgment and decision-making also suffer.”

Does that sound like how you feel on suboptimal sleep? That’s from an International Journal of Sports Medicine study on the effects of sleep deprivation on athletes.

Athletes aren’t doctors — but when you consider “reaction time, accuracy, endurance, judgment, and decision-making” — doctors could certainly benefit by thinking like athletes.

Schopper is serious about sleep and sets firm boundaries.

“It’s hard,” she admitted. “We want to work, see our families, have fun. But I work hard to say, ‘I’m done,’ and go to bed.”

“Rest is crucial for this job,” agreed Goldman. “If you don’t have adequate sleep, your cortisone levels are going to go up. When you’re exhausted and you’re working, you’re likely to miss something.” Goldman is consistent with early bedtimes around 9:00 or 9:30 PM, and he allows for a bit of “wind-down” time by reading for about 20 minutes before nodding off.

Goldman also sees a link between rest and improved interactions with patients. “There’s a direct correlation between number of hours worked in a row with respect to ‘customer service’ with patients,” he said.

But don’t aim for perfection. Allow some wiggle room for the time you spend asleep, Klein recommends. “We’ve always aimed for 8 hours, but there’s evidence that even 6 or 7 hours can be enough to allow you to recover as needed,” he said. “Optimally, you want that to be uninterrupted, but if not, a 10-minute power nap can help with mental clarity.”

 

Keep Searching, Keep Trying, Keep Training

Schopper was never, nor has she become, a gym rat. Still, “I knew I needed to build upper body strength,” she said. That meant expanding her fitness possibilities beyond the obvious. She discovered aerial arts — intense workouts using straps and other suspension tools to work every muscle in her body while hanging from the ceiling. Increased strength was a given, but she also seriously increased her range of motion.

For Schopper, the improvements to her lifestyle have been game changers. “I still have long days, but I’m no longer sore and tired after them,” she said. “I sleep better and have more energy. I’m proud of myself for putting the effort into this.”

A journey toward health and fitness may look different for everyone, but (as doctors frequently tell their patients) it’s a path anyone can follow.

“Being a doctor is not necessarily good for your health,” said Klein. “The body can handle the job, however, if you train for it.”

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

Heather K. Schopper, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania, wasn’t long into her career when she began feeling its physical demands. Standing for 12 hours at a time, holding awkward positions for long periods, and working with surgical tables and instruments made for doctors much taller and larger meant severe back, shoulder, and neck pain at the end of every shift.

“You just want to lie down on the floor at the end of the day,” Schopper explained. “The wear and tear of our profession is really challenging.”

Here’s the thing: At the time Schopper wasn’t particularly out of shape. She only knew she needed to build up her body for long days and a long career. What, physically, would that look like?

This was the catalyst for what she calls a “health and fitness journey” that transformed the way she practices.

“Medicine is unique in its physical demands,” said Meghan Wieser, PT, DPT, a doctor of physical therapy at Recharge Health and Fitness in Ellicott City, Maryland. Wieser frequently works with physicians and others in high-stress career environments, and she’s observed the serious toll that physically demanding medical practice can take on the body.

It’s not just about preventing acute or chronic injury, she said. It’s about performing better for longer periods. And every doctor knows the only way to build a more functional body is training.

 

The Fantasy of Physical Perfection vs the Reality of, Well, Reality

Jordan D. Metzl, MD, is a sports medicine physician at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York City. He’s also a lifelong triathlete and marathon runner and has parlayed that passion into an online fitness community of more than 10,000 people called Ironstrength. Through that, Metzl has led free exercise classes in Central Park for years. He doesn’t dabble. Three times a year he leads a boot camp class of more than 1000 people on the flight deck of the USS Intrepid on the Hudson River.

“I get it, being a doctor is all about the hours,” he said. “The time sacrifices get brutal and you have to cut something out, sometimes every day. For a lot of us, that’s exercise.”

Metzl understands it so well that he recently began leading twice-monthly boot camp classes just for his HSS physician colleagues on Wednesday mornings. He says those doctors both want and need that extra boost and will be aggressive about making time for it.

“The better shape you’re in, the better job you’ll do as a physician,” he said. “You’ll feel better when the hours get long. In my own career, I have always been a better doctor when I’m active and in shape.”

Knowledge isn’t really the issue for physicians. Reality is. And reality dictates that doctors have just as much issue with achieving consistency as any patient they prescribe exercise to.

Metzl suggests total body functional training to mimic real-world movement, particularly core and lower body to keep you upright for hours at a time. How do you schedule that? He uses early mornings and weekends to train for his races and run his fitness classes, which is why his primary advice is to focus not on the activity, but on time.

“Schedule full workouts when you can and steal the rest,” he said.

Schopper agrees. “You may not be able to fit in 60 minutes of exercise every day, but 20-30 minutes of intentional movement is key,” she explained. “When you have a day off, prioritize a longer session of something you can’t fit in on workdays.”

Those shorter bouts of exercise might include “bookending” the day with 10 minutes of burpees in the morning and then 10 minutes of bodyweight strength moves like planks, push-ups, and air squats in the evening.

“Bodyweight exercises are low-hanging fruit,” said Wieser. “If you’ve got a short window, aim for something that can shoot your heart rate up quickly.”

You can also throw in “movement snacks” throughout the day — skip the elevator and run up a flight of stairs, walk around during a quick lunch break, or throw in a set of jumping jacks between patients. (Don’t worry — you won’t be dripping sweat when they walk in.)

Remember, the rehab room in the orthopedic wing may have a few dumbbells and exercise bands you can utilize when you have 5 extra minutes in your day. “Any way you can squeeze in extra movement counts,” said Wieser.

 

Feats of Strength? Neighborhood Sprints? It All Matters

Kissinger Goldman, DO, a Florida-based ER physician, began his dedication to exercise 17 years ago, after a high-cholesterol diagnosis. “Did I have time to exercise in medical school and residency? Yes,” Goldman admitted. “But I didn’t have the same commitment to my health until I received that number. I set about to change everything.”

Goldman follows the approach of dividing up his exercise routine into short or long sessions, depending on his schedule. “If I’m off, I’ll aim for 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of strength and core work,” he explained. “When I have to work, I’ll do a compressed version of that routine as soon as I wake up, and make sure the cardio is very intense — I’ll sprint in my neighborhood, for instance.”

Matt Klein, a doctor of physical therapy and professor at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, who has treated many doctors, says that, when pushed for time, just 20 minutes of “heavy” strength training can deliver good results. “The definition of heavy will vary, but aim for a weight that is challenging, whether a beginner or a more experienced exerciser,” he said. “Most doctors won’t have time to go to the gym, so a simple set of dumbbells or kettlebells will work just fine. The easier it is to access, the more likely you are to do it consistently.”

Klein is a fan of strength training with good reason: “Strength is a predictor of chronic disease, so doing some high-level strength training or power training can go a long way,” he said.

The endorphin high and overall sense of improved well-being are an extra bonus. Goldman credits it with ensuring he rarely misses a workout.

 

Get Hardcore About Sleep

Consider the following passage: “There are clear negative effects of sleep deprivation on performance, including reaction time, accuracy, vigor, submaximal strength, and endurance. Cognitive functions such as judgment and decision-making also suffer.”

Does that sound like how you feel on suboptimal sleep? That’s from an International Journal of Sports Medicine study on the effects of sleep deprivation on athletes.

Athletes aren’t doctors — but when you consider “reaction time, accuracy, endurance, judgment, and decision-making” — doctors could certainly benefit by thinking like athletes.

Schopper is serious about sleep and sets firm boundaries.

“It’s hard,” she admitted. “We want to work, see our families, have fun. But I work hard to say, ‘I’m done,’ and go to bed.”

“Rest is crucial for this job,” agreed Goldman. “If you don’t have adequate sleep, your cortisone levels are going to go up. When you’re exhausted and you’re working, you’re likely to miss something.” Goldman is consistent with early bedtimes around 9:00 or 9:30 PM, and he allows for a bit of “wind-down” time by reading for about 20 minutes before nodding off.

Goldman also sees a link between rest and improved interactions with patients. “There’s a direct correlation between number of hours worked in a row with respect to ‘customer service’ with patients,” he said.

But don’t aim for perfection. Allow some wiggle room for the time you spend asleep, Klein recommends. “We’ve always aimed for 8 hours, but there’s evidence that even 6 or 7 hours can be enough to allow you to recover as needed,” he said. “Optimally, you want that to be uninterrupted, but if not, a 10-minute power nap can help with mental clarity.”

 

Keep Searching, Keep Trying, Keep Training

Schopper was never, nor has she become, a gym rat. Still, “I knew I needed to build upper body strength,” she said. That meant expanding her fitness possibilities beyond the obvious. She discovered aerial arts — intense workouts using straps and other suspension tools to work every muscle in her body while hanging from the ceiling. Increased strength was a given, but she also seriously increased her range of motion.

For Schopper, the improvements to her lifestyle have been game changers. “I still have long days, but I’m no longer sore and tired after them,” she said. “I sleep better and have more energy. I’m proud of myself for putting the effort into this.”

A journey toward health and fitness may look different for everyone, but (as doctors frequently tell their patients) it’s a path anyone can follow.

“Being a doctor is not necessarily good for your health,” said Klein. “The body can handle the job, however, if you train for it.”

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

Heather K. Schopper, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania, wasn’t long into her career when she began feeling its physical demands. Standing for 12 hours at a time, holding awkward positions for long periods, and working with surgical tables and instruments made for doctors much taller and larger meant severe back, shoulder, and neck pain at the end of every shift.

“You just want to lie down on the floor at the end of the day,” Schopper explained. “The wear and tear of our profession is really challenging.”

Here’s the thing: At the time Schopper wasn’t particularly out of shape. She only knew she needed to build up her body for long days and a long career. What, physically, would that look like?

This was the catalyst for what she calls a “health and fitness journey” that transformed the way she practices.

“Medicine is unique in its physical demands,” said Meghan Wieser, PT, DPT, a doctor of physical therapy at Recharge Health and Fitness in Ellicott City, Maryland. Wieser frequently works with physicians and others in high-stress career environments, and she’s observed the serious toll that physically demanding medical practice can take on the body.

It’s not just about preventing acute or chronic injury, she said. It’s about performing better for longer periods. And every doctor knows the only way to build a more functional body is training.

 

The Fantasy of Physical Perfection vs the Reality of, Well, Reality

Jordan D. Metzl, MD, is a sports medicine physician at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) in New York City. He’s also a lifelong triathlete and marathon runner and has parlayed that passion into an online fitness community of more than 10,000 people called Ironstrength. Through that, Metzl has led free exercise classes in Central Park for years. He doesn’t dabble. Three times a year he leads a boot camp class of more than 1000 people on the flight deck of the USS Intrepid on the Hudson River.

“I get it, being a doctor is all about the hours,” he said. “The time sacrifices get brutal and you have to cut something out, sometimes every day. For a lot of us, that’s exercise.”

Metzl understands it so well that he recently began leading twice-monthly boot camp classes just for his HSS physician colleagues on Wednesday mornings. He says those doctors both want and need that extra boost and will be aggressive about making time for it.

“The better shape you’re in, the better job you’ll do as a physician,” he said. “You’ll feel better when the hours get long. In my own career, I have always been a better doctor when I’m active and in shape.”

Knowledge isn’t really the issue for physicians. Reality is. And reality dictates that doctors have just as much issue with achieving consistency as any patient they prescribe exercise to.

Metzl suggests total body functional training to mimic real-world movement, particularly core and lower body to keep you upright for hours at a time. How do you schedule that? He uses early mornings and weekends to train for his races and run his fitness classes, which is why his primary advice is to focus not on the activity, but on time.

“Schedule full workouts when you can and steal the rest,” he said.

Schopper agrees. “You may not be able to fit in 60 minutes of exercise every day, but 20-30 minutes of intentional movement is key,” she explained. “When you have a day off, prioritize a longer session of something you can’t fit in on workdays.”

Those shorter bouts of exercise might include “bookending” the day with 10 minutes of burpees in the morning and then 10 minutes of bodyweight strength moves like planks, push-ups, and air squats in the evening.

“Bodyweight exercises are low-hanging fruit,” said Wieser. “If you’ve got a short window, aim for something that can shoot your heart rate up quickly.”

You can also throw in “movement snacks” throughout the day — skip the elevator and run up a flight of stairs, walk around during a quick lunch break, or throw in a set of jumping jacks between patients. (Don’t worry — you won’t be dripping sweat when they walk in.)

Remember, the rehab room in the orthopedic wing may have a few dumbbells and exercise bands you can utilize when you have 5 extra minutes in your day. “Any way you can squeeze in extra movement counts,” said Wieser.

 

Feats of Strength? Neighborhood Sprints? It All Matters

Kissinger Goldman, DO, a Florida-based ER physician, began his dedication to exercise 17 years ago, after a high-cholesterol diagnosis. “Did I have time to exercise in medical school and residency? Yes,” Goldman admitted. “But I didn’t have the same commitment to my health until I received that number. I set about to change everything.”

Goldman follows the approach of dividing up his exercise routine into short or long sessions, depending on his schedule. “If I’m off, I’ll aim for 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of strength and core work,” he explained. “When I have to work, I’ll do a compressed version of that routine as soon as I wake up, and make sure the cardio is very intense — I’ll sprint in my neighborhood, for instance.”

Matt Klein, a doctor of physical therapy and professor at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon, who has treated many doctors, says that, when pushed for time, just 20 minutes of “heavy” strength training can deliver good results. “The definition of heavy will vary, but aim for a weight that is challenging, whether a beginner or a more experienced exerciser,” he said. “Most doctors won’t have time to go to the gym, so a simple set of dumbbells or kettlebells will work just fine. The easier it is to access, the more likely you are to do it consistently.”

Klein is a fan of strength training with good reason: “Strength is a predictor of chronic disease, so doing some high-level strength training or power training can go a long way,” he said.

The endorphin high and overall sense of improved well-being are an extra bonus. Goldman credits it with ensuring he rarely misses a workout.

 

Get Hardcore About Sleep

Consider the following passage: “There are clear negative effects of sleep deprivation on performance, including reaction time, accuracy, vigor, submaximal strength, and endurance. Cognitive functions such as judgment and decision-making also suffer.”

Does that sound like how you feel on suboptimal sleep? That’s from an International Journal of Sports Medicine study on the effects of sleep deprivation on athletes.

Athletes aren’t doctors — but when you consider “reaction time, accuracy, endurance, judgment, and decision-making” — doctors could certainly benefit by thinking like athletes.

Schopper is serious about sleep and sets firm boundaries.

“It’s hard,” she admitted. “We want to work, see our families, have fun. But I work hard to say, ‘I’m done,’ and go to bed.”

“Rest is crucial for this job,” agreed Goldman. “If you don’t have adequate sleep, your cortisone levels are going to go up. When you’re exhausted and you’re working, you’re likely to miss something.” Goldman is consistent with early bedtimes around 9:00 or 9:30 PM, and he allows for a bit of “wind-down” time by reading for about 20 minutes before nodding off.

Goldman also sees a link between rest and improved interactions with patients. “There’s a direct correlation between number of hours worked in a row with respect to ‘customer service’ with patients,” he said.

But don’t aim for perfection. Allow some wiggle room for the time you spend asleep, Klein recommends. “We’ve always aimed for 8 hours, but there’s evidence that even 6 or 7 hours can be enough to allow you to recover as needed,” he said. “Optimally, you want that to be uninterrupted, but if not, a 10-minute power nap can help with mental clarity.”

 

Keep Searching, Keep Trying, Keep Training

Schopper was never, nor has she become, a gym rat. Still, “I knew I needed to build upper body strength,” she said. That meant expanding her fitness possibilities beyond the obvious. She discovered aerial arts — intense workouts using straps and other suspension tools to work every muscle in her body while hanging from the ceiling. Increased strength was a given, but she also seriously increased her range of motion.

For Schopper, the improvements to her lifestyle have been game changers. “I still have long days, but I’m no longer sore and tired after them,” she said. “I sleep better and have more energy. I’m proud of myself for putting the effort into this.”

A journey toward health and fitness may look different for everyone, but (as doctors frequently tell their patients) it’s a path anyone can follow.

“Being a doctor is not necessarily good for your health,” said Klein. “The body can handle the job, however, if you train for it.”

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

Microplastics have been found in the lungs, liver, blood, and heart. Now, researchers report they have found the first evidence of the substances in human brains.

In a recent case series study that examined olfactory bulb tissue from deceased individuals, 8 of the 15 decedent brains showed the presence of microplastics, most commonly polypropylene, a plastic typically used in food packaging and water bottles.

Measuring less than 5 mm in size, microplastics are formed over time as plastic materials break down but don’t biodegrade. Exposure to these substances can come through food, air, and skin absorption.

While scientists are learning more about how these substances are absorbed by the body, questions remain about how much exposure is safe, what effect — if any — microplastics could have on brain function, and what clinicians should tell their patients.

 

What Are the Major Health Concerns?

The Plastic Health Council estimates that more than 500 million metric tons of plastic are produced worldwide each year. In addition, it reports that plastic products can contain more than 16,000 chemicals, about a quarter of which have been found to be hazardous to human health and the environment. Microplastics and nanoplastics can enter the body through the air, in food, or absorption through the skin.

A study published in March showed that patients with carotid plaques and the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics were at an increased risk for death or major cardiovascular events.

Other studies have shown a link between these substances and placental inflammation and preterm births, reduced male fertility, and endocrine disruption — as well as accelerated spread of cancer cells in the gut.

There is also evidence suggesting that microplastics may facilitate the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and could contribute to the rise in food allergies.

And now, Thais Mauad, MD, PhD, and colleagues have found the substances in the brain.

 

How Is the Brain Affected?

The investigators examined olfactory bulb tissues from 15 deceased Sao Paulo, Brazil, residents ranging in age from 33 to 100 years who underwent routine coroner autopsies. All but three of the participants were men.

Exclusion criteria included having undergone previous neurosurgical interventions. The tissues were analyzed using micro–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (µFTIR).

In addition, the researchers practiced a “plastic-free approach” in their analysis, which included using filters and covering glassware and samples with aluminum foil.

Study findings showed microplastics in 8 of the 15 participants — including in the centenarian. In total, there were 16 synthetic polymer particles and fibers detected, with up to four microplastics detected per olfactory bulb. Polypropylene was the most common polymer found (44%), followed by polyamide, nylon, and polyethylene vinyl acetate. These substances are commonly used in a wide range of products, including food packaging, textiles, kitchen utensils, medical devices, and adhesives.

The microplastic particles ranged in length from 5.5 to 26 microns (one millionth of a meter), with a width that ranged from 3 to 25 microns. The mean fiber length and width was 21 and 4 microns, respectively. For comparison, the diameter of one human hair averages about 70 microns, according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the presence of microplastics in the human brain was identified and characterized using µFTIR,” the researchers wrote.

 

How Do Microplastics Reach the Brain?

Although the possibility of microplastics crossing the blood-brain barrier has been questioned, senior investigator Mauad, associate professor in the Department of Pathology, the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, noted that the olfactory pathway could offer an entry route through inhalation of the particles.

This means that “breathing within indoor environments could be a major source of plastic pollution in the brain,” she said in a press release.

“With much smaller nanoplastics entering the body with greater ease, the total level of plastic particles may be much higher. What is worrying is the capacity of such particles to be internalized by cells and alter how our bodies function,” she added.

Mauad said that although questions remain regarding the health implications of their findings, some animal studies have shown that the presence of microplastics in the brain is linked to neurotoxic effects, including oxidative stress.

In addition, exposure to particulate matter has been linked previously to such neurologic conditions as dementia and neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s disease “seem to have a connection with nasal abnormalities as initial symptoms,” the investigators noted.

While the olfactory pathway appears to be a likely route of exposure the researchers noted that other potential entry routes, including through blood circulation, may also be involved.

The research suggests that inhaling microplastics while indoors may be unavoidable, Mauad said, making it unlikely individuals can eliminate exposure to these substances.

“Everything that surrounds us is plastic. So we can’t really get rid of it,” she said.

 

Are Microplastics Regulated?

The most effective solution would be stricter regulations, Mauad said.

“The industry has chosen to sell many things in plastic, and I think this has to change. We need more policies to decrease plastic production — especially single-use plastic,” she said.

Federal, state, and local regulations for microplastics are “virtually nonexistent,” reported the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), a state-led coalition that produces documents and trainings related to regulatory issues.

In 2021, the ITRC sent a survey to all US states asking about microplastics regulations. Of the 26 states that responded, only 4 said they had conducted sampling for microplastics. None of the responders indicated they had established any criteria or standards for microplastics, although eight states indicated they had plans to pursue them in the future.

Although federal regulations include the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 and the Save Our Seas Act 2.0, the rules don’t directly pertain to microplastics.

There are also no regulations currently in place regarding microplastics or nanoplastics in food. A report issued in July by the FDA claimed that “the overall scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics found in foods pose a risk to human health.”

International efforts to regulate microplastics are much further along. First created in 2022, the treaty would forge an international, legally binding agreement.

While it is a step in the right direction, the Plastic Health Council has cautioned about “the omission of measures in draft provisions that fully address the impact of plastic pollution on human health.” The treaty should reduce plastic production, eliminate single-use plastic items, and call for testing of all chemicals in plastics, the council argues.

The final round of negotiations for the UN Global Plastic Treaty is set for completion before the end of the year.

 

What Should Clinicians Know?

Much remains unknown about the potential health effects of microplastic exposure. So how can clinicians respond to questions from concerned patients?

“We don’t yet have enough evidence about the plastic particle itself, like those highlighted in the current study — and even more so when it comes to nanoplastics, which are a thousand times smaller,” said Phoebe Stapleton, PhD, associated professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy at Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey.

“But we do have a lot of evidence about the chemicals that are used to make plastics, and we’ve already seen regulation there from the EPA. That’s one conversation that clinicians could have with patients: about those chemicals,” she added.

Stapleton recommended clinicians stay current on the latest research and be ready to respond should a patient raise the issue. She also noted the importance of exercising caution when interpreting these new findings.

While the study is important — especially because it highlights inhalation as a viable route of entry — exposure through the olfactory area is still just a theory and hasn’t yet been fully proven.

In addition, Stapleton wonders whether there are tissues where these substances are not found. A discovery like that “would be really exciting because that means that that tissue has mechanisms protecting it, and maybe, we could learn more about how to keep microplastics out,” she said.

She would also like to see more studies on specific adverse health effects from microplastics in the body.

Mauad agreed.

“That’s the next set of questions: What are the toxicities or lack thereof in those tissues? That will give us more information as it pertains to human health. It doesn’t feel good to know they’re in our tissues, but we still don’t have a real understanding of what they’re doing when they’re there,” she said.

The current study was funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by grants from the Brazilian Research Council and the Soa State Research Agency. It was also funded by the Plastic Soup Foundation — which, together with A Plastic Planet, forms the Plastic Health Council. The investigators and Stapleton reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Microplastics have been found in the lungs, liver, blood, and heart. Now, researchers report they have found the first evidence of the substances in human brains.

In a recent case series study that examined olfactory bulb tissue from deceased individuals, 8 of the 15 decedent brains showed the presence of microplastics, most commonly polypropylene, a plastic typically used in food packaging and water bottles.

Measuring less than 5 mm in size, microplastics are formed over time as plastic materials break down but don’t biodegrade. Exposure to these substances can come through food, air, and skin absorption.

While scientists are learning more about how these substances are absorbed by the body, questions remain about how much exposure is safe, what effect — if any — microplastics could have on brain function, and what clinicians should tell their patients.

 

What Are the Major Health Concerns?

The Plastic Health Council estimates that more than 500 million metric tons of plastic are produced worldwide each year. In addition, it reports that plastic products can contain more than 16,000 chemicals, about a quarter of which have been found to be hazardous to human health and the environment. Microplastics and nanoplastics can enter the body through the air, in food, or absorption through the skin.

A study published in March showed that patients with carotid plaques and the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics were at an increased risk for death or major cardiovascular events.

Other studies have shown a link between these substances and placental inflammation and preterm births, reduced male fertility, and endocrine disruption — as well as accelerated spread of cancer cells in the gut.

There is also evidence suggesting that microplastics may facilitate the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and could contribute to the rise in food allergies.

And now, Thais Mauad, MD, PhD, and colleagues have found the substances in the brain.

 

How Is the Brain Affected?

The investigators examined olfactory bulb tissues from 15 deceased Sao Paulo, Brazil, residents ranging in age from 33 to 100 years who underwent routine coroner autopsies. All but three of the participants were men.

Exclusion criteria included having undergone previous neurosurgical interventions. The tissues were analyzed using micro–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (µFTIR).

In addition, the researchers practiced a “plastic-free approach” in their analysis, which included using filters and covering glassware and samples with aluminum foil.

Study findings showed microplastics in 8 of the 15 participants — including in the centenarian. In total, there were 16 synthetic polymer particles and fibers detected, with up to four microplastics detected per olfactory bulb. Polypropylene was the most common polymer found (44%), followed by polyamide, nylon, and polyethylene vinyl acetate. These substances are commonly used in a wide range of products, including food packaging, textiles, kitchen utensils, medical devices, and adhesives.

The microplastic particles ranged in length from 5.5 to 26 microns (one millionth of a meter), with a width that ranged from 3 to 25 microns. The mean fiber length and width was 21 and 4 microns, respectively. For comparison, the diameter of one human hair averages about 70 microns, according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the presence of microplastics in the human brain was identified and characterized using µFTIR,” the researchers wrote.

 

How Do Microplastics Reach the Brain?

Although the possibility of microplastics crossing the blood-brain barrier has been questioned, senior investigator Mauad, associate professor in the Department of Pathology, the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, noted that the olfactory pathway could offer an entry route through inhalation of the particles.

This means that “breathing within indoor environments could be a major source of plastic pollution in the brain,” she said in a press release.

“With much smaller nanoplastics entering the body with greater ease, the total level of plastic particles may be much higher. What is worrying is the capacity of such particles to be internalized by cells and alter how our bodies function,” she added.

Mauad said that although questions remain regarding the health implications of their findings, some animal studies have shown that the presence of microplastics in the brain is linked to neurotoxic effects, including oxidative stress.

In addition, exposure to particulate matter has been linked previously to such neurologic conditions as dementia and neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s disease “seem to have a connection with nasal abnormalities as initial symptoms,” the investigators noted.

While the olfactory pathway appears to be a likely route of exposure the researchers noted that other potential entry routes, including through blood circulation, may also be involved.

The research suggests that inhaling microplastics while indoors may be unavoidable, Mauad said, making it unlikely individuals can eliminate exposure to these substances.

“Everything that surrounds us is plastic. So we can’t really get rid of it,” she said.

 

Are Microplastics Regulated?

The most effective solution would be stricter regulations, Mauad said.

“The industry has chosen to sell many things in plastic, and I think this has to change. We need more policies to decrease plastic production — especially single-use plastic,” she said.

Federal, state, and local regulations for microplastics are “virtually nonexistent,” reported the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), a state-led coalition that produces documents and trainings related to regulatory issues.

In 2021, the ITRC sent a survey to all US states asking about microplastics regulations. Of the 26 states that responded, only 4 said they had conducted sampling for microplastics. None of the responders indicated they had established any criteria or standards for microplastics, although eight states indicated they had plans to pursue them in the future.

Although federal regulations include the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 and the Save Our Seas Act 2.0, the rules don’t directly pertain to microplastics.

There are also no regulations currently in place regarding microplastics or nanoplastics in food. A report issued in July by the FDA claimed that “the overall scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics found in foods pose a risk to human health.”

International efforts to regulate microplastics are much further along. First created in 2022, the treaty would forge an international, legally binding agreement.

While it is a step in the right direction, the Plastic Health Council has cautioned about “the omission of measures in draft provisions that fully address the impact of plastic pollution on human health.” The treaty should reduce plastic production, eliminate single-use plastic items, and call for testing of all chemicals in plastics, the council argues.

The final round of negotiations for the UN Global Plastic Treaty is set for completion before the end of the year.

 

What Should Clinicians Know?

Much remains unknown about the potential health effects of microplastic exposure. So how can clinicians respond to questions from concerned patients?

“We don’t yet have enough evidence about the plastic particle itself, like those highlighted in the current study — and even more so when it comes to nanoplastics, which are a thousand times smaller,” said Phoebe Stapleton, PhD, associated professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy at Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey.

“But we do have a lot of evidence about the chemicals that are used to make plastics, and we’ve already seen regulation there from the EPA. That’s one conversation that clinicians could have with patients: about those chemicals,” she added.

Stapleton recommended clinicians stay current on the latest research and be ready to respond should a patient raise the issue. She also noted the importance of exercising caution when interpreting these new findings.

While the study is important — especially because it highlights inhalation as a viable route of entry — exposure through the olfactory area is still just a theory and hasn’t yet been fully proven.

In addition, Stapleton wonders whether there are tissues where these substances are not found. A discovery like that “would be really exciting because that means that that tissue has mechanisms protecting it, and maybe, we could learn more about how to keep microplastics out,” she said.

She would also like to see more studies on specific adverse health effects from microplastics in the body.

Mauad agreed.

“That’s the next set of questions: What are the toxicities or lack thereof in those tissues? That will give us more information as it pertains to human health. It doesn’t feel good to know they’re in our tissues, but we still don’t have a real understanding of what they’re doing when they’re there,” she said.

The current study was funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by grants from the Brazilian Research Council and the Soa State Research Agency. It was also funded by the Plastic Soup Foundation — which, together with A Plastic Planet, forms the Plastic Health Council. The investigators and Stapleton reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Microplastics have been found in the lungs, liver, blood, and heart. Now, researchers report they have found the first evidence of the substances in human brains.

In a recent case series study that examined olfactory bulb tissue from deceased individuals, 8 of the 15 decedent brains showed the presence of microplastics, most commonly polypropylene, a plastic typically used in food packaging and water bottles.

Measuring less than 5 mm in size, microplastics are formed over time as plastic materials break down but don’t biodegrade. Exposure to these substances can come through food, air, and skin absorption.

While scientists are learning more about how these substances are absorbed by the body, questions remain about how much exposure is safe, what effect — if any — microplastics could have on brain function, and what clinicians should tell their patients.

 

What Are the Major Health Concerns?

The Plastic Health Council estimates that more than 500 million metric tons of plastic are produced worldwide each year. In addition, it reports that plastic products can contain more than 16,000 chemicals, about a quarter of which have been found to be hazardous to human health and the environment. Microplastics and nanoplastics can enter the body through the air, in food, or absorption through the skin.

A study published in March showed that patients with carotid plaques and the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics were at an increased risk for death or major cardiovascular events.

Other studies have shown a link between these substances and placental inflammation and preterm births, reduced male fertility, and endocrine disruption — as well as accelerated spread of cancer cells in the gut.

There is also evidence suggesting that microplastics may facilitate the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and could contribute to the rise in food allergies.

And now, Thais Mauad, MD, PhD, and colleagues have found the substances in the brain.

 

How Is the Brain Affected?

The investigators examined olfactory bulb tissues from 15 deceased Sao Paulo, Brazil, residents ranging in age from 33 to 100 years who underwent routine coroner autopsies. All but three of the participants were men.

Exclusion criteria included having undergone previous neurosurgical interventions. The tissues were analyzed using micro–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (µFTIR).

In addition, the researchers practiced a “plastic-free approach” in their analysis, which included using filters and covering glassware and samples with aluminum foil.

Study findings showed microplastics in 8 of the 15 participants — including in the centenarian. In total, there were 16 synthetic polymer particles and fibers detected, with up to four microplastics detected per olfactory bulb. Polypropylene was the most common polymer found (44%), followed by polyamide, nylon, and polyethylene vinyl acetate. These substances are commonly used in a wide range of products, including food packaging, textiles, kitchen utensils, medical devices, and adhesives.

The microplastic particles ranged in length from 5.5 to 26 microns (one millionth of a meter), with a width that ranged from 3 to 25 microns. The mean fiber length and width was 21 and 4 microns, respectively. For comparison, the diameter of one human hair averages about 70 microns, according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the presence of microplastics in the human brain was identified and characterized using µFTIR,” the researchers wrote.

 

How Do Microplastics Reach the Brain?

Although the possibility of microplastics crossing the blood-brain barrier has been questioned, senior investigator Mauad, associate professor in the Department of Pathology, the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, noted that the olfactory pathway could offer an entry route through inhalation of the particles.

This means that “breathing within indoor environments could be a major source of plastic pollution in the brain,” she said in a press release.

“With much smaller nanoplastics entering the body with greater ease, the total level of plastic particles may be much higher. What is worrying is the capacity of such particles to be internalized by cells and alter how our bodies function,” she added.

Mauad said that although questions remain regarding the health implications of their findings, some animal studies have shown that the presence of microplastics in the brain is linked to neurotoxic effects, including oxidative stress.

In addition, exposure to particulate matter has been linked previously to such neurologic conditions as dementia and neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s disease “seem to have a connection with nasal abnormalities as initial symptoms,” the investigators noted.

While the olfactory pathway appears to be a likely route of exposure the researchers noted that other potential entry routes, including through blood circulation, may also be involved.

The research suggests that inhaling microplastics while indoors may be unavoidable, Mauad said, making it unlikely individuals can eliminate exposure to these substances.

“Everything that surrounds us is plastic. So we can’t really get rid of it,” she said.

 

Are Microplastics Regulated?

The most effective solution would be stricter regulations, Mauad said.

“The industry has chosen to sell many things in plastic, and I think this has to change. We need more policies to decrease plastic production — especially single-use plastic,” she said.

Federal, state, and local regulations for microplastics are “virtually nonexistent,” reported the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), a state-led coalition that produces documents and trainings related to regulatory issues.

In 2021, the ITRC sent a survey to all US states asking about microplastics regulations. Of the 26 states that responded, only 4 said they had conducted sampling for microplastics. None of the responders indicated they had established any criteria or standards for microplastics, although eight states indicated they had plans to pursue them in the future.

Although federal regulations include the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 and the Save Our Seas Act 2.0, the rules don’t directly pertain to microplastics.

There are also no regulations currently in place regarding microplastics or nanoplastics in food. A report issued in July by the FDA claimed that “the overall scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics found in foods pose a risk to human health.”

International efforts to regulate microplastics are much further along. First created in 2022, the treaty would forge an international, legally binding agreement.

While it is a step in the right direction, the Plastic Health Council has cautioned about “the omission of measures in draft provisions that fully address the impact of plastic pollution on human health.” The treaty should reduce plastic production, eliminate single-use plastic items, and call for testing of all chemicals in plastics, the council argues.

The final round of negotiations for the UN Global Plastic Treaty is set for completion before the end of the year.

 

What Should Clinicians Know?

Much remains unknown about the potential health effects of microplastic exposure. So how can clinicians respond to questions from concerned patients?

“We don’t yet have enough evidence about the plastic particle itself, like those highlighted in the current study — and even more so when it comes to nanoplastics, which are a thousand times smaller,” said Phoebe Stapleton, PhD, associated professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy at Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey.

“But we do have a lot of evidence about the chemicals that are used to make plastics, and we’ve already seen regulation there from the EPA. That’s one conversation that clinicians could have with patients: about those chemicals,” she added.

Stapleton recommended clinicians stay current on the latest research and be ready to respond should a patient raise the issue. She also noted the importance of exercising caution when interpreting these new findings.

While the study is important — especially because it highlights inhalation as a viable route of entry — exposure through the olfactory area is still just a theory and hasn’t yet been fully proven.

In addition, Stapleton wonders whether there are tissues where these substances are not found. A discovery like that “would be really exciting because that means that that tissue has mechanisms protecting it, and maybe, we could learn more about how to keep microplastics out,” she said.

She would also like to see more studies on specific adverse health effects from microplastics in the body.

Mauad agreed.

“That’s the next set of questions: What are the toxicities or lack thereof in those tissues? That will give us more information as it pertains to human health. It doesn’t feel good to know they’re in our tissues, but we still don’t have a real understanding of what they’re doing when they’re there,” she said.

The current study was funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by grants from the Brazilian Research Council and the Soa State Research Agency. It was also funded by the Plastic Soup Foundation — which, together with A Plastic Planet, forms the Plastic Health Council. The investigators and Stapleton reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long COVID is a symptom-driven disease, meaning that with no cure, physicians primarily treat the symptoms their patients are experiencing. Effective treatments for long COVID remain elusive because what works for one patient may be entirely ineffective for another. But as 2024 winds down, researchers have begun to pinpoint a number of treatments that are bringing relief to the 17 million Americans diagnosed with long COVID.

Here’s a current look at what research has identified as some of the most promising treatments.

 

Low-Dose Naltrexone

Some research suggests that low-dose naltrexone may be helpful for patients suffering from brain fog, pain, sleep issues, and fatigue, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St Louis Health Care System in Missouri.

Low-dose naltrexone is an anti-inflammatory agent currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of alcohol and opioid dependence.

“We don’t know the mechanism for how the medication works, and for that matter, we don’t really understand what causes brain fog. But perhaps its anti-inflammatory properties seem to help, and for some patients, low-dose naltrexone has been helpful,” said Al-Aly.

A March 2024 study found that both fatigue and pain were improved in patients taking low-dose naltrexone. In another study, published in the June 2024 issue of Frontiers in Medicine, researchers found that low-dose naltrexone was associated with improvement of several clinical symptoms related to long COVID such as fatigue, poor sleep quality, brain fog, post-exertional malaise, and headache.

 

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Antidepressants

In 2023, University of Pennsylvania researchers uncovered a link between long COVID and lower levels of serotonin in the body. This helped point to the potential treatment of using SSRIs to treat the condition.

For patients who have overlapping psychiatric issues that go along with brain fog, SSRIs prescribed to treat depression and other mental health conditions, as well as the antidepressant Wellbutrin, have been shown effective at dealing with concentration issues, brain fog, and depression, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

A study published in the November 2023 issue of the journal Scientific Reports found that SSRIs led to a “considerable reduction of symptoms,” especially brain fog, fatigue, sensory overload, and overall improved functioning. Low-dose Abilify, which contains aripiprazole, an antipsychotic medication, has also been found to be effective for cognitive issues caused by long COVID.

“Abilify is traditionally used for the treatment of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, but in a low-dose format, there is some data to suggest that it can also be anti-inflammatory and helpful for cognitive issues like brain fog,” said Viswanathan.

 

Modafinil

Modafinil, a medication previously used for managing narcolepsy, has also been shown effective for the treatment of fatigue and neurocognitive deficits caused by long COVID, said Viswanathan, adding that it’s another medication that she’s found useful for a number of her patients.

It’s thought that these cognitive symptoms are caused by an inflammatory cytokine release that leads to excessive stimulation of neurotransmitters in the body. According to a June 2024 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, “Modafinil can therapeutically act on these pathways, which possibly contributed to the symptomatic improvement.” But the medication has not been studied widely in patients with long COVID and has been shown to have interactions with other medications.

 

Metformin

Some research has shown that metformin, a well-known diabetes medication, reduces instances of long COVID when taken during the illness’s acute phase. It seems to boost metabolic function in patients.

“It makes sense that it would work because it seems to have anti-inflammatory effects on the body,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads one of the 15 nationwide long COVID centers funded by the federal RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) Initiative in Cleveland, Ohio. McComsey added that it may reduce the viral persistence that causes some forms of long COVID.

A study published in the October 2023 issue of the journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that metformin seemed to reduce instances of long COVID in patients who took it after being diagnosed with acute COVID. It seems less effective in patients who already have long COVID.

 

Antihistamines

Other data suggest that some patients with long COVID showed improvement after taking antihistamines. Research has shown that long COVID symptoms improved in 29% of patients with long COVID.

While researchers aren’t sure why antihistamines work to quell long COVID, the thought is that, when mast cells, a white blood cell that’s part of the immune system, shed granules and cause an inflammatory reaction, they release a lot of histamines. Antihistamine medications like famotidine block histamine receptors in the body, improving symptoms like brain fog, difficulty breathing, and elevated heart rate in patients.

“For some patients, these can be a lifesaver,” said David Putrino, the Nash Family Director of the Cohen Center for Recovery from Complex Chronic Illness and a national leader in the treatment of long COVID.

Putrino cautions patients toward taking these and other medications haphazardly without fully understanding that all treatments have risks, especially if they’re taking a number of them.

“Often patients are told that there’s no risk to trying something, but physicians should be counseling their patients and reminding them that there is a risk that includes medication sensitivities and medication interactions,” said Putrino.

The good news is that doctors have begun to identify some treatments that seem to be working in their patients, but we still don’t have the large-scale clinical trials to identify which treatments will work for certain patients and why.

There’s still so much we don’t know, and for physicians on the front lines of treating long COVID, it’s still largely a guessing game. “This is a constellation of symptoms; it’s not just one thing,” said Al-Aly. And while a treatment might be wildly effective for one patient, it might be ineffective or worse, problematic, for another.

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

Long COVID is a symptom-driven disease, meaning that with no cure, physicians primarily treat the symptoms their patients are experiencing. Effective treatments for long COVID remain elusive because what works for one patient may be entirely ineffective for another. But as 2024 winds down, researchers have begun to pinpoint a number of treatments that are bringing relief to the 17 million Americans diagnosed with long COVID.

Here’s a current look at what research has identified as some of the most promising treatments.

 

Low-Dose Naltrexone

Some research suggests that low-dose naltrexone may be helpful for patients suffering from brain fog, pain, sleep issues, and fatigue, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St Louis Health Care System in Missouri.

Low-dose naltrexone is an anti-inflammatory agent currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of alcohol and opioid dependence.

“We don’t know the mechanism for how the medication works, and for that matter, we don’t really understand what causes brain fog. But perhaps its anti-inflammatory properties seem to help, and for some patients, low-dose naltrexone has been helpful,” said Al-Aly.

A March 2024 study found that both fatigue and pain were improved in patients taking low-dose naltrexone. In another study, published in the June 2024 issue of Frontiers in Medicine, researchers found that low-dose naltrexone was associated with improvement of several clinical symptoms related to long COVID such as fatigue, poor sleep quality, brain fog, post-exertional malaise, and headache.

 

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Antidepressants

In 2023, University of Pennsylvania researchers uncovered a link between long COVID and lower levels of serotonin in the body. This helped point to the potential treatment of using SSRIs to treat the condition.

For patients who have overlapping psychiatric issues that go along with brain fog, SSRIs prescribed to treat depression and other mental health conditions, as well as the antidepressant Wellbutrin, have been shown effective at dealing with concentration issues, brain fog, and depression, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

A study published in the November 2023 issue of the journal Scientific Reports found that SSRIs led to a “considerable reduction of symptoms,” especially brain fog, fatigue, sensory overload, and overall improved functioning. Low-dose Abilify, which contains aripiprazole, an antipsychotic medication, has also been found to be effective for cognitive issues caused by long COVID.

“Abilify is traditionally used for the treatment of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, but in a low-dose format, there is some data to suggest that it can also be anti-inflammatory and helpful for cognitive issues like brain fog,” said Viswanathan.

 

Modafinil

Modafinil, a medication previously used for managing narcolepsy, has also been shown effective for the treatment of fatigue and neurocognitive deficits caused by long COVID, said Viswanathan, adding that it’s another medication that she’s found useful for a number of her patients.

It’s thought that these cognitive symptoms are caused by an inflammatory cytokine release that leads to excessive stimulation of neurotransmitters in the body. According to a June 2024 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, “Modafinil can therapeutically act on these pathways, which possibly contributed to the symptomatic improvement.” But the medication has not been studied widely in patients with long COVID and has been shown to have interactions with other medications.

 

Metformin

Some research has shown that metformin, a well-known diabetes medication, reduces instances of long COVID when taken during the illness’s acute phase. It seems to boost metabolic function in patients.

“It makes sense that it would work because it seems to have anti-inflammatory effects on the body,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads one of the 15 nationwide long COVID centers funded by the federal RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) Initiative in Cleveland, Ohio. McComsey added that it may reduce the viral persistence that causes some forms of long COVID.

A study published in the October 2023 issue of the journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that metformin seemed to reduce instances of long COVID in patients who took it after being diagnosed with acute COVID. It seems less effective in patients who already have long COVID.

 

Antihistamines

Other data suggest that some patients with long COVID showed improvement after taking antihistamines. Research has shown that long COVID symptoms improved in 29% of patients with long COVID.

While researchers aren’t sure why antihistamines work to quell long COVID, the thought is that, when mast cells, a white blood cell that’s part of the immune system, shed granules and cause an inflammatory reaction, they release a lot of histamines. Antihistamine medications like famotidine block histamine receptors in the body, improving symptoms like brain fog, difficulty breathing, and elevated heart rate in patients.

“For some patients, these can be a lifesaver,” said David Putrino, the Nash Family Director of the Cohen Center for Recovery from Complex Chronic Illness and a national leader in the treatment of long COVID.

Putrino cautions patients toward taking these and other medications haphazardly without fully understanding that all treatments have risks, especially if they’re taking a number of them.

“Often patients are told that there’s no risk to trying something, but physicians should be counseling their patients and reminding them that there is a risk that includes medication sensitivities and medication interactions,” said Putrino.

The good news is that doctors have begun to identify some treatments that seem to be working in their patients, but we still don’t have the large-scale clinical trials to identify which treatments will work for certain patients and why.

There’s still so much we don’t know, and for physicians on the front lines of treating long COVID, it’s still largely a guessing game. “This is a constellation of symptoms; it’s not just one thing,” said Al-Aly. And while a treatment might be wildly effective for one patient, it might be ineffective or worse, problematic, for another.

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

Long COVID is a symptom-driven disease, meaning that with no cure, physicians primarily treat the symptoms their patients are experiencing. Effective treatments for long COVID remain elusive because what works for one patient may be entirely ineffective for another. But as 2024 winds down, researchers have begun to pinpoint a number of treatments that are bringing relief to the 17 million Americans diagnosed with long COVID.

Here’s a current look at what research has identified as some of the most promising treatments.

 

Low-Dose Naltrexone

Some research suggests that low-dose naltrexone may be helpful for patients suffering from brain fog, pain, sleep issues, and fatigue, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St Louis Health Care System in Missouri.

Low-dose naltrexone is an anti-inflammatory agent currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of alcohol and opioid dependence.

“We don’t know the mechanism for how the medication works, and for that matter, we don’t really understand what causes brain fog. But perhaps its anti-inflammatory properties seem to help, and for some patients, low-dose naltrexone has been helpful,” said Al-Aly.

A March 2024 study found that both fatigue and pain were improved in patients taking low-dose naltrexone. In another study, published in the June 2024 issue of Frontiers in Medicine, researchers found that low-dose naltrexone was associated with improvement of several clinical symptoms related to long COVID such as fatigue, poor sleep quality, brain fog, post-exertional malaise, and headache.

 

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Antidepressants

In 2023, University of Pennsylvania researchers uncovered a link between long COVID and lower levels of serotonin in the body. This helped point to the potential treatment of using SSRIs to treat the condition.

For patients who have overlapping psychiatric issues that go along with brain fog, SSRIs prescribed to treat depression and other mental health conditions, as well as the antidepressant Wellbutrin, have been shown effective at dealing with concentration issues, brain fog, and depression, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

A study published in the November 2023 issue of the journal Scientific Reports found that SSRIs led to a “considerable reduction of symptoms,” especially brain fog, fatigue, sensory overload, and overall improved functioning. Low-dose Abilify, which contains aripiprazole, an antipsychotic medication, has also been found to be effective for cognitive issues caused by long COVID.

“Abilify is traditionally used for the treatment of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, but in a low-dose format, there is some data to suggest that it can also be anti-inflammatory and helpful for cognitive issues like brain fog,” said Viswanathan.

 

Modafinil

Modafinil, a medication previously used for managing narcolepsy, has also been shown effective for the treatment of fatigue and neurocognitive deficits caused by long COVID, said Viswanathan, adding that it’s another medication that she’s found useful for a number of her patients.

It’s thought that these cognitive symptoms are caused by an inflammatory cytokine release that leads to excessive stimulation of neurotransmitters in the body. According to a June 2024 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, “Modafinil can therapeutically act on these pathways, which possibly contributed to the symptomatic improvement.” But the medication has not been studied widely in patients with long COVID and has been shown to have interactions with other medications.

 

Metformin

Some research has shown that metformin, a well-known diabetes medication, reduces instances of long COVID when taken during the illness’s acute phase. It seems to boost metabolic function in patients.

“It makes sense that it would work because it seems to have anti-inflammatory effects on the body,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads one of the 15 nationwide long COVID centers funded by the federal RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) Initiative in Cleveland, Ohio. McComsey added that it may reduce the viral persistence that causes some forms of long COVID.

A study published in the October 2023 issue of the journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that metformin seemed to reduce instances of long COVID in patients who took it after being diagnosed with acute COVID. It seems less effective in patients who already have long COVID.

 

Antihistamines

Other data suggest that some patients with long COVID showed improvement after taking antihistamines. Research has shown that long COVID symptoms improved in 29% of patients with long COVID.

While researchers aren’t sure why antihistamines work to quell long COVID, the thought is that, when mast cells, a white blood cell that’s part of the immune system, shed granules and cause an inflammatory reaction, they release a lot of histamines. Antihistamine medications like famotidine block histamine receptors in the body, improving symptoms like brain fog, difficulty breathing, and elevated heart rate in patients.

“For some patients, these can be a lifesaver,” said David Putrino, the Nash Family Director of the Cohen Center for Recovery from Complex Chronic Illness and a national leader in the treatment of long COVID.

Putrino cautions patients toward taking these and other medications haphazardly without fully understanding that all treatments have risks, especially if they’re taking a number of them.

“Often patients are told that there’s no risk to trying something, but physicians should be counseling their patients and reminding them that there is a risk that includes medication sensitivities and medication interactions,” said Putrino.

The good news is that doctors have begun to identify some treatments that seem to be working in their patients, but we still don’t have the large-scale clinical trials to identify which treatments will work for certain patients and why.

There’s still so much we don’t know, and for physicians on the front lines of treating long COVID, it’s still largely a guessing game. “This is a constellation of symptoms; it’s not just one thing,” said Al-Aly. And while a treatment might be wildly effective for one patient, it might be ineffective or worse, problematic, for another.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall. 

The Best Thrombolytic?

Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.

There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding. 

We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications. 

In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use. 

 

Mobile Stroke Units

A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology. 

The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital? 

 

DOAC Reversal Agents

Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.

A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.

Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban. 

 

Anticoagulation in ESUS 

My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS. 

The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin. 

 

Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF 

My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.

The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days. 

Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall. 

The Best Thrombolytic?

Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.

There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding. 

We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications. 

In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use. 

 

Mobile Stroke Units

A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology. 

The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital? 

 

DOAC Reversal Agents

Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.

A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.

Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban. 

 

Anticoagulation in ESUS 

My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS. 

The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin. 

 

Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF 

My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.

The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days. 

Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.

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

This video transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Dear colleagues, I am Christoph Diener, from the Faculty of Medicine at the University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. In this video, I would like to cover six publications on stroke, which were published this fall. 

The Best Thrombolytic?

Let me start with systemic thrombolysis. We now have two thrombolytic agents available. One is the well-known alteplase, and newly approved for the treatment of stroke is tenecteplase. The ATTEST-2 study in the United Kingdom, published in The Lancet Neurology, compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg body weight as a bolus with alteplase 0.9 mg/kg body weight as an infusion over 60 minutes in the 4.5-hour time window in 1777 patients with ischemic stroke.

There was no significant difference between the two thrombolytics for the primary endpoint of modified Rankin Scale score after 90 days. There was also no difference with respect to mortality, intracranial bleeding, or extracranial bleeding. 

We finally have 11 randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of these randomized trials was published in Neurology. The analysis included 3700 patients treated with tenecteplase and 3700 patients treated with alteplase. For the primary endpoint, excellent functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 after 90 days, there was a significant benefit for tenecteplase (relative risk, 1.05), but the absolute difference was very small, at 3%. There was no difference in mortality or bleeding complications. 

In conclusion, I think both substances are great. They are effective. Tenecteplase is most probably the drug which should be used in people who have to transfer from a primary stroke center to a dedicated stroke center that provides thrombectomy. Otherwise, I think it’s a choice of the physician as to which thrombolytic agent to use. 

 

Mobile Stroke Units

A highly debated topic is mobile stroke units. These stroke units have a CT scanner and laboratory on board, and this makes it possible to perform thrombolysis on the way to the hospital. A retrospective, observational study collected data between 2018 and 2023, and included 19,400 patients with acute stroke, of whom 1237, or 6.4%, were treated in a mobile stroke unit. This study was published in JAMA Neurology. 

The modified Rankin Scale score at the time of discharge was better in patients treated with a mobile stroke unit, but the absolute benefit was only 0.03 points on the modified Rankin Scale. The question is whether this is cost-effective, and can we really do this at times when there is a traumatic shortage of physicians and nursing staff in the hospital? 

 

DOAC Reversal Agents

Oral anticoagulation, as you know, is usually considered a contraindication for systemic thrombolysis. Idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody, was developed to reverse the biological activity of dabigatran and then allow systemic thrombolysis.

A recent publication in Neurology analyzed 13 cohort studies with 553 stroke patients on dabigatran who received idarucizumab prior to systemic thrombolysis, and the rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 4%. This means it’s obviously possible to perform thrombolysis when the activity of dabigatran is neutralized by idarucizumab.

Unfortunately, until today, we have no data on whether this can also be done with andexanet alfa in people who are treated with a factor Xa inhibitor like, for example, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban. 

 

Anticoagulation in ESUS 

My next topic is ESUS, or embolic stroke of undetermined source. We have four large randomized trials and three smaller trials that compared antiplatelet therapy with DOACs in patients with ESUS. A group in Neurology published a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled studies with, altogether, 14,800 patients with ESUS. 

The comparison between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants showed no difference for recurrent ischemic stroke, and also not for major subgroups. This means that people with ESUS should receive antiplatelet therapy, most probably aspirin. 

 

Anticoagulation Post–Ischemic Stroke With AF 

My final topic is the optimal time to start anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischemic stroke. The OPTIMAS study, published in The Lancet, randomized 3650 patients who were anticoagulated with DOACs early (which means less than 4 days) or delayed (between 7 and 14 days). There was no difference in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism at 90 days.

The conclusion is that, in most cases, we can probably initiate anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation within the first 4 days. 

Dear colleagues, this is an exciting time for the stroke field. I presented six new studies that have impact, I think, on the management of patients with ischemic stroke.

Dr. Diener is a professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen in Germany. He reported conflicts of interest with Abbott, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Teva, WebMD, and The German Research Council. He also serves on the editorial boards of Cephalalgia, Lancet Neurology, and Drugs.

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

There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.

Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.

 

Personally, I’d much rather watch a fish tank in a waiting room then have a TV blaring at me with news, doctor bios, and direct-to-consumer drug ads. I suspect my patients feel the same way. When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.

I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.

Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...

You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.

My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.

We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.

Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.

I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.

 

Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.

Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.

 

Personally, I’d much rather watch a fish tank in a waiting room then have a TV blaring at me with news, doctor bios, and direct-to-consumer drug ads. I suspect my patients feel the same way. When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.

I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.

Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...

You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.

My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.

We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.

Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.

I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.

 

Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

There was a recent Sermo post bemoaning the demise of fish tanks, and the calming they bring, in medical waiting rooms.

Aquariums, I agree, have a soporific effect on humans. I’m not immune myself on the rare occasions I encounter one. There’s something relaxing about watching the fish slowly glide back and forth while you admire their different colors, sizes, and patterns. This is why they persisted in a lot of places, such as videotapes (remember “Video Fish Tank”?), screen savers, and a key plot point in Finding Nemo.

 

Personally, I’d much rather watch a fish tank in a waiting room then have a TV blaring at me with news, doctor bios, and direct-to-consumer drug ads. I suspect my patients feel the same way. When I get the occasional offer for a free waiting room TV that will play some customized feed about my practice and “ask your doctor” treatments, I send it off to be recycled into kitchen towels.

I think the real reason fish tanks are gone is that eternal bugaboo of medicine: money.

Margins in most practices, including mine, are thin, and a real fish tank (I’m not talking about a guppy in a bowl) aren’t cheap. They take, well, fish, and the most colorful ones are saltwater. Then they take a pump, heater, chemicals, food, plants, and decorations. Then you have to throw in the cost of a service with expertise in maintaining them (let’s face it, none of us have time to do that ourselves) ...

You want to add that to your overhead? Me neither.

My waiting room, as a result, is pretty bland. A handful of magazines, some books of classic Far Side, Calvin & Hobbes, and Doonesbury cartoons. The magazines are older, but relatively timeless ones, like issues of the Smithsonian or National Geographic. I don’t put out news magazines of any kind. If I’m not going to read the news, my patients shouldn’t have to either. My lobby should be relaxing.

We also live in an era where patients bring their own entertainment, on phones or iPads, to read while waiting. There are often days when I straighten up the waiting room while closing and the magazines haven’t been touched.

Yes, I miss fish tanks. But, like so many other things, they’ve become a casualty of modern medicine. They simply don’t make financial sense.

I’d rather cut corners in the waiting room than with patient care.

 

Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:

• Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
• Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.

Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.

 

Martin A. Makary

Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool. 

As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy. 

Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.

Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials. 

In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.

Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”

Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.

In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.

Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.

Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.

While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.

 

Janette Nesheiwat

As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.

Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith. 

Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”

While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination. 

“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.

 

David J. Weldon

If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.

After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.

He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.

In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.

Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.” 

But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.

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

President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:

• Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
• Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.

Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.

 

Martin A. Makary

Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool. 

As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy. 

Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.

Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials. 

In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.

Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”

Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.

In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.

Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.

Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.

While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.

 

Janette Nesheiwat

As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.

Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith. 

Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”

While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination. 

“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.

 

David J. Weldon

If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.

After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.

He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.

In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.

Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.” 

But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.

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

President-elect Donald Trump’s vision for the nation’s top health agencies is coming into focus with three nominations announced Nov. 22 that drew both criticism and praise:

• Surgeon and health researcher Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, to lead the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
• Former Republican congressman and physician David J. Weldon, MD, for director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
• Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat, MD, for surgeon general.

Earlier in November, Trump nominated vaccine skeptic and former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Here’s what to know about the latest nominees, who, like Kennedy, must be confirmed by the US Senate.

 

Martin A. Makary

Currently a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and chief of islet transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Makary co-invented in 2006 a surgery checklist that became a widely-used patient safety tool. 

As a US FDA commissioner, Makary would preside over a $6.5 billion agency with more than 18,000 employees. The agency, part of HHS, oversees human and animal drugs and vaccines, medical devices, food, tobacco and other products. Some of Makary’s views align closely with those of HHS nominee Kennedy. 

Makary is also chief medical officer of telehealth platform Sesame.

Makary was primarily known as a health researcher and author of books about price transparency and the cost of health care until the COVID-19 pandemic, when he became an outspoken critic of the federal response, lambasting restrictions and mandates advocated by the CDC and other public health officials. 

In 2023, Makary told the House Select Subcommittee on the COVID Pandemic that federal officials had ignored what he called “natural immunity.” Studies have shown that natural immunity is “at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better,” testified Makary.

Makary called for an overhaul of the US FDA in a 2021 Fox News opinion, saying that its culture was “defined by counterproductive rigidity and a refusal to adapt.”

Blind Spots, his most recent book, takes on what he calls “medical dogma” and challenges conventional views on subjects ranging from the microbiome to marijuana to cancer prevention, hormone replacement therapy, antibiotics and peanut allergies.

In an interview he posted to X, Makary blames inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of childhood illnesses. He cites increases in obesity, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, asthma, celiac disease, ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease as all potentially causally related to antibiotics given in childhood.

Makary is an advisor to two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and to Paragon Health Institute, begun in 2021 by two former top officials in the previous Trump administration.

Makary would “cut the bureaucratic red tape at the agency to make sure Americans get the medical cures and treatments they deserve,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in a press release.

While Los Angeles Times owner and physician-entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, MBBCh, MSc, praised the nomination of Makary (and the two other nominees) as “inspired,” other physicians criticized Makary for his anti-COVID mandate views and “fear-mongering” over COVID vaccine side effects.

 

Janette Nesheiwat

As surgeon general, Nesheiwat would serve as the top “health communicator in chief” and oversee the 6000 member US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

She is a frequent medical contributor to Fox News and serves as a medical director for a group of urgent care clinics in New York. She received her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine and completed a family medicine residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She is board-certified in family medicine.

Nesheiwat sells vitamin supplements on her website and in December will publish a book on “miracles in medicine” and her Christian faith. 

Trump said in a statement that Nesheiwat “is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health. She is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.”

While Nesheiwat was critical of COVID mandates, she voiced more support for COVID vaccines and mask-wearing during the pandemic than her fellow nominees, leading some Trump supporters to criticize her nomination. 

“A good appointment, happy about this: I got to know @DoctorJanette during the pandemic, exchanging information. She is very smart, thoughtful, interested in learning, and a compassionate doctor, and…a truly nice person,” noted vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, said on X.

 

David J. Weldon

If confirmed, former congressman Weldon would oversee the sprawling CDC, an agency with a roughly $17 billion budget, 15,000 employees or contractors, and numerous centers covering everything from health statistics to vaccines to epidemiology.

After earning his medical degree from the University at Buffalo School of Medicine, Weldon served in the US Army and US Army reserve. The Republican later served for 14 years in Congress representing Florida’s 15th district, which covers the Tampa region.

He now practices as an internist in Brevard County, Florida.

In Congress, Weldon raised concerns about the safety of some vaccines and promoted the false narrative that a former vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, caused autism, the Washington Post reported. Thimerosal has not been used in child vaccines for more than two decades. He also introduced a bill to move vaccine safety oversight from the CDC to an independent agency within HHS.

Trump said in a statement that Weldon “will proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose, and will work to end the Chronic Disease Epidemic.” 

But some physicians criticized Weldon for what they called his anti-vaccine views.

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

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.