Two new noninferiority trials address the controversial question of whether thrombolytic therapy can be omitted for acute ischemic stroke in patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for large-vessel occlusion.

Both trials show better outcomes when standard bridging thrombolytic therapy is used before thrombectomy, with comparable safety.

The results of SWIFT-DIRECT and DIRECT-SAFE were published online June 22 in The Lancet.

“The case appears closed. Bypass intravenous thrombolysis is highly unlikely to be noninferior to standard care by a clinically acceptable margin for most patients,” writes Pooja Khatri, MD, MSc, department of neurology, University of Cincinnati, in a linked comment.
 

SWIFT-DIRECT

SWIFT-DIRECT enrolled 408 patients (median age 72; 51% women) with acute stroke due to large vessel occlusion admitted to stroke centers in Europe and Canada. Half were randomly allocated to thrombectomy alone and half to intravenous alteplase and thrombectomy.

Successful reperfusion was less common in patients who had thrombectomy alone (91% vs. 96%; risk difference −5.1%; 95% confidence interval, −10.2 to 0.0, P = .047).

With combination therapy, more patients achieved functional independence with a modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 at 90 days (65% vs. 57%; adjusted risk difference −7.3%; 95% CI, −16·6 to 2·1, lower limit of one-sided 95% CI, −15·1%, crossing the noninferiority margin of −12%).

“Despite a very liberal noninferiority margin and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria aimed at studying a population most likely to benefit from thrombectomy alone, point estimates directionally favored intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy,” Urs Fischer, MD, cochair of the Stroke Center, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“Furthermore, we could demonstrate that overall reperfusion rates were extremely high and yet significantly better in patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy than in patients treated with thrombectomy alone, a finding which has not been shown before,” Dr. Fischer said.

There was no significant difference in the risk of symptomatic intracranial bleeding (3% with combination therapy and 2% with thrombectomy alone).

Based on the results, in patients suitable for thrombolysis, skipping it before thrombectomy “is not justified,” the study team concludes.
 

DIRECT-SAFE

DIRECT-SAFE enrolled 295 patients (median age 69; 43% women) with stroke and large vessel occlusion from Australia, New Zealand, China, and Vietnam, with half undergoing direct thrombectomy and half bridging therapy first.

Functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2 or return to baseline at 90 days) was more common in the bridging group (61% vs. 55%).

Safety outcomes were similar between groups. Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in 2 (1%) patients in the direct group and 1 (1%) patient in the bridging group. There were 22 (15%) deaths in the direct group and 24 in the bridging group.

“There has been concern across the world regarding cost of treatment, together with fears of increasing bleeding risk or clot migration with intravenous thrombolytic,” lead investigator Peter Mitchell, MBBS, director, NeuroIntervention Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, told this news organization.

“We showed that patients in the bridging treatment arm had better outcomes across the entire study, especially in Asian region patients” and therefore remains “the gold standard,” Dr. Mitchell said.

To date, six published trials have addressed this question of endovascular therapy alone or with thrombolysis – SKIP, DIRECT-MT, MR CLEAN NO IV, SWIFT-DIRECT, and DIRECT-SAFE.

Dr. Fischer said the SWIFT-DIRECT study group plans to perform an individual participant data meta-analysis known as Improving Reperfusion Strategies in Ischemic Stroke (IRIS) of all six trials to see whether there are subgroups of patients in whom thrombectomy alone is as effective as thrombolysis plus thrombectomy.

Subgroups of interest, he said, include patients with early ischemic signs on imaging, those at increased risk for hemorrhagic complications, and patients with a high clot burden.

SWIFT-DIRECT was funding by Medtronic and University Hospital Bern. DIRECT-SAFE was funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Stryker USA. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original articles.

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

Two new noninferiority trials address the controversial question of whether thrombolytic therapy can be omitted for acute ischemic stroke in patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for large-vessel occlusion.

Both trials show better outcomes when standard bridging thrombolytic therapy is used before thrombectomy, with comparable safety.

The results of SWIFT-DIRECT and DIRECT-SAFE were published online June 22 in The Lancet.

“The case appears closed. Bypass intravenous thrombolysis is highly unlikely to be noninferior to standard care by a clinically acceptable margin for most patients,” writes Pooja Khatri, MD, MSc, department of neurology, University of Cincinnati, in a linked comment.
 

SWIFT-DIRECT

SWIFT-DIRECT enrolled 408 patients (median age 72; 51% women) with acute stroke due to large vessel occlusion admitted to stroke centers in Europe and Canada. Half were randomly allocated to thrombectomy alone and half to intravenous alteplase and thrombectomy.

Successful reperfusion was less common in patients who had thrombectomy alone (91% vs. 96%; risk difference −5.1%; 95% confidence interval, −10.2 to 0.0, P = .047).

With combination therapy, more patients achieved functional independence with a modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 at 90 days (65% vs. 57%; adjusted risk difference −7.3%; 95% CI, −16·6 to 2·1, lower limit of one-sided 95% CI, −15·1%, crossing the noninferiority margin of −12%).

“Despite a very liberal noninferiority margin and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria aimed at studying a population most likely to benefit from thrombectomy alone, point estimates directionally favored intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy,” Urs Fischer, MD, cochair of the Stroke Center, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“Furthermore, we could demonstrate that overall reperfusion rates were extremely high and yet significantly better in patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy than in patients treated with thrombectomy alone, a finding which has not been shown before,” Dr. Fischer said.

There was no significant difference in the risk of symptomatic intracranial bleeding (3% with combination therapy and 2% with thrombectomy alone).

Based on the results, in patients suitable for thrombolysis, skipping it before thrombectomy “is not justified,” the study team concludes.
 

DIRECT-SAFE

DIRECT-SAFE enrolled 295 patients (median age 69; 43% women) with stroke and large vessel occlusion from Australia, New Zealand, China, and Vietnam, with half undergoing direct thrombectomy and half bridging therapy first.

Functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2 or return to baseline at 90 days) was more common in the bridging group (61% vs. 55%).

Safety outcomes were similar between groups. Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in 2 (1%) patients in the direct group and 1 (1%) patient in the bridging group. There were 22 (15%) deaths in the direct group and 24 in the bridging group.

“There has been concern across the world regarding cost of treatment, together with fears of increasing bleeding risk or clot migration with intravenous thrombolytic,” lead investigator Peter Mitchell, MBBS, director, NeuroIntervention Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, told this news organization.

“We showed that patients in the bridging treatment arm had better outcomes across the entire study, especially in Asian region patients” and therefore remains “the gold standard,” Dr. Mitchell said.

To date, six published trials have addressed this question of endovascular therapy alone or with thrombolysis – SKIP, DIRECT-MT, MR CLEAN NO IV, SWIFT-DIRECT, and DIRECT-SAFE.

Dr. Fischer said the SWIFT-DIRECT study group plans to perform an individual participant data meta-analysis known as Improving Reperfusion Strategies in Ischemic Stroke (IRIS) of all six trials to see whether there are subgroups of patients in whom thrombectomy alone is as effective as thrombolysis plus thrombectomy.

Subgroups of interest, he said, include patients with early ischemic signs on imaging, those at increased risk for hemorrhagic complications, and patients with a high clot burden.

SWIFT-DIRECT was funding by Medtronic and University Hospital Bern. DIRECT-SAFE was funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Stryker USA. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original articles.

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

Two new noninferiority trials address the controversial question of whether thrombolytic therapy can be omitted for acute ischemic stroke in patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for large-vessel occlusion.

Both trials show better outcomes when standard bridging thrombolytic therapy is used before thrombectomy, with comparable safety.

The results of SWIFT-DIRECT and DIRECT-SAFE were published online June 22 in The Lancet.

“The case appears closed. Bypass intravenous thrombolysis is highly unlikely to be noninferior to standard care by a clinically acceptable margin for most patients,” writes Pooja Khatri, MD, MSc, department of neurology, University of Cincinnati, in a linked comment.
 

SWIFT-DIRECT

SWIFT-DIRECT enrolled 408 patients (median age 72; 51% women) with acute stroke due to large vessel occlusion admitted to stroke centers in Europe and Canada. Half were randomly allocated to thrombectomy alone and half to intravenous alteplase and thrombectomy.

Successful reperfusion was less common in patients who had thrombectomy alone (91% vs. 96%; risk difference −5.1%; 95% confidence interval, −10.2 to 0.0, P = .047).

With combination therapy, more patients achieved functional independence with a modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 at 90 days (65% vs. 57%; adjusted risk difference −7.3%; 95% CI, −16·6 to 2·1, lower limit of one-sided 95% CI, −15·1%, crossing the noninferiority margin of −12%).

“Despite a very liberal noninferiority margin and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria aimed at studying a population most likely to benefit from thrombectomy alone, point estimates directionally favored intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy,” Urs Fischer, MD, cochair of the Stroke Center, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“Furthermore, we could demonstrate that overall reperfusion rates were extremely high and yet significantly better in patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis plus thrombectomy than in patients treated with thrombectomy alone, a finding which has not been shown before,” Dr. Fischer said.

There was no significant difference in the risk of symptomatic intracranial bleeding (3% with combination therapy and 2% with thrombectomy alone).

Based on the results, in patients suitable for thrombolysis, skipping it before thrombectomy “is not justified,” the study team concludes.
 

DIRECT-SAFE

DIRECT-SAFE enrolled 295 patients (median age 69; 43% women) with stroke and large vessel occlusion from Australia, New Zealand, China, and Vietnam, with half undergoing direct thrombectomy and half bridging therapy first.

Functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2 or return to baseline at 90 days) was more common in the bridging group (61% vs. 55%).

Safety outcomes were similar between groups. Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in 2 (1%) patients in the direct group and 1 (1%) patient in the bridging group. There were 22 (15%) deaths in the direct group and 24 in the bridging group.

“There has been concern across the world regarding cost of treatment, together with fears of increasing bleeding risk or clot migration with intravenous thrombolytic,” lead investigator Peter Mitchell, MBBS, director, NeuroIntervention Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, told this news organization.

“We showed that patients in the bridging treatment arm had better outcomes across the entire study, especially in Asian region patients” and therefore remains “the gold standard,” Dr. Mitchell said.

To date, six published trials have addressed this question of endovascular therapy alone or with thrombolysis – SKIP, DIRECT-MT, MR CLEAN NO IV, SWIFT-DIRECT, and DIRECT-SAFE.

Dr. Fischer said the SWIFT-DIRECT study group plans to perform an individual participant data meta-analysis known as Improving Reperfusion Strategies in Ischemic Stroke (IRIS) of all six trials to see whether there are subgroups of patients in whom thrombectomy alone is as effective as thrombolysis plus thrombectomy.

Subgroups of interest, he said, include patients with early ischemic signs on imaging, those at increased risk for hemorrhagic complications, and patients with a high clot burden.

SWIFT-DIRECT was funding by Medtronic and University Hospital Bern. DIRECT-SAFE was funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Stryker USA. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original articles.

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

Emma Sherman, a 13-year-old girl in Ascot, England, woke up to a dizzying aura of blind spots and flashing lights in her field of vision. It was May 2020, and she also had crippling nausea and headaches. By August, her dizziness was so overwhelming, she couldn’t hold her head up, lying in her mother’s lap for hours, too fatigued to attend school.

The former competitive gymnast, who had hoped to try out for the cheerleading squad, now used a wheelchair and was a shadow of her former self. She had been diagnosed with COVID-induced postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition often caused by an infection that results in a higher heart rate, extreme nausea, dizziness, and fatigue.

“I was so into sports before I got long COVID, and afterwards I could barely walk,” Emma said.

Even minor movements sent her heart rate sky-high. Her long chestnut hair turned gray and fell out in clumps. In the hospital, she was pricked and prodded, her blood tested for numerous conditions.

“They ran every scan known to man and took an MRI of her brain,” said Emma’s mother, Marie Sherman. “All was clear.”

Emma’s pediatrician determined that the teen had long COVID after having had a mild case of the virus in March, about 2 months before her puzzling symptoms began. But beyond a positive antibody test, doctors have found little evidence of what was causing Emma’s symptoms.

For Emma and others with long COVID, there are no medications shown to directly target the condition. Instead, caregivers target their symptoms, which include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, headaches, and a racing heart, said Laura Malone, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Kennedy Krieger Pediatric Post–COVID-19 Rehabilitation Clinic in Baltimore.

“Right now, it’s a rehabilitation-based approach focused on improving symptoms and functioning so that kids can go back to their usual activities as much as possible,” she says.

Depression and anxiety are common, although doctors are struggling to figure out whether COVID is changing the brain or whether mental health symptoms result from all the life disruptions. There’s little research to show how may kids have depression because of long COVID. Dr. Malone said about half of her patients at the Kennedy Krieger Institute›s long COVID clinic are also dealing with mental health issues.

Patients with headaches, dizziness, and nausea are given pain and nausea medications and recommendations for a healthy diet with added fruits and vegetables, monounsaturated fats, lower sodium, unprocessed foods, and whole grains. Kids with irregular or racing heart rates are referred to cardiologists and potentially prescribed beta-blockers to treat their heart arrhythmias, while children with breathing problems may be referred to pulmonologists and those with depression to a psychiatrist.

Still, many patients like Emma go to their doctors with phantom symptoms that don’t show up on scans or blood tests.

“We’re not seeing any evidence of structural damage to the brain, for example,” said Dr. Malone. “When we do MRIs, they often come out normal.”

It’s possible that the virus lingers in some patients, said Rajeev Fernando, MD, an infectious disease specialist and a fellow at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Kids’ strong immune systems often fend off problems that can be noticed. But on the inside, dead fragments of the virus persist, floating in hidden parts of the body and activating the immune system long after the threat has passed.

The virus can be in the gut and in the brain, which may help explain why symptoms like brain fog and nausea can linger in children.

“The immune system doesn’t recognize whether fragments of the virus are dead or alive. It continues to think it’s fighting active COVID,” said Dr. Fernando.

There is little data on how long symptoms last, Dr. Fernando said, as well as how many kids get them and why some are more vulnerable than others. Some research has found that about 5%-15% of children with COVID may get long COVID, but the statistics vary globally.

“Children with long COVID have largely been ignored. And while we’re talking about it now, we’ve got some work to do,” said Dr. Fernando.

As for Emma, she recovered in January of 2021, heading back to school and her friends, although her cardiologist advised her to skip gym classes.

“For the first time in months, I was feeling like myself again,” she said.

But the coronavirus found its way to Emma again. Although she was fully vaccinated in the fall of 2021, when the Omicron variant swept the world late that year, she was infected again.

“When the wave of Omicron descended, Emma was like a sitting duck,” her mother said.

She was bedridden with a high fever and cough. The cold-like symptoms eventually went away, but the issues in her gut stuck around. Since then, Emma has had extreme nausea, losing most of the weight she had gained back.

For her part, Ms. Sherman has found solace in a group called Long COVID Kids, a nonprofit in Europe and the United States. The group is raising awareness about the condition in kids to increase funding, boost understanding, and improve treatment and outcomes.

“There’s nothing worse than watching your child suffer and not being able to do anything about it,” she said. “I tell Emma all the time: If I could just crawl in your body and take it, I would do it in a second.”

Emma is hoping for a fresh start with her family’s move in the coming weeks to Sotogrande in southern Spain.

“I miss the simplest things like going for a run, going to the fair with my friends, and just feeling well,” she said. “I have a long list of things I’ll do once this is all done.”

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

Emma Sherman, a 13-year-old girl in Ascot, England, woke up to a dizzying aura of blind spots and flashing lights in her field of vision. It was May 2020, and she also had crippling nausea and headaches. By August, her dizziness was so overwhelming, she couldn’t hold her head up, lying in her mother’s lap for hours, too fatigued to attend school.

The former competitive gymnast, who had hoped to try out for the cheerleading squad, now used a wheelchair and was a shadow of her former self. She had been diagnosed with COVID-induced postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition often caused by an infection that results in a higher heart rate, extreme nausea, dizziness, and fatigue.

“I was so into sports before I got long COVID, and afterwards I could barely walk,” Emma said.

Even minor movements sent her heart rate sky-high. Her long chestnut hair turned gray and fell out in clumps. In the hospital, she was pricked and prodded, her blood tested for numerous conditions.

“They ran every scan known to man and took an MRI of her brain,” said Emma’s mother, Marie Sherman. “All was clear.”

Emma’s pediatrician determined that the teen had long COVID after having had a mild case of the virus in March, about 2 months before her puzzling symptoms began. But beyond a positive antibody test, doctors have found little evidence of what was causing Emma’s symptoms.

For Emma and others with long COVID, there are no medications shown to directly target the condition. Instead, caregivers target their symptoms, which include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, headaches, and a racing heart, said Laura Malone, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Kennedy Krieger Pediatric Post–COVID-19 Rehabilitation Clinic in Baltimore.

“Right now, it’s a rehabilitation-based approach focused on improving symptoms and functioning so that kids can go back to their usual activities as much as possible,” she says.

Depression and anxiety are common, although doctors are struggling to figure out whether COVID is changing the brain or whether mental health symptoms result from all the life disruptions. There’s little research to show how may kids have depression because of long COVID. Dr. Malone said about half of her patients at the Kennedy Krieger Institute›s long COVID clinic are also dealing with mental health issues.

Patients with headaches, dizziness, and nausea are given pain and nausea medications and recommendations for a healthy diet with added fruits and vegetables, monounsaturated fats, lower sodium, unprocessed foods, and whole grains. Kids with irregular or racing heart rates are referred to cardiologists and potentially prescribed beta-blockers to treat their heart arrhythmias, while children with breathing problems may be referred to pulmonologists and those with depression to a psychiatrist.

Still, many patients like Emma go to their doctors with phantom symptoms that don’t show up on scans or blood tests.

“We’re not seeing any evidence of structural damage to the brain, for example,” said Dr. Malone. “When we do MRIs, they often come out normal.”

It’s possible that the virus lingers in some patients, said Rajeev Fernando, MD, an infectious disease specialist and a fellow at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Kids’ strong immune systems often fend off problems that can be noticed. But on the inside, dead fragments of the virus persist, floating in hidden parts of the body and activating the immune system long after the threat has passed.

The virus can be in the gut and in the brain, which may help explain why symptoms like brain fog and nausea can linger in children.

“The immune system doesn’t recognize whether fragments of the virus are dead or alive. It continues to think it’s fighting active COVID,” said Dr. Fernando.

There is little data on how long symptoms last, Dr. Fernando said, as well as how many kids get them and why some are more vulnerable than others. Some research has found that about 5%-15% of children with COVID may get long COVID, but the statistics vary globally.

“Children with long COVID have largely been ignored. And while we’re talking about it now, we’ve got some work to do,” said Dr. Fernando.

As for Emma, she recovered in January of 2021, heading back to school and her friends, although her cardiologist advised her to skip gym classes.

“For the first time in months, I was feeling like myself again,” she said.

But the coronavirus found its way to Emma again. Although she was fully vaccinated in the fall of 2021, when the Omicron variant swept the world late that year, she was infected again.

“When the wave of Omicron descended, Emma was like a sitting duck,” her mother said.

She was bedridden with a high fever and cough. The cold-like symptoms eventually went away, but the issues in her gut stuck around. Since then, Emma has had extreme nausea, losing most of the weight she had gained back.

For her part, Ms. Sherman has found solace in a group called Long COVID Kids, a nonprofit in Europe and the United States. The group is raising awareness about the condition in kids to increase funding, boost understanding, and improve treatment and outcomes.

“There’s nothing worse than watching your child suffer and not being able to do anything about it,” she said. “I tell Emma all the time: If I could just crawl in your body and take it, I would do it in a second.”

Emma is hoping for a fresh start with her family’s move in the coming weeks to Sotogrande in southern Spain.

“I miss the simplest things like going for a run, going to the fair with my friends, and just feeling well,” she said. “I have a long list of things I’ll do once this is all done.”

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

Emma Sherman, a 13-year-old girl in Ascot, England, woke up to a dizzying aura of blind spots and flashing lights in her field of vision. It was May 2020, and she also had crippling nausea and headaches. By August, her dizziness was so overwhelming, she couldn’t hold her head up, lying in her mother’s lap for hours, too fatigued to attend school.

The former competitive gymnast, who had hoped to try out for the cheerleading squad, now used a wheelchair and was a shadow of her former self. She had been diagnosed with COVID-induced postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, a condition often caused by an infection that results in a higher heart rate, extreme nausea, dizziness, and fatigue.

“I was so into sports before I got long COVID, and afterwards I could barely walk,” Emma said.

Even minor movements sent her heart rate sky-high. Her long chestnut hair turned gray and fell out in clumps. In the hospital, she was pricked and prodded, her blood tested for numerous conditions.

“They ran every scan known to man and took an MRI of her brain,” said Emma’s mother, Marie Sherman. “All was clear.”

Emma’s pediatrician determined that the teen had long COVID after having had a mild case of the virus in March, about 2 months before her puzzling symptoms began. But beyond a positive antibody test, doctors have found little evidence of what was causing Emma’s symptoms.

For Emma and others with long COVID, there are no medications shown to directly target the condition. Instead, caregivers target their symptoms, which include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, headaches, and a racing heart, said Laura Malone, MD, codirector of the Johns Hopkins Kennedy Krieger Pediatric Post–COVID-19 Rehabilitation Clinic in Baltimore.

“Right now, it’s a rehabilitation-based approach focused on improving symptoms and functioning so that kids can go back to their usual activities as much as possible,” she says.

Depression and anxiety are common, although doctors are struggling to figure out whether COVID is changing the brain or whether mental health symptoms result from all the life disruptions. There’s little research to show how may kids have depression because of long COVID. Dr. Malone said about half of her patients at the Kennedy Krieger Institute›s long COVID clinic are also dealing with mental health issues.

Patients with headaches, dizziness, and nausea are given pain and nausea medications and recommendations for a healthy diet with added fruits and vegetables, monounsaturated fats, lower sodium, unprocessed foods, and whole grains. Kids with irregular or racing heart rates are referred to cardiologists and potentially prescribed beta-blockers to treat their heart arrhythmias, while children with breathing problems may be referred to pulmonologists and those with depression to a psychiatrist.

Still, many patients like Emma go to their doctors with phantom symptoms that don’t show up on scans or blood tests.

“We’re not seeing any evidence of structural damage to the brain, for example,” said Dr. Malone. “When we do MRIs, they often come out normal.”

It’s possible that the virus lingers in some patients, said Rajeev Fernando, MD, an infectious disease specialist and a fellow at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Kids’ strong immune systems often fend off problems that can be noticed. But on the inside, dead fragments of the virus persist, floating in hidden parts of the body and activating the immune system long after the threat has passed.

The virus can be in the gut and in the brain, which may help explain why symptoms like brain fog and nausea can linger in children.

“The immune system doesn’t recognize whether fragments of the virus are dead or alive. It continues to think it’s fighting active COVID,” said Dr. Fernando.

There is little data on how long symptoms last, Dr. Fernando said, as well as how many kids get them and why some are more vulnerable than others. Some research has found that about 5%-15% of children with COVID may get long COVID, but the statistics vary globally.

“Children with long COVID have largely been ignored. And while we’re talking about it now, we’ve got some work to do,” said Dr. Fernando.

As for Emma, she recovered in January of 2021, heading back to school and her friends, although her cardiologist advised her to skip gym classes.

“For the first time in months, I was feeling like myself again,” she said.

But the coronavirus found its way to Emma again. Although she was fully vaccinated in the fall of 2021, when the Omicron variant swept the world late that year, she was infected again.

“When the wave of Omicron descended, Emma was like a sitting duck,” her mother said.

She was bedridden with a high fever and cough. The cold-like symptoms eventually went away, but the issues in her gut stuck around. Since then, Emma has had extreme nausea, losing most of the weight she had gained back.

For her part, Ms. Sherman has found solace in a group called Long COVID Kids, a nonprofit in Europe and the United States. The group is raising awareness about the condition in kids to increase funding, boost understanding, and improve treatment and outcomes.

“There’s nothing worse than watching your child suffer and not being able to do anything about it,” she said. “I tell Emma all the time: If I could just crawl in your body and take it, I would do it in a second.”

Emma is hoping for a fresh start with her family’s move in the coming weeks to Sotogrande in southern Spain.

“I miss the simplest things like going for a run, going to the fair with my friends, and just feeling well,” she said. “I have a long list of things I’ll do once this is all done.”

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

Researchers have developed a hypothesis that may explain how chronic neuroinflammation contributes to conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection through a continuing relapse-recovery cycle.

ME/CFS has been established as resulting from infections, environmental exposures, stressors, and surgery. Similarities have been drawn during the COVID-19 pandemic between ME/CFS and a large subgroup of patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection – also known as post-COVID conditions, or long COVID – who continue to have viral fatigue and other lingering symptoms after their infection resolves.

What has been less clearly understood, the researchers said, is the reason behind why ME/CFS and other postviral fatigue tends to be chronic and can sometime develop into a lifelong condition.

“These diseases are very closely related, and it is clear the biological basis of long COVID is unequivocally connected to the original COVID infection – so there should no longer be any debate and doubt about the fact that postviral fatigue syndromes like ME/CFS are biologically based and involve much disturbed physiology,” Warren Tate, MSc, PhD, emeritus professor in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, stated in a press release.

Their hypothesis, set forth in a study published in Frontiers of Neurology, proposes that the systemic immune/inflammatory response that occurs after an infection or stressful event does not revolve, which results in a “fluctuating chronic neuroinflammation that sustains and controls the complex neurological symptoms of ME/CFS and long COVID and facilitates frequent more serious relapses in response to life stress, as evidenced from a comprehensive disruption to the cellular molecular biology and body’s physiological pathways.”

Dr. Tate and colleagues said that it is still unclear how the neuroinflammation occurs, why it’s persistent in ME/CFS, and how it causes symptoms associated with ME/CFS. In their hypothesis, “abnormal signaling or transport of molecules/cells occurs through one or both of neurovascular pathways and/or a dysfunctional blood brain barrier,” they said, noting “the normally separate and contained brain/CNS compartment in the healthy person becomes more porous.” The neurological symptoms associated with ME/CFS occur due to strong signals sent because of persistent “inflammatory signals or immune cells/molecules migrating into the brain,” they explained.

This results in a continuous loop where the central nervous system sends signals back to the body through the hypothalamus/paraventricular nucleus and the brain stem. “The resulting symptoms and the neurologically driven ‘sickness response’ for the ME/CFS patient would persist, preventing healing and a return to the preinfectious/stress-related state,” Dr. Tate and colleagues said.
 

Lingering inflammation may be the culprit

Commenting on the study, Achillefs Ntranos, MD, a board-certified neurologist in private practice in Scarsdale, N.Y., who was not involved with the research, said previous studies have shown that long COVID is linked to chronic activation of microglia in the brain, which has also been seen to activate in patients with ME/CFS.

“The hypothesis that lingering inflammation in the brain is the culprit behind the neurological symptoms of long COVID and ME/CFS is valid,” he said. “If these cells remain activated in the brain, they can cause a state of increased and lingering inflammation, which can interfere with the function of neurons, thus producing neurological symptoms. Since the neurological symptoms are similar between these entities, the mechanisms that produce them might also be similar.”

While the exact cause of ME/CFS is still unclear, it is often tied to the aftereffects of a flu-like illness, Dr. Ntranos said. “This has led researchers to propose that it arises after a viral infection, with many different types of viruses being associated with it. Other ways researchers think ME/CFS is being brought on after a viral illness is via changes in the immune system, such as chronic production of cytokines, neuroinflammation, and disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which regulates the body’s response to stress,” he explained.

While a newer condition, long COVID is not all that different from ME/CFS, Dr. Ntranos noted, sharing the catalyst of a viral infection and core neurological symptoms such as fatigue, postexertional malaise, a “brain fog” that makes thinking or concentrating difficult, sleep problems, and lightheadedness, but there are differences that set it apart from ME/CFS.

“Long COVID is unique in having additional symptoms that are specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms and loss of smell and taste. However most central nervous system effects are the same between these two entities,” he said.

Dr. Ntranos said long COVID’s neurological symptoms are similar to that of multiple sclerosis (MS), such as “brain fog” and postexertional malaise. “Since MS only affects the brain and spinal cord, there are no symptoms from other organ systems, such as the lungs, heart, or digestive system, contrary to long COVID. Furthermore, MS rarely affects smell and taste, making these symptoms unique to COVID,” he said.

However, he pointed out that brain fog and fatigue symptoms on their own can be nonspecific and attributed to many different conditions, such as obstructive sleep apnea, migraines, depression, anxiety, thyroid problems, vitamin deficiencies, dehydration, sleep disorders, and side effects of medications.

“More research needs to be done to understand how these cells are being activated, how they interfere with neuronal function, and why they remain in that state in some people, who then go on to develop fatigue and brain fog,” he said.

This study was funded by the Healthcare Otago Charitable Trust, the Associated New Zealand Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Society, and donations from families of patients with ME/CFS. The authors and Dr. Ntranos report no relevant financial disclosures.

Researchers have developed a hypothesis that may explain how chronic neuroinflammation contributes to conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection through a continuing relapse-recovery cycle.

ME/CFS has been established as resulting from infections, environmental exposures, stressors, and surgery. Similarities have been drawn during the COVID-19 pandemic between ME/CFS and a large subgroup of patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection – also known as post-COVID conditions, or long COVID – who continue to have viral fatigue and other lingering symptoms after their infection resolves.

What has been less clearly understood, the researchers said, is the reason behind why ME/CFS and other postviral fatigue tends to be chronic and can sometime develop into a lifelong condition.

“These diseases are very closely related, and it is clear the biological basis of long COVID is unequivocally connected to the original COVID infection – so there should no longer be any debate and doubt about the fact that postviral fatigue syndromes like ME/CFS are biologically based and involve much disturbed physiology,” Warren Tate, MSc, PhD, emeritus professor in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, stated in a press release.

Their hypothesis, set forth in a study published in Frontiers of Neurology, proposes that the systemic immune/inflammatory response that occurs after an infection or stressful event does not revolve, which results in a “fluctuating chronic neuroinflammation that sustains and controls the complex neurological symptoms of ME/CFS and long COVID and facilitates frequent more serious relapses in response to life stress, as evidenced from a comprehensive disruption to the cellular molecular biology and body’s physiological pathways.”

Dr. Tate and colleagues said that it is still unclear how the neuroinflammation occurs, why it’s persistent in ME/CFS, and how it causes symptoms associated with ME/CFS. In their hypothesis, “abnormal signaling or transport of molecules/cells occurs through one or both of neurovascular pathways and/or a dysfunctional blood brain barrier,” they said, noting “the normally separate and contained brain/CNS compartment in the healthy person becomes more porous.” The neurological symptoms associated with ME/CFS occur due to strong signals sent because of persistent “inflammatory signals or immune cells/molecules migrating into the brain,” they explained.

This results in a continuous loop where the central nervous system sends signals back to the body through the hypothalamus/paraventricular nucleus and the brain stem. “The resulting symptoms and the neurologically driven ‘sickness response’ for the ME/CFS patient would persist, preventing healing and a return to the preinfectious/stress-related state,” Dr. Tate and colleagues said.
 

Lingering inflammation may be the culprit

Commenting on the study, Achillefs Ntranos, MD, a board-certified neurologist in private practice in Scarsdale, N.Y., who was not involved with the research, said previous studies have shown that long COVID is linked to chronic activation of microglia in the brain, which has also been seen to activate in patients with ME/CFS.

“The hypothesis that lingering inflammation in the brain is the culprit behind the neurological symptoms of long COVID and ME/CFS is valid,” he said. “If these cells remain activated in the brain, they can cause a state of increased and lingering inflammation, which can interfere with the function of neurons, thus producing neurological symptoms. Since the neurological symptoms are similar between these entities, the mechanisms that produce them might also be similar.”

While the exact cause of ME/CFS is still unclear, it is often tied to the aftereffects of a flu-like illness, Dr. Ntranos said. “This has led researchers to propose that it arises after a viral infection, with many different types of viruses being associated with it. Other ways researchers think ME/CFS is being brought on after a viral illness is via changes in the immune system, such as chronic production of cytokines, neuroinflammation, and disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which regulates the body’s response to stress,” he explained.

While a newer condition, long COVID is not all that different from ME/CFS, Dr. Ntranos noted, sharing the catalyst of a viral infection and core neurological symptoms such as fatigue, postexertional malaise, a “brain fog” that makes thinking or concentrating difficult, sleep problems, and lightheadedness, but there are differences that set it apart from ME/CFS.

“Long COVID is unique in having additional symptoms that are specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms and loss of smell and taste. However most central nervous system effects are the same between these two entities,” he said.

Dr. Ntranos said long COVID’s neurological symptoms are similar to that of multiple sclerosis (MS), such as “brain fog” and postexertional malaise. “Since MS only affects the brain and spinal cord, there are no symptoms from other organ systems, such as the lungs, heart, or digestive system, contrary to long COVID. Furthermore, MS rarely affects smell and taste, making these symptoms unique to COVID,” he said.

However, he pointed out that brain fog and fatigue symptoms on their own can be nonspecific and attributed to many different conditions, such as obstructive sleep apnea, migraines, depression, anxiety, thyroid problems, vitamin deficiencies, dehydration, sleep disorders, and side effects of medications.

“More research needs to be done to understand how these cells are being activated, how they interfere with neuronal function, and why they remain in that state in some people, who then go on to develop fatigue and brain fog,” he said.

This study was funded by the Healthcare Otago Charitable Trust, the Associated New Zealand Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Society, and donations from families of patients with ME/CFS. The authors and Dr. Ntranos report no relevant financial disclosures.

Researchers have developed a hypothesis that may explain how chronic neuroinflammation contributes to conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection through a continuing relapse-recovery cycle.

ME/CFS has been established as resulting from infections, environmental exposures, stressors, and surgery. Similarities have been drawn during the COVID-19 pandemic between ME/CFS and a large subgroup of patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection – also known as post-COVID conditions, or long COVID – who continue to have viral fatigue and other lingering symptoms after their infection resolves.

What has been less clearly understood, the researchers said, is the reason behind why ME/CFS and other postviral fatigue tends to be chronic and can sometime develop into a lifelong condition.

“These diseases are very closely related, and it is clear the biological basis of long COVID is unequivocally connected to the original COVID infection – so there should no longer be any debate and doubt about the fact that postviral fatigue syndromes like ME/CFS are biologically based and involve much disturbed physiology,” Warren Tate, MSc, PhD, emeritus professor in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, stated in a press release.

Their hypothesis, set forth in a study published in Frontiers of Neurology, proposes that the systemic immune/inflammatory response that occurs after an infection or stressful event does not revolve, which results in a “fluctuating chronic neuroinflammation that sustains and controls the complex neurological symptoms of ME/CFS and long COVID and facilitates frequent more serious relapses in response to life stress, as evidenced from a comprehensive disruption to the cellular molecular biology and body’s physiological pathways.”

Dr. Tate and colleagues said that it is still unclear how the neuroinflammation occurs, why it’s persistent in ME/CFS, and how it causes symptoms associated with ME/CFS. In their hypothesis, “abnormal signaling or transport of molecules/cells occurs through one or both of neurovascular pathways and/or a dysfunctional blood brain barrier,” they said, noting “the normally separate and contained brain/CNS compartment in the healthy person becomes more porous.” The neurological symptoms associated with ME/CFS occur due to strong signals sent because of persistent “inflammatory signals or immune cells/molecules migrating into the brain,” they explained.

This results in a continuous loop where the central nervous system sends signals back to the body through the hypothalamus/paraventricular nucleus and the brain stem. “The resulting symptoms and the neurologically driven ‘sickness response’ for the ME/CFS patient would persist, preventing healing and a return to the preinfectious/stress-related state,” Dr. Tate and colleagues said.
 

Lingering inflammation may be the culprit

Commenting on the study, Achillefs Ntranos, MD, a board-certified neurologist in private practice in Scarsdale, N.Y., who was not involved with the research, said previous studies have shown that long COVID is linked to chronic activation of microglia in the brain, which has also been seen to activate in patients with ME/CFS.

“The hypothesis that lingering inflammation in the brain is the culprit behind the neurological symptoms of long COVID and ME/CFS is valid,” he said. “If these cells remain activated in the brain, they can cause a state of increased and lingering inflammation, which can interfere with the function of neurons, thus producing neurological symptoms. Since the neurological symptoms are similar between these entities, the mechanisms that produce them might also be similar.”

While the exact cause of ME/CFS is still unclear, it is often tied to the aftereffects of a flu-like illness, Dr. Ntranos said. “This has led researchers to propose that it arises after a viral infection, with many different types of viruses being associated with it. Other ways researchers think ME/CFS is being brought on after a viral illness is via changes in the immune system, such as chronic production of cytokines, neuroinflammation, and disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which regulates the body’s response to stress,” he explained.

While a newer condition, long COVID is not all that different from ME/CFS, Dr. Ntranos noted, sharing the catalyst of a viral infection and core neurological symptoms such as fatigue, postexertional malaise, a “brain fog” that makes thinking or concentrating difficult, sleep problems, and lightheadedness, but there are differences that set it apart from ME/CFS.

“Long COVID is unique in having additional symptoms that are specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms and loss of smell and taste. However most central nervous system effects are the same between these two entities,” he said.

Dr. Ntranos said long COVID’s neurological symptoms are similar to that of multiple sclerosis (MS), such as “brain fog” and postexertional malaise. “Since MS only affects the brain and spinal cord, there are no symptoms from other organ systems, such as the lungs, heart, or digestive system, contrary to long COVID. Furthermore, MS rarely affects smell and taste, making these symptoms unique to COVID,” he said.

However, he pointed out that brain fog and fatigue symptoms on their own can be nonspecific and attributed to many different conditions, such as obstructive sleep apnea, migraines, depression, anxiety, thyroid problems, vitamin deficiencies, dehydration, sleep disorders, and side effects of medications.

“More research needs to be done to understand how these cells are being activated, how they interfere with neuronal function, and why they remain in that state in some people, who then go on to develop fatigue and brain fog,” he said.

This study was funded by the Healthcare Otago Charitable Trust, the Associated New Zealand Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Society, and donations from families of patients with ME/CFS. The authors and Dr. Ntranos report no relevant financial disclosures.

There was a recent post on Sermo about medical office staff cross-training. It talked about the importance of the scheduler being able to cover for the medical assistant (to an extent), a billing person being able to room patients, and so on.

Here, in my little three-person office, the only thing my staff can’t do is see patients.

Actually, more than 2 years out since the pandemic changed everyone’s lives, we’ve settled into a very different cross-training routine. I’m the only one at my office. My medical assistant works from home, far north of me, and so does my scheduler, who is across town.

So, at the office, I handle it all. I check people in, copy insurance cards, collect copays, see patients, and make follow-ups.

At this time, I’ve not only gotten used to it, but really don’t mind it.

We don’t worry about freeway traffic. My staff starts at the exact time each day, and so I don’t worry about one of them being an hour late, trapped behind a rush-hour pile-up on the 101. Staying at home with a sick kid isn’t an issue either, anymore. If my secretary has to make her young daughter lunch, or run her over to a birthday party, I don’t even notice it. If there are any problems, she knows how to reach me. Same with my medical assistant.

Nobody worries about what to throw together for dinner if they get home late.

In an era where other businesses want to reverse the work-from-home trend, I don’t see an issue with its continuing for some jobs. It saves money on rent, and money and time on transportation.

Gas prices, at least for driving to and from work for them, don’t have to be factored into the wage equations. I’d guess it’s about 1,000 gallons of gas a year saved. On a national scale that’s nothing, but to my staff right now that’s $3,000-$4,000 more in their pockets at the end of the year. Not to mention it’s two more cars off the road.

Granted, this doesn’t change what I’m doing. Seeing patients in person is a key part of being a doctor. Some things can be handled equally well over the phone or Zoom, but many can’t. It’s what I signed up for, and I really don’t mind it. Seeing patients is still what I enjoy.

My staff is a lot happier with this arrangement, and I don’t mind it either. I always, by nature, kept a reasonably paced schedule. Trying to shoehorn patients in has never been my way, so I have time to run a credit card or scan insurance information.

When one of my staff goes out of town, the other covers her calls and relays messages to me. Yes, it’s extra work, but no more so than if they were here in person. Probably less.

I’m sure many physicians wouldn’t agree with my office model, but it suits me fine. Cross-training and all.

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

There was a recent post on Sermo about medical office staff cross-training. It talked about the importance of the scheduler being able to cover for the medical assistant (to an extent), a billing person being able to room patients, and so on.

Here, in my little three-person office, the only thing my staff can’t do is see patients.

Actually, more than 2 years out since the pandemic changed everyone’s lives, we’ve settled into a very different cross-training routine. I’m the only one at my office. My medical assistant works from home, far north of me, and so does my scheduler, who is across town.

So, at the office, I handle it all. I check people in, copy insurance cards, collect copays, see patients, and make follow-ups.

At this time, I’ve not only gotten used to it, but really don’t mind it.

We don’t worry about freeway traffic. My staff starts at the exact time each day, and so I don’t worry about one of them being an hour late, trapped behind a rush-hour pile-up on the 101. Staying at home with a sick kid isn’t an issue either, anymore. If my secretary has to make her young daughter lunch, or run her over to a birthday party, I don’t even notice it. If there are any problems, she knows how to reach me. Same with my medical assistant.

Nobody worries about what to throw together for dinner if they get home late.

In an era where other businesses want to reverse the work-from-home trend, I don’t see an issue with its continuing for some jobs. It saves money on rent, and money and time on transportation.

Gas prices, at least for driving to and from work for them, don’t have to be factored into the wage equations. I’d guess it’s about 1,000 gallons of gas a year saved. On a national scale that’s nothing, but to my staff right now that’s $3,000-$4,000 more in their pockets at the end of the year. Not to mention it’s two more cars off the road.

Granted, this doesn’t change what I’m doing. Seeing patients in person is a key part of being a doctor. Some things can be handled equally well over the phone or Zoom, but many can’t. It’s what I signed up for, and I really don’t mind it. Seeing patients is still what I enjoy.

My staff is a lot happier with this arrangement, and I don’t mind it either. I always, by nature, kept a reasonably paced schedule. Trying to shoehorn patients in has never been my way, so I have time to run a credit card or scan insurance information.

When one of my staff goes out of town, the other covers her calls and relays messages to me. Yes, it’s extra work, but no more so than if they were here in person. Probably less.

I’m sure many physicians wouldn’t agree with my office model, but it suits me fine. Cross-training and all.

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

There was a recent post on Sermo about medical office staff cross-training. It talked about the importance of the scheduler being able to cover for the medical assistant (to an extent), a billing person being able to room patients, and so on.

Here, in my little three-person office, the only thing my staff can’t do is see patients.

Actually, more than 2 years out since the pandemic changed everyone’s lives, we’ve settled into a very different cross-training routine. I’m the only one at my office. My medical assistant works from home, far north of me, and so does my scheduler, who is across town.

So, at the office, I handle it all. I check people in, copy insurance cards, collect copays, see patients, and make follow-ups.

At this time, I’ve not only gotten used to it, but really don’t mind it.

We don’t worry about freeway traffic. My staff starts at the exact time each day, and so I don’t worry about one of them being an hour late, trapped behind a rush-hour pile-up on the 101. Staying at home with a sick kid isn’t an issue either, anymore. If my secretary has to make her young daughter lunch, or run her over to a birthday party, I don’t even notice it. If there are any problems, she knows how to reach me. Same with my medical assistant.

Nobody worries about what to throw together for dinner if they get home late.

In an era where other businesses want to reverse the work-from-home trend, I don’t see an issue with its continuing for some jobs. It saves money on rent, and money and time on transportation.

Gas prices, at least for driving to and from work for them, don’t have to be factored into the wage equations. I’d guess it’s about 1,000 gallons of gas a year saved. On a national scale that’s nothing, but to my staff right now that’s $3,000-$4,000 more in their pockets at the end of the year. Not to mention it’s two more cars off the road.

Granted, this doesn’t change what I’m doing. Seeing patients in person is a key part of being a doctor. Some things can be handled equally well over the phone or Zoom, but many can’t. It’s what I signed up for, and I really don’t mind it. Seeing patients is still what I enjoy.

My staff is a lot happier with this arrangement, and I don’t mind it either. I always, by nature, kept a reasonably paced schedule. Trying to shoehorn patients in has never been my way, so I have time to run a credit card or scan insurance information.

When one of my staff goes out of town, the other covers her calls and relays messages to me. Yes, it’s extra work, but no more so than if they were here in person. Probably less.

I’m sure many physicians wouldn’t agree with my office model, but it suits me fine. Cross-training and all.

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

INDIANAPOLIS – An investigational topical treatment for dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) known as beremagene geperpavec (B-VEC) showed durable and statistically significant improvement in complete wound healing at 3 and 6 months compared with placebo, according to results from a small phase 3 study.

DEB is a serious, ultra-rare genetic blistering disease caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, encoding for type VII collagen and leading to skin fragility and wounds. No approved therapies are currently available. In the study, treatment was generally well tolerated.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“B-VEC is the first treatment that has not only been shown to be effective, but the first to directly target the defect through topical application,” the study’s principal investigator, Shireen V. Guide, MD, said in an interview during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “It delivers type VII collagen gene therapy to these patients, which allows healing in areas that they may have had open since birth. It’s been life-changing for them.”

B-VEC is a herpes simplex virus (HSV-1)-based topical, redosable gene therapy being developed by Krystal Biotech that is designed to restore functional COL7 protein by delivering the COL7A1 gene. For the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study known GEM-3, Dr. Guide, who practices dermatology in Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., and her colleagues, including Peter Marinkovich, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, and Mercedes Gonzalez, MD, from the University of Miami, enrolled 31 patients aged 6 months and older with genetically confirmed DEB. Each patient had one wound treated randomized 1:1 to treatment with B-VEC once a week or placebo for 6 months. The mean age of the 31 study participants was 17 years, 65% were male, 65% were White, and 19% were Asian.

The primary endpoint was complete wound healing (defined as 100% wound closure from exact wound area at baseline, specified as skin re-epithelialization without drainage) at 6 months. Additional endpoints included complete wound healing at 3 months and change in pain associated with wound dressing changes.

At 3 months, 70% of wounds treated with B-VEC met the endpoint of complete wound healing, compared with 20% of wounds treated with placebo (P < .005). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with B-VEC met the endpoint of complete wound healing compared with 22% of those treated with placebo (P < .005).

Of the total wounds that closed at 3 months, 67% of wounds treated with B-VEC were also closed at 6 months, compared with 33% of those treated with placebo (P = .02). In other findings, a trend toward decreased pain was observed in wounds treated with B-VEC vs. those treated with placebo.

B-VEC was well tolerated with no treatment-related serious adverse events or discontinuations. Three patients experienced a total of five serious adverse events during the study: anemia (two events), and cellulitis, diarrhea, and positive blood culture (one event each). None were considered related to the study drug.

Dr. Guide, who is on staff at Children’s Health of Orange County, Orange, Calif., characterized B-VEC as “very novel because it’s very practical.”

To date, all treatments for DEB “have been extremely labor intensive, including skin grafting and hospitalizations. It’s a topical application that can be done in the office and potentially applied at home in the future. It’s also durable. Not only are the [treated] areas closing, but they are staying closed.”

Kalyani S. Marathe, MD, MPH, director of the dermatology division at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the study, said that topical application of B-VEC “allows the side effect profile to be very favorable. The results are remarkable in the amount of wound healing and reduction in pain.”

The tolerability of this medication “is crucial,” she added. “EB patients have a lot of pain from their wounds and so any treatment needs to be as painless as possible for it to be usable. I’m very excited about the next phase of studies for this medication and hopeful that it heralds new treatments for our EB patients.”

In June 2022, the manufacturer announced that it had submitted a biologics license application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of B-VEC for the treatment of DEB, and that it anticipates submitting an application for marketing authorization with the European Medical Agency (EMA) in the second half of 2022.

Dr. Guide disclosed that she has served as an investigator for Krystal Biotech, Innovaderm Research, Arcutis, Premier Research, Paidion, and Castle Biosciences. Dr. Marathe disclosed that she has served as an adviser for Verrica, and that Cincinnati Children’s Hospital is a site for the next phase studies for B-VEC.

*This story was updated on July 25. 

INDIANAPOLIS – An investigational topical treatment for dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) known as beremagene geperpavec (B-VEC) showed durable and statistically significant improvement in complete wound healing at 3 and 6 months compared with placebo, according to results from a small phase 3 study.

DEB is a serious, ultra-rare genetic blistering disease caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, encoding for type VII collagen and leading to skin fragility and wounds. No approved therapies are currently available. In the study, treatment was generally well tolerated.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“B-VEC is the first treatment that has not only been shown to be effective, but the first to directly target the defect through topical application,” the study’s principal investigator, Shireen V. Guide, MD, said in an interview during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “It delivers type VII collagen gene therapy to these patients, which allows healing in areas that they may have had open since birth. It’s been life-changing for them.”

B-VEC is a herpes simplex virus (HSV-1)-based topical, redosable gene therapy being developed by Krystal Biotech that is designed to restore functional COL7 protein by delivering the COL7A1 gene. For the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study known GEM-3, Dr. Guide, who practices dermatology in Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., and her colleagues, including Peter Marinkovich, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, and Mercedes Gonzalez, MD, from the University of Miami, enrolled 31 patients aged 6 months and older with genetically confirmed DEB. Each patient had one wound treated randomized 1:1 to treatment with B-VEC once a week or placebo for 6 months. The mean age of the 31 study participants was 17 years, 65% were male, 65% were White, and 19% were Asian.

The primary endpoint was complete wound healing (defined as 100% wound closure from exact wound area at baseline, specified as skin re-epithelialization without drainage) at 6 months. Additional endpoints included complete wound healing at 3 months and change in pain associated with wound dressing changes.

At 3 months, 70% of wounds treated with B-VEC met the endpoint of complete wound healing, compared with 20% of wounds treated with placebo (P < .005). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with B-VEC met the endpoint of complete wound healing compared with 22% of those treated with placebo (P < .005).

Of the total wounds that closed at 3 months, 67% of wounds treated with B-VEC were also closed at 6 months, compared with 33% of those treated with placebo (P = .02). In other findings, a trend toward decreased pain was observed in wounds treated with B-VEC vs. those treated with placebo.

B-VEC was well tolerated with no treatment-related serious adverse events or discontinuations. Three patients experienced a total of five serious adverse events during the study: anemia (two events), and cellulitis, diarrhea, and positive blood culture (one event each). None were considered related to the study drug.

Dr. Guide, who is on staff at Children’s Health of Orange County, Orange, Calif., characterized B-VEC as “very novel because it’s very practical.”

To date, all treatments for DEB “have been extremely labor intensive, including skin grafting and hospitalizations. It’s a topical application that can be done in the office and potentially applied at home in the future. It’s also durable. Not only are the [treated] areas closing, but they are staying closed.”

Kalyani S. Marathe, MD, MPH, director of the dermatology division at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the study, said that topical application of B-VEC “allows the side effect profile to be very favorable. The results are remarkable in the amount of wound healing and reduction in pain.”

The tolerability of this medication “is crucial,” she added. “EB patients have a lot of pain from their wounds and so any treatment needs to be as painless as possible for it to be usable. I’m very excited about the next phase of studies for this medication and hopeful that it heralds new treatments for our EB patients.”

In June 2022, the manufacturer announced that it had submitted a biologics license application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of B-VEC for the treatment of DEB, and that it anticipates submitting an application for marketing authorization with the European Medical Agency (EMA) in the second half of 2022.

Dr. Guide disclosed that she has served as an investigator for Krystal Biotech, Innovaderm Research, Arcutis, Premier Research, Paidion, and Castle Biosciences. Dr. Marathe disclosed that she has served as an adviser for Verrica, and that Cincinnati Children’s Hospital is a site for the next phase studies for B-VEC.

*This story was updated on July 25. 

INDIANAPOLIS – An investigational topical treatment for dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) known as beremagene geperpavec (B-VEC) showed durable and statistically significant improvement in complete wound healing at 3 and 6 months compared with placebo, according to results from a small phase 3 study.

DEB is a serious, ultra-rare genetic blistering disease caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, encoding for type VII collagen and leading to skin fragility and wounds. No approved therapies are currently available. In the study, treatment was generally well tolerated.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“B-VEC is the first treatment that has not only been shown to be effective, but the first to directly target the defect through topical application,” the study’s principal investigator, Shireen V. Guide, MD, said in an interview during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “It delivers type VII collagen gene therapy to these patients, which allows healing in areas that they may have had open since birth. It’s been life-changing for them.”

B-VEC is a herpes simplex virus (HSV-1)-based topical, redosable gene therapy being developed by Krystal Biotech that is designed to restore functional COL7 protein by delivering the COL7A1 gene. For the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study known GEM-3, Dr. Guide, who practices dermatology in Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., and her colleagues, including Peter Marinkovich, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, and Mercedes Gonzalez, MD, from the University of Miami, enrolled 31 patients aged 6 months and older with genetically confirmed DEB. Each patient had one wound treated randomized 1:1 to treatment with B-VEC once a week or placebo for 6 months. The mean age of the 31 study participants was 17 years, 65% were male, 65% were White, and 19% were Asian.

The primary endpoint was complete wound healing (defined as 100% wound closure from exact wound area at baseline, specified as skin re-epithelialization without drainage) at 6 months. Additional endpoints included complete wound healing at 3 months and change in pain associated with wound dressing changes.

At 3 months, 70% of wounds treated with B-VEC met the endpoint of complete wound healing, compared with 20% of wounds treated with placebo (P < .005). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with B-VEC met the endpoint of complete wound healing compared with 22% of those treated with placebo (P < .005).

Of the total wounds that closed at 3 months, 67% of wounds treated with B-VEC were also closed at 6 months, compared with 33% of those treated with placebo (P = .02). In other findings, a trend toward decreased pain was observed in wounds treated with B-VEC vs. those treated with placebo.

B-VEC was well tolerated with no treatment-related serious adverse events or discontinuations. Three patients experienced a total of five serious adverse events during the study: anemia (two events), and cellulitis, diarrhea, and positive blood culture (one event each). None were considered related to the study drug.

Dr. Guide, who is on staff at Children’s Health of Orange County, Orange, Calif., characterized B-VEC as “very novel because it’s very practical.”

To date, all treatments for DEB “have been extremely labor intensive, including skin grafting and hospitalizations. It’s a topical application that can be done in the office and potentially applied at home in the future. It’s also durable. Not only are the [treated] areas closing, but they are staying closed.”

Kalyani S. Marathe, MD, MPH, director of the dermatology division at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the study, said that topical application of B-VEC “allows the side effect profile to be very favorable. The results are remarkable in the amount of wound healing and reduction in pain.”

The tolerability of this medication “is crucial,” she added. “EB patients have a lot of pain from their wounds and so any treatment needs to be as painless as possible for it to be usable. I’m very excited about the next phase of studies for this medication and hopeful that it heralds new treatments for our EB patients.”

In June 2022, the manufacturer announced that it had submitted a biologics license application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of B-VEC for the treatment of DEB, and that it anticipates submitting an application for marketing authorization with the European Medical Agency (EMA) in the second half of 2022.

Dr. Guide disclosed that she has served as an investigator for Krystal Biotech, Innovaderm Research, Arcutis, Premier Research, Paidion, and Castle Biosciences. Dr. Marathe disclosed that she has served as an adviser for Verrica, and that Cincinnati Children’s Hospital is a site for the next phase studies for B-VEC.

*This story was updated on July 25. 

Wide variation in the cost of common cardiovascular (CV) tests and procedures, from stress tests to coronary interventions, was revealed in a cross-sectional analysis based on publicly available data from 20 top-ranked hospitals in the United States.

The analysis also suggested a low level of compliance with the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule among the 20 centers.

“The variation we found in payer-negotiated prices for identical cardiovascular tests and procedures was stunning,” Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told this news organization.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

The researchers looked at payer and self-pay cash prices for noninvasive and invasive CV tests and procedures at the U.S. News & World Report 2021 top 20–ranked U.S. hospitals, based in part on Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Price differences among the hospitals were derived from median negotiated prices for each test and procedure at the centers across all payers. The interquartile ratio (IQR) of prices for each test or procedure across payers was used to evaluate within-hospital price variation.

“Only 80% of the hospitals reported prices for some cardiovascular tests and procedures,” Dr. Wadhera said. “For the most part, even among the hospitals that did report this information, it was extremely challenging to navigate and interpret the data provided.”

Further, the team found that only 7 of the 20 hospitals reported prices for all CV tests and procedures. Centers that did not post prices for some tests or procedures are named in the report’s Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The number of insurance plans listed for each test or procedure ranged from 1 to 432 in the analysis. Median prices ranged from $204 to $2,588 for an echocardiogram, $463 to $3,230 for a stress test, $2,821 to $9,382 for right heart catheterization, $2,868 to $9,203 for a coronary angiogram, $657 to $25,521 for a PCI, and $506 to $20,002 for pacemaker implantation, the report states.

A similar pattern was seen for self-pay cash prices.

Within-hospital variation also ranged broadly. For example, the widest IQR ranges were $3,143-$12,926 for a right heart catheterization, $4,011-$14,486 for a coronary angiogram, $11,325-$23,392 for a PCI, and $8,474-$22,694 for pacemaker implantation.

The report cites a number of limitations to the analysis, among those, the need to rely on the hospitals themselves for data quality and accuracy.
 

‘More needed besides transparency’

“As a means to better understand health care costs, many opined that full price transparency would leverage market dynamics and result in lower costs,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine, Chicago. The findings “by an expert group of outcomes scientists make clear that more is needed besides price transparency to lower cost,” he said in an interview.

That said, he added, “there are sufficient variations and allowances made for data collection that it is preferable to hold the current findings circumspect at best. Importantly, the voice of the hospitals does not appear.”

Although “price variation among the top 20 hospitals is substantial,” he observed, “without a better assessment of root cause, actual charge capture, prevailing market dynamics – especially nursing and ancillary staff costs – and the general influence of inflation, it is too difficult to emerge with a precise interpretation.”

Across the 20 hospitals, “there are likely to be 20 different business models,” he added, with negotiated prices reflecting “at least regional, if not institutional, variations.”

“These are complex issues. The several-fold price differences in standard procedures are a concern and an area worth further study with the intention of lowering health care costs,” Dr. Yancy said. “But clearly our next efforts should not address lowering prices per se but understanding how prices are set [and] the connection with reimbursement and actual payments.”

Dr. Wadhera discloses receiving personal fees from Abbott and CVS Health unrelated to the current study; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Yancy is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology.

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

Wide variation in the cost of common cardiovascular (CV) tests and procedures, from stress tests to coronary interventions, was revealed in a cross-sectional analysis based on publicly available data from 20 top-ranked hospitals in the United States.

The analysis also suggested a low level of compliance with the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule among the 20 centers.

“The variation we found in payer-negotiated prices for identical cardiovascular tests and procedures was stunning,” Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told this news organization.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

The researchers looked at payer and self-pay cash prices for noninvasive and invasive CV tests and procedures at the U.S. News & World Report 2021 top 20–ranked U.S. hospitals, based in part on Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Price differences among the hospitals were derived from median negotiated prices for each test and procedure at the centers across all payers. The interquartile ratio (IQR) of prices for each test or procedure across payers was used to evaluate within-hospital price variation.

“Only 80% of the hospitals reported prices for some cardiovascular tests and procedures,” Dr. Wadhera said. “For the most part, even among the hospitals that did report this information, it was extremely challenging to navigate and interpret the data provided.”

Further, the team found that only 7 of the 20 hospitals reported prices for all CV tests and procedures. Centers that did not post prices for some tests or procedures are named in the report’s Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The number of insurance plans listed for each test or procedure ranged from 1 to 432 in the analysis. Median prices ranged from $204 to $2,588 for an echocardiogram, $463 to $3,230 for a stress test, $2,821 to $9,382 for right heart catheterization, $2,868 to $9,203 for a coronary angiogram, $657 to $25,521 for a PCI, and $506 to $20,002 for pacemaker implantation, the report states.

A similar pattern was seen for self-pay cash prices.

Within-hospital variation also ranged broadly. For example, the widest IQR ranges were $3,143-$12,926 for a right heart catheterization, $4,011-$14,486 for a coronary angiogram, $11,325-$23,392 for a PCI, and $8,474-$22,694 for pacemaker implantation.

The report cites a number of limitations to the analysis, among those, the need to rely on the hospitals themselves for data quality and accuracy.
 

‘More needed besides transparency’

“As a means to better understand health care costs, many opined that full price transparency would leverage market dynamics and result in lower costs,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine, Chicago. The findings “by an expert group of outcomes scientists make clear that more is needed besides price transparency to lower cost,” he said in an interview.

That said, he added, “there are sufficient variations and allowances made for data collection that it is preferable to hold the current findings circumspect at best. Importantly, the voice of the hospitals does not appear.”

Although “price variation among the top 20 hospitals is substantial,” he observed, “without a better assessment of root cause, actual charge capture, prevailing market dynamics – especially nursing and ancillary staff costs – and the general influence of inflation, it is too difficult to emerge with a precise interpretation.”

Across the 20 hospitals, “there are likely to be 20 different business models,” he added, with negotiated prices reflecting “at least regional, if not institutional, variations.”

“These are complex issues. The several-fold price differences in standard procedures are a concern and an area worth further study with the intention of lowering health care costs,” Dr. Yancy said. “But clearly our next efforts should not address lowering prices per se but understanding how prices are set [and] the connection with reimbursement and actual payments.”

Dr. Wadhera discloses receiving personal fees from Abbott and CVS Health unrelated to the current study; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Yancy is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology.

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

Wide variation in the cost of common cardiovascular (CV) tests and procedures, from stress tests to coronary interventions, was revealed in a cross-sectional analysis based on publicly available data from 20 top-ranked hospitals in the United States.

The analysis also suggested a low level of compliance with the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule among the 20 centers.

“The variation we found in payer-negotiated prices for identical cardiovascular tests and procedures was stunning,” Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, told this news organization.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Difficulties with data, interpretation

The researchers looked at payer and self-pay cash prices for noninvasive and invasive CV tests and procedures at the U.S. News & World Report 2021 top 20–ranked U.S. hospitals, based in part on Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Price differences among the hospitals were derived from median negotiated prices for each test and procedure at the centers across all payers. The interquartile ratio (IQR) of prices for each test or procedure across payers was used to evaluate within-hospital price variation.

“Only 80% of the hospitals reported prices for some cardiovascular tests and procedures,” Dr. Wadhera said. “For the most part, even among the hospitals that did report this information, it was extremely challenging to navigate and interpret the data provided.”

Further, the team found that only 7 of the 20 hospitals reported prices for all CV tests and procedures. Centers that did not post prices for some tests or procedures are named in the report’s Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The number of insurance plans listed for each test or procedure ranged from 1 to 432 in the analysis. Median prices ranged from $204 to $2,588 for an echocardiogram, $463 to $3,230 for a stress test, $2,821 to $9,382 for right heart catheterization, $2,868 to $9,203 for a coronary angiogram, $657 to $25,521 for a PCI, and $506 to $20,002 for pacemaker implantation, the report states.

A similar pattern was seen for self-pay cash prices.

Within-hospital variation also ranged broadly. For example, the widest IQR ranges were $3,143-$12,926 for a right heart catheterization, $4,011-$14,486 for a coronary angiogram, $11,325-$23,392 for a PCI, and $8,474-$22,694 for pacemaker implantation.

The report cites a number of limitations to the analysis, among those, the need to rely on the hospitals themselves for data quality and accuracy.
 

‘More needed besides transparency’

“As a means to better understand health care costs, many opined that full price transparency would leverage market dynamics and result in lower costs,” observed Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine, Chicago. The findings “by an expert group of outcomes scientists make clear that more is needed besides price transparency to lower cost,” he said in an interview.

That said, he added, “there are sufficient variations and allowances made for data collection that it is preferable to hold the current findings circumspect at best. Importantly, the voice of the hospitals does not appear.”

Although “price variation among the top 20 hospitals is substantial,” he observed, “without a better assessment of root cause, actual charge capture, prevailing market dynamics – especially nursing and ancillary staff costs – and the general influence of inflation, it is too difficult to emerge with a precise interpretation.”

Across the 20 hospitals, “there are likely to be 20 different business models,” he added, with negotiated prices reflecting “at least regional, if not institutional, variations.”

“These are complex issues. The several-fold price differences in standard procedures are a concern and an area worth further study with the intention of lowering health care costs,” Dr. Yancy said. “But clearly our next efforts should not address lowering prices per se but understanding how prices are set [and] the connection with reimbursement and actual payments.”

Dr. Wadhera discloses receiving personal fees from Abbott and CVS Health unrelated to the current study; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Yancy is deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology.

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

A U.S. neuroscientist claims that some of the studies of the experimental agent, simufilam (Cassava Sciences), a drug that targets amyloid beta (Abeta) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), are flawed, and, as a result, has taken his concerns to the National Institutes of Health.

Matthew Schrag, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., uncovered what he calls inconsistencies in major studies examining the drug.

In a whistleblower report to the NIH about the drug, Dr. Schrag claims that several prominent investigators altered images and reused them over years to support the hypothesis that buildup of amyloid in the brain causes AD. The NIH has funded research into Abeta as a potential cause of AD to the tune of millions of dollars for years.

“This hypothesis has been the central dominant thinking of the field,” Dr. Schrag told this news organization. “A lot of the therapies that have been developed and tested clinically over the last decade focused on the amyloid hypothesis in one formulation or another. So, it’s an important component of the way we think about Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In an in-depth article published in Science and written by investigative reporter Charles Piller, Dr. Schrag said he became involved after a colleague suggested he work with an attorney investigating simufilam. The lawyer paid Dr. Schrag $18,000 to investigate the research behind the agent. Cassava Sciences denies any misconduct, according to the article.

Dr. Schrag ran many AD studies through sophisticated imaging software. The effort revealed multiple Western blot images – which scientists use to detect the presence and amount of proteins in a sample – that appeared to be altered.
 

High stakes

Dr. Schrag found “apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles,” the Science article states.

“A lot is at stake in terms of getting this right and it’s also important to acknowledge the limitations of what we can do. We were working with what’s published, what’s publicly available, and I think that it raises quite a lot of red flags, but we’ve also not reviewed the original material because it’s simply not available to us,” Dr. Schrag said in an interview.

However, he added that despite these limitations he believes “there’s enough here that it’s important for regulatory bodies to take a closer look at it to make sure that the data is right.”

Science reports that it launched its own independent review, asking several neuroscience experts to also review the research. They agreed with Dr. Schrag’s overall conclusions that something was amiss.

Many of the studies questioned in the whistleblower report involve Sylvain Lesné, PhD, who runs The Lesné Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and is an associate professor of neuroscience. His colleague Karen Ashe, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the same institution, was also mentioned in the whistleblower report. She was coauthor of a 2006 report in Nature that identified an Abeta subtype as a potential culprit behind AD.

This news organization reached out to Dr. Lesné and Dr. Ashe for comment, but has not received a response.

However, an email from a University of Minnesota spokesperson said the institution is “aware that questions have arisen regarding certain images used in peer-reviewed research publications authored by University faculty Dr. Ashe and Dr. Lesné. The University will follow its processes to review the questions any claims have raised. At this time, we have no further information to provide.”
 

A matter of trust

Dr. Schrag noted the “important trust relationship between patients, physicians and scientists. When we’re exploring diseases that we don’t have good treatments for.” He added that when patients agree to participate in trials and accept the associated risks, “we owe them a very high degree of integrity regarding the foundational data.”

Dr. Schrag also pointed out that there are limited resources to study these diseases. “There is some potential for that to be misdirected. It’s important for us to pay attention to data integrity issues, to make sure that we’re investing in the right places.”

The term “fraud” does not appear in Dr. Schrag’s whistleblower report, nor does he claim misconduct in the report. However, his work has spurred some independent, ongoing investigation into the claims by several journals that published the works in question, including Nature and Science Signaling.

Dr. Schrag said that if his findings are validated through an investigation he would like to see the scientific record corrected.

“Ultimately, I’d like to see a new set of hypotheses given a chance to look at this disease from a new perspective,” he added.

Dr. Schrag noted that the work described in the Science article was performed outside of his employment with Vanderbilt University Medical Center and that his opinions do not necessarily represent the views of Vanderbilt University or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 

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

A U.S. neuroscientist claims that some of the studies of the experimental agent, simufilam (Cassava Sciences), a drug that targets amyloid beta (Abeta) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), are flawed, and, as a result, has taken his concerns to the National Institutes of Health.

Matthew Schrag, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., uncovered what he calls inconsistencies in major studies examining the drug.

In a whistleblower report to the NIH about the drug, Dr. Schrag claims that several prominent investigators altered images and reused them over years to support the hypothesis that buildup of amyloid in the brain causes AD. The NIH has funded research into Abeta as a potential cause of AD to the tune of millions of dollars for years.

“This hypothesis has been the central dominant thinking of the field,” Dr. Schrag told this news organization. “A lot of the therapies that have been developed and tested clinically over the last decade focused on the amyloid hypothesis in one formulation or another. So, it’s an important component of the way we think about Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In an in-depth article published in Science and written by investigative reporter Charles Piller, Dr. Schrag said he became involved after a colleague suggested he work with an attorney investigating simufilam. The lawyer paid Dr. Schrag $18,000 to investigate the research behind the agent. Cassava Sciences denies any misconduct, according to the article.

Dr. Schrag ran many AD studies through sophisticated imaging software. The effort revealed multiple Western blot images – which scientists use to detect the presence and amount of proteins in a sample – that appeared to be altered.
 

High stakes

Dr. Schrag found “apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles,” the Science article states.

“A lot is at stake in terms of getting this right and it’s also important to acknowledge the limitations of what we can do. We were working with what’s published, what’s publicly available, and I think that it raises quite a lot of red flags, but we’ve also not reviewed the original material because it’s simply not available to us,” Dr. Schrag said in an interview.

However, he added that despite these limitations he believes “there’s enough here that it’s important for regulatory bodies to take a closer look at it to make sure that the data is right.”

Science reports that it launched its own independent review, asking several neuroscience experts to also review the research. They agreed with Dr. Schrag’s overall conclusions that something was amiss.

Many of the studies questioned in the whistleblower report involve Sylvain Lesné, PhD, who runs The Lesné Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and is an associate professor of neuroscience. His colleague Karen Ashe, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the same institution, was also mentioned in the whistleblower report. She was coauthor of a 2006 report in Nature that identified an Abeta subtype as a potential culprit behind AD.

This news organization reached out to Dr. Lesné and Dr. Ashe for comment, but has not received a response.

However, an email from a University of Minnesota spokesperson said the institution is “aware that questions have arisen regarding certain images used in peer-reviewed research publications authored by University faculty Dr. Ashe and Dr. Lesné. The University will follow its processes to review the questions any claims have raised. At this time, we have no further information to provide.”
 

A matter of trust

Dr. Schrag noted the “important trust relationship between patients, physicians and scientists. When we’re exploring diseases that we don’t have good treatments for.” He added that when patients agree to participate in trials and accept the associated risks, “we owe them a very high degree of integrity regarding the foundational data.”

Dr. Schrag also pointed out that there are limited resources to study these diseases. “There is some potential for that to be misdirected. It’s important for us to pay attention to data integrity issues, to make sure that we’re investing in the right places.”

The term “fraud” does not appear in Dr. Schrag’s whistleblower report, nor does he claim misconduct in the report. However, his work has spurred some independent, ongoing investigation into the claims by several journals that published the works in question, including Nature and Science Signaling.

Dr. Schrag said that if his findings are validated through an investigation he would like to see the scientific record corrected.

“Ultimately, I’d like to see a new set of hypotheses given a chance to look at this disease from a new perspective,” he added.

Dr. Schrag noted that the work described in the Science article was performed outside of his employment with Vanderbilt University Medical Center and that his opinions do not necessarily represent the views of Vanderbilt University or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 

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

A U.S. neuroscientist claims that some of the studies of the experimental agent, simufilam (Cassava Sciences), a drug that targets amyloid beta (Abeta) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), are flawed, and, as a result, has taken his concerns to the National Institutes of Health.

Matthew Schrag, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., uncovered what he calls inconsistencies in major studies examining the drug.

In a whistleblower report to the NIH about the drug, Dr. Schrag claims that several prominent investigators altered images and reused them over years to support the hypothesis that buildup of amyloid in the brain causes AD. The NIH has funded research into Abeta as a potential cause of AD to the tune of millions of dollars for years.

“This hypothesis has been the central dominant thinking of the field,” Dr. Schrag told this news organization. “A lot of the therapies that have been developed and tested clinically over the last decade focused on the amyloid hypothesis in one formulation or another. So, it’s an important component of the way we think about Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In an in-depth article published in Science and written by investigative reporter Charles Piller, Dr. Schrag said he became involved after a colleague suggested he work with an attorney investigating simufilam. The lawyer paid Dr. Schrag $18,000 to investigate the research behind the agent. Cassava Sciences denies any misconduct, according to the article.

Dr. Schrag ran many AD studies through sophisticated imaging software. The effort revealed multiple Western blot images – which scientists use to detect the presence and amount of proteins in a sample – that appeared to be altered.
 

High stakes

Dr. Schrag found “apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles,” the Science article states.

“A lot is at stake in terms of getting this right and it’s also important to acknowledge the limitations of what we can do. We were working with what’s published, what’s publicly available, and I think that it raises quite a lot of red flags, but we’ve also not reviewed the original material because it’s simply not available to us,” Dr. Schrag said in an interview.

However, he added that despite these limitations he believes “there’s enough here that it’s important for regulatory bodies to take a closer look at it to make sure that the data is right.”

Science reports that it launched its own independent review, asking several neuroscience experts to also review the research. They agreed with Dr. Schrag’s overall conclusions that something was amiss.

Many of the studies questioned in the whistleblower report involve Sylvain Lesné, PhD, who runs The Lesné Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and is an associate professor of neuroscience. His colleague Karen Ashe, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the same institution, was also mentioned in the whistleblower report. She was coauthor of a 2006 report in Nature that identified an Abeta subtype as a potential culprit behind AD.

This news organization reached out to Dr. Lesné and Dr. Ashe for comment, but has not received a response.

However, an email from a University of Minnesota spokesperson said the institution is “aware that questions have arisen regarding certain images used in peer-reviewed research publications authored by University faculty Dr. Ashe and Dr. Lesné. The University will follow its processes to review the questions any claims have raised. At this time, we have no further information to provide.”
 

A matter of trust

Dr. Schrag noted the “important trust relationship between patients, physicians and scientists. When we’re exploring diseases that we don’t have good treatments for.” He added that when patients agree to participate in trials and accept the associated risks, “we owe them a very high degree of integrity regarding the foundational data.”

Dr. Schrag also pointed out that there are limited resources to study these diseases. “There is some potential for that to be misdirected. It’s important for us to pay attention to data integrity issues, to make sure that we’re investing in the right places.”

The term “fraud” does not appear in Dr. Schrag’s whistleblower report, nor does he claim misconduct in the report. However, his work has spurred some independent, ongoing investigation into the claims by several journals that published the works in question, including Nature and Science Signaling.

Dr. Schrag said that if his findings are validated through an investigation he would like to see the scientific record corrected.

“Ultimately, I’d like to see a new set of hypotheses given a chance to look at this disease from a new perspective,” he added.

Dr. Schrag noted that the work described in the Science article was performed outside of his employment with Vanderbilt University Medical Center and that his opinions do not necessarily represent the views of Vanderbilt University or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 

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

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.

A U.S. study describes the immune response to COVID-19 infection that damages the brain’s blood vessels and may lead to short- and long-term neurologic symptoms.

It seems that the virus does not infect the brain directly. The scientists found evidence that antibodies – proteins produced by the immune system in response to viruses and other invaders – are involved in an attack on the cells lining the brain’s blood vessels, leading to inflammation and damage. The study was published in the journal Brain.
 

Brain tissue autopsy

“Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood,” Avindra Nath, MD, stated in a National Institutes of Health news release. Dr. Nath, who specializes in neuroimmunology, is the clinical director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the senior author of the study. “We had previously shown blood vessel damage and inflammation in patients’ brains at autopsy, but we didn’t understand the cause of the damage. I think in this paper we’ve gained important insight into the cascade of events.”

In this study, Dr. Nath and his team examined brain tissue from a subset of patients from their previous study. The nine individuals, ages 24-73 years, died shortly after contracting COVID-19. They were chosen because structural brain scans showed signs of blood vessel damage in the brain. The samples were compared with those from 10 controls. The team looked at neuroinflammation and immune responses using immunohistochemistry.

As in their earlier study, researchers found signs of leaky blood vessels based on the presence of blood proteins that normally do not cross the blood-brain barrier. This suggests that the tight junctions between the endothelial cells in the blood-brain barrier have been damaged.
 

Neurologic symptoms’ molecular basis

Dr. Nath and his colleagues discovered deposits of immune complexes on the surface of the cells. This finding is evidence that damage to endothelial cells was likely due to an immune response.

These observations suggest an antibody-mediated attack that activates endothelial cells. When endothelial cells are activated, they express proteins called adhesion molecules that cause platelets to stick together.

“Activation of the endothelial cells brings platelets that stick to the blood vessel walls, causing clots to form and leakage to occur. At the same time, the tight junctions between the endothelial cells get disrupted, causing them to leak,” Dr. Nath explained. “Once leakage occurs, immune cells such as macrophages may come to repair the damage, setting up inflammation. This, in turn, causes damage to neurons.”

Researchers found that in areas with damage to the endothelial cells, more than 300 genes showed decreased expression, whereas six genes were increased. These genes were associated with oxidative stress, DNA damage, and metabolic dysregulation. As the NIH news release notes, this may provide clues to the molecular basis of neurologic symptoms related to COVID-19 and offer potential therapeutic targets.

Together, these findings give insight into the immune response damaging the brain after COVID-19 infection. But it remains unclear what antigen the immune response is targeting, because the virus itself was not detected in the brain. It is possible that antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could bind to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor used by the virus to enter cells. More research is needed to explore this hypothesis.
 

‘Brain fog’ explained?

The study may also have implications for understanding and treating long-term neurologic symptoms after COVID-19, which include headache, fatigue, loss of taste and smell, sleep problems, and “brain fog.” Had the patients in the study survived, the researchers believe they would likely have developed long COVID.

“It is quite possible that this same immune response persists in long COVID patients, resulting in neuronal injury,” said Dr. Nath. “There could be a small, indolent immune response that is continuing, which means that immune-modulating therapies might help these patients. So, these findings have very important therapeutic implications.”

The results suggest that treatments designed to prevent the development of the immune complexes observed in the study could be potential therapies for post-COVID neurologic symptoms.

This study was supported by the NINDS Division of Intramural Research (NS003130) and K23NS109284, the Roy J. Carver Foundation, and the Iowa Neuroscience Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape French edition.

As the number of monkeypox cases keeps growing, a discussion has opened on whether it should be considered a sexually transmitted disease like herpes, gonorrhea, or HIV.

Monkeypox is almost always spread through skin-to-skin contact and, in the West, many of the cases have occurred among men who have sex with men.

But health experts say that doesn’t make it an STD – at least not in “the classic sense.”

“Monkeypox is not a sexually transmitted disease in the classic sense (by which it’s spread in the semen or vaginal fluids), but it is spread by close physical contact with lesions,” infectious diseases expert Robert L. Murphy, MD, of Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, said in a news release.

He said the current monkeypox outbreak was more like a meningitis outbreak among gay men a few years ago.

Rowland Kao, PhD, a professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, said that an “STD is one where intimate, sexual contact is critical to the transmission – where sexual acts are central to the transmission,” Newsweek reported.

“Some infections are transmitted by any type of close contact, of which sexual activity is one. Monkeypox is one of those – it’s the close contact that matters, not the sexual activity itself.”

But calling monkeypox an STD could deter measures to limit its spread, another expert told Newsweek.

“My uneasiness about labeling it as an STD is that for most STDs, wearing a condom or avoiding penetration or direct oral-anal/oral-genital contact is a good way of preventing transmission,” said Paul Hunter, MD, a professor of health protection at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.

“But for monkeypox, even just naked cuddling is a big risk. So labeling it an STD could actually work against control if people felt they just had to wear a condom.”

Denise Dewald, MD, a pediatric specialist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said monkeypox is not an STD – but it could become an entrenched virus.

“Monkeypox will become established in the pediatric and general population and will transmit through daycares and schools,” she tweeted. “It is not an STD. It is like MRSA. This isn’t rocket science.”

One thing is certain: More and more people are getting monkeypox. It’s been endemic in Western and Central Africa for years, and cases in Europe and North America were identified in May.

Globally, more than 14,000 cases have been identified, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on July 20, according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Five people in Africa have died. In the United Kingdom, more than 2,100 cases have been identified.

In the United States, more than 2,500 confirmed monkeypox cases have been detected, with cases reported from every state except Alaska, Maine, Montana, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wyoming, the CDC said on July 21.

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

As the number of monkeypox cases keeps growing, a discussion has opened on whether it should be considered a sexually transmitted disease like herpes, gonorrhea, or HIV.

Monkeypox is almost always spread through skin-to-skin contact and, in the West, many of the cases have occurred among men who have sex with men.

But health experts say that doesn’t make it an STD – at least not in “the classic sense.”

“Monkeypox is not a sexually transmitted disease in the classic sense (by which it’s spread in the semen or vaginal fluids), but it is spread by close physical contact with lesions,” infectious diseases expert Robert L. Murphy, MD, of Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, said in a news release.

He said the current monkeypox outbreak was more like a meningitis outbreak among gay men a few years ago.

Rowland Kao, PhD, a professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, said that an “STD is one where intimate, sexual contact is critical to the transmission – where sexual acts are central to the transmission,” Newsweek reported.

“Some infections are transmitted by any type of close contact, of which sexual activity is one. Monkeypox is one of those – it’s the close contact that matters, not the sexual activity itself.”

But calling monkeypox an STD could deter measures to limit its spread, another expert told Newsweek.

“My uneasiness about labeling it as an STD is that for most STDs, wearing a condom or avoiding penetration or direct oral-anal/oral-genital contact is a good way of preventing transmission,” said Paul Hunter, MD, a professor of health protection at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.

“But for monkeypox, even just naked cuddling is a big risk. So labeling it an STD could actually work against control if people felt they just had to wear a condom.”

Denise Dewald, MD, a pediatric specialist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said monkeypox is not an STD – but it could become an entrenched virus.

“Monkeypox will become established in the pediatric and general population and will transmit through daycares and schools,” she tweeted. “It is not an STD. It is like MRSA. This isn’t rocket science.”

One thing is certain: More and more people are getting monkeypox. It’s been endemic in Western and Central Africa for years, and cases in Europe and North America were identified in May.

Globally, more than 14,000 cases have been identified, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on July 20, according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Five people in Africa have died. In the United Kingdom, more than 2,100 cases have been identified.

In the United States, more than 2,500 confirmed monkeypox cases have been detected, with cases reported from every state except Alaska, Maine, Montana, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wyoming, the CDC said on July 21.

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

As the number of monkeypox cases keeps growing, a discussion has opened on whether it should be considered a sexually transmitted disease like herpes, gonorrhea, or HIV.

Monkeypox is almost always spread through skin-to-skin contact and, in the West, many of the cases have occurred among men who have sex with men.

But health experts say that doesn’t make it an STD – at least not in “the classic sense.”

“Monkeypox is not a sexually transmitted disease in the classic sense (by which it’s spread in the semen or vaginal fluids), but it is spread by close physical contact with lesions,” infectious diseases expert Robert L. Murphy, MD, of Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, said in a news release.

He said the current monkeypox outbreak was more like a meningitis outbreak among gay men a few years ago.

Rowland Kao, PhD, a professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, said that an “STD is one where intimate, sexual contact is critical to the transmission – where sexual acts are central to the transmission,” Newsweek reported.

“Some infections are transmitted by any type of close contact, of which sexual activity is one. Monkeypox is one of those – it’s the close contact that matters, not the sexual activity itself.”

But calling monkeypox an STD could deter measures to limit its spread, another expert told Newsweek.

“My uneasiness about labeling it as an STD is that for most STDs, wearing a condom or avoiding penetration or direct oral-anal/oral-genital contact is a good way of preventing transmission,” said Paul Hunter, MD, a professor of health protection at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England.

“But for monkeypox, even just naked cuddling is a big risk. So labeling it an STD could actually work against control if people felt they just had to wear a condom.”

Denise Dewald, MD, a pediatric specialist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said monkeypox is not an STD – but it could become an entrenched virus.

“Monkeypox will become established in the pediatric and general population and will transmit through daycares and schools,” she tweeted. “It is not an STD. It is like MRSA. This isn’t rocket science.”

One thing is certain: More and more people are getting monkeypox. It’s been endemic in Western and Central Africa for years, and cases in Europe and North America were identified in May.

Globally, more than 14,000 cases have been identified, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on July 20, according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Five people in Africa have died. In the United Kingdom, more than 2,100 cases have been identified.

In the United States, more than 2,500 confirmed monkeypox cases have been detected, with cases reported from every state except Alaska, Maine, Montana, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wyoming, the CDC said on July 21.

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

Four days is an optimal time for wireless reflux monitoring to determine which patients can stop taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and which ones need long-term antireflux therapy, researchers report.

“This first-of-its kind double-blinded clinical trial demonstrates the comparable, and in some cases better, performance of a simple assessment of daily acid exposure from multiple days of recording compared to other composite or complex assessments,” write Rena Yadlapati, MD, with the Division of Gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, and her coauthors.

Their findings were published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

A substantial percentage of patients who have esophageal reflux symptoms do not have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and can stop taking PPIs.

Wireless reflux monitoring performed while patients are not taking PPIs is the gold standard for determining whether a patient has abnormal acid from GERD, but the optimal daily acid exposure time (AET) and the optimal duration of monitoring have not been well studied.

Aiming to fill this knowledge gap, Dr. Yadlapati and her colleagues conducted a single-arm, double-blinded clinical trial over 4 years at two tertiary care centers. They enrolled adult patients who had demonstrated an inadequate response to more than 8 weeks’ treatment with PPIs.

Study participants were asked to stop taking their PPI for 3 weeks in order for the investigators to determine the rate of relapse after PPI use and establish the study reference standard to discontinue therapy. During the 3-week period, after having stopped taking PPIs for at least a week, patients underwent 96-hour wireless reflux monitoring. They were then told to continue not taking PPIs for an additional 2 weeks. They could use over-the-counter antacids for symptom relief.

The primary outcome was whether PPIs could be successfully discontinued or restarted within 3 weeks. Of the 132 patients, 30% were able to stop taking PPIs.
 

AET less than 4.0% best discontinuation predictor

The team came to two key conclusions.

They found that acid exposure time of less than 4.0% was the best predictor of when stopping PPIs will be effective without worsening symptoms (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-6.4). Comparatively, 45% (22 of 49 patients) with total AET of 4.0% or less discontinued taking PPIs, versus 22% (18 of 83 patients) with total AET of more than 4.0%.

Additionally, the investigators concluded that 96 hours of monitoring was better than 48 hours or fewer in predicting whether patients could stop taking PPIs (area under curve [AUC] for 96 hours, 0.63, versus AUC for 48 hours, 0.57).

Dr. Yadlapati told this news organization that the findings should be practice-changing.

“You really need to test for 4 days,” she said. She noted that the battery life of the monitor is 96 hours, and clinicians commonly only test for 2 days.

With only 1-2 days of monitoring, there is too much variability in how much acid is in the esophagus from one day to another. Monitoring over a 4-day period gives a clearer picture of acid exposure burden, she said.

Her advice: “If you have a patient with heartburn or chest pain and you think it might be from reflux, and they’re not responding to a trial of PPI, get the reflux monitoring. Don’t wait.”

After 4 days of monitoring, if exposure to acid is low, “they should really be taken off their PPI therapy,” she said.

They likely have a condition that requires a different therapy, she added.

“It is very consistent with what we have thought to be the case and what some lower-quality studies have shown,” she said. “It just hadn’t been done in a clinical trial with a large patient population and with a full outcome.”
 

PPI often used inappropriately

Interest is high both in discontinuing PPI in light of widespread and often inappropriate use and in not starting treatment with PPIs for patients who need a different therapy.

As this news organization has reported, some studies have linked long-term PPI use with intestinal infections, pneumonia, stomach cancer, osteoporosis-related bone fractures, chronic kidney disease, vitamin deficiencies, heart attacks, strokes, dementia, and early death.

Avin Aggarwal, MD, a gastroenterologist and medical director of Banner Health’s South Campus endoscopy services and clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview that this study provides the evidence needed to push for practice change.

He said his center has been using 48-hour reflux monitoring. He said that anecdotally, they had gotten better data with 4-day monitoring, but evidence was not directly tied to a measurable outcome such as this study provides.

With 4-day monitoring, “we get way more symptoms on the recorder to actually correlate them with reflux or not,” he said.

He said he will now push for the 96-hour monitoring in his clinic.

He added that part of the problem is in assuming patients have GERD and initiating PPIs in the first place without a specific diagnosis of acid reflux.

Patients, he said, are often aware of the long-term side effects of PPIs and are approaching their physicians to see whether they can discontinue them.

The data from this study, he said, will help guide physicians on when it is appropriate to discontinue treatment.

Dr. Yadlapati is a consultant for Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, and StatLinkMD and receives research support from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. She is on the advisory board with stock options for RJS Mediagnostix. Other study coauthors report ties to Medtronic, Diversatek, Ironwood, Iso-Thrive, Quintiles, Johnson & Johnson, Reckitt, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Daewood, Takeda, and Crospon. Study coauthor Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PHD, holds a patent on mucosal integrity by Vanderbilt. Dr. Aggarwal reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four days is an optimal time for wireless reflux monitoring to determine which patients can stop taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and which ones need long-term antireflux therapy, researchers report.

“This first-of-its kind double-blinded clinical trial demonstrates the comparable, and in some cases better, performance of a simple assessment of daily acid exposure from multiple days of recording compared to other composite or complex assessments,” write Rena Yadlapati, MD, with the Division of Gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, and her coauthors.

Their findings were published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

A substantial percentage of patients who have esophageal reflux symptoms do not have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and can stop taking PPIs.

Wireless reflux monitoring performed while patients are not taking PPIs is the gold standard for determining whether a patient has abnormal acid from GERD, but the optimal daily acid exposure time (AET) and the optimal duration of monitoring have not been well studied.

Aiming to fill this knowledge gap, Dr. Yadlapati and her colleagues conducted a single-arm, double-blinded clinical trial over 4 years at two tertiary care centers. They enrolled adult patients who had demonstrated an inadequate response to more than 8 weeks’ treatment with PPIs.

Study participants were asked to stop taking their PPI for 3 weeks in order for the investigators to determine the rate of relapse after PPI use and establish the study reference standard to discontinue therapy. During the 3-week period, after having stopped taking PPIs for at least a week, patients underwent 96-hour wireless reflux monitoring. They were then told to continue not taking PPIs for an additional 2 weeks. They could use over-the-counter antacids for symptom relief.

The primary outcome was whether PPIs could be successfully discontinued or restarted within 3 weeks. Of the 132 patients, 30% were able to stop taking PPIs.
 

AET less than 4.0% best discontinuation predictor

The team came to two key conclusions.

They found that acid exposure time of less than 4.0% was the best predictor of when stopping PPIs will be effective without worsening symptoms (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-6.4). Comparatively, 45% (22 of 49 patients) with total AET of 4.0% or less discontinued taking PPIs, versus 22% (18 of 83 patients) with total AET of more than 4.0%.

Additionally, the investigators concluded that 96 hours of monitoring was better than 48 hours or fewer in predicting whether patients could stop taking PPIs (area under curve [AUC] for 96 hours, 0.63, versus AUC for 48 hours, 0.57).

Dr. Yadlapati told this news organization that the findings should be practice-changing.

“You really need to test for 4 days,” she said. She noted that the battery life of the monitor is 96 hours, and clinicians commonly only test for 2 days.

With only 1-2 days of monitoring, there is too much variability in how much acid is in the esophagus from one day to another. Monitoring over a 4-day period gives a clearer picture of acid exposure burden, she said.

Her advice: “If you have a patient with heartburn or chest pain and you think it might be from reflux, and they’re not responding to a trial of PPI, get the reflux monitoring. Don’t wait.”

After 4 days of monitoring, if exposure to acid is low, “they should really be taken off their PPI therapy,” she said.

They likely have a condition that requires a different therapy, she added.

“It is very consistent with what we have thought to be the case and what some lower-quality studies have shown,” she said. “It just hadn’t been done in a clinical trial with a large patient population and with a full outcome.”
 

PPI often used inappropriately

Interest is high both in discontinuing PPI in light of widespread and often inappropriate use and in not starting treatment with PPIs for patients who need a different therapy.

As this news organization has reported, some studies have linked long-term PPI use with intestinal infections, pneumonia, stomach cancer, osteoporosis-related bone fractures, chronic kidney disease, vitamin deficiencies, heart attacks, strokes, dementia, and early death.

Avin Aggarwal, MD, a gastroenterologist and medical director of Banner Health’s South Campus endoscopy services and clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview that this study provides the evidence needed to push for practice change.

He said his center has been using 48-hour reflux monitoring. He said that anecdotally, they had gotten better data with 4-day monitoring, but evidence was not directly tied to a measurable outcome such as this study provides.

With 4-day monitoring, “we get way more symptoms on the recorder to actually correlate them with reflux or not,” he said.

He said he will now push for the 96-hour monitoring in his clinic.

He added that part of the problem is in assuming patients have GERD and initiating PPIs in the first place without a specific diagnosis of acid reflux.

Patients, he said, are often aware of the long-term side effects of PPIs and are approaching their physicians to see whether they can discontinue them.

The data from this study, he said, will help guide physicians on when it is appropriate to discontinue treatment.

Dr. Yadlapati is a consultant for Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, and StatLinkMD and receives research support from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. She is on the advisory board with stock options for RJS Mediagnostix. Other study coauthors report ties to Medtronic, Diversatek, Ironwood, Iso-Thrive, Quintiles, Johnson & Johnson, Reckitt, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Daewood, Takeda, and Crospon. Study coauthor Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PHD, holds a patent on mucosal integrity by Vanderbilt. Dr. Aggarwal reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four days is an optimal time for wireless reflux monitoring to determine which patients can stop taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and which ones need long-term antireflux therapy, researchers report.

“This first-of-its kind double-blinded clinical trial demonstrates the comparable, and in some cases better, performance of a simple assessment of daily acid exposure from multiple days of recording compared to other composite or complex assessments,” write Rena Yadlapati, MD, with the Division of Gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, and her coauthors.

Their findings were published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

A substantial percentage of patients who have esophageal reflux symptoms do not have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and can stop taking PPIs.

Wireless reflux monitoring performed while patients are not taking PPIs is the gold standard for determining whether a patient has abnormal acid from GERD, but the optimal daily acid exposure time (AET) and the optimal duration of monitoring have not been well studied.

Aiming to fill this knowledge gap, Dr. Yadlapati and her colleagues conducted a single-arm, double-blinded clinical trial over 4 years at two tertiary care centers. They enrolled adult patients who had demonstrated an inadequate response to more than 8 weeks’ treatment with PPIs.

Study participants were asked to stop taking their PPI for 3 weeks in order for the investigators to determine the rate of relapse after PPI use and establish the study reference standard to discontinue therapy. During the 3-week period, after having stopped taking PPIs for at least a week, patients underwent 96-hour wireless reflux monitoring. They were then told to continue not taking PPIs for an additional 2 weeks. They could use over-the-counter antacids for symptom relief.

The primary outcome was whether PPIs could be successfully discontinued or restarted within 3 weeks. Of the 132 patients, 30% were able to stop taking PPIs.
 

AET less than 4.0% best discontinuation predictor

The team came to two key conclusions.

They found that acid exposure time of less than 4.0% was the best predictor of when stopping PPIs will be effective without worsening symptoms (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-6.4). Comparatively, 45% (22 of 49 patients) with total AET of 4.0% or less discontinued taking PPIs, versus 22% (18 of 83 patients) with total AET of more than 4.0%.

Additionally, the investigators concluded that 96 hours of monitoring was better than 48 hours or fewer in predicting whether patients could stop taking PPIs (area under curve [AUC] for 96 hours, 0.63, versus AUC for 48 hours, 0.57).

Dr. Yadlapati told this news organization that the findings should be practice-changing.

“You really need to test for 4 days,” she said. She noted that the battery life of the monitor is 96 hours, and clinicians commonly only test for 2 days.

With only 1-2 days of monitoring, there is too much variability in how much acid is in the esophagus from one day to another. Monitoring over a 4-day period gives a clearer picture of acid exposure burden, she said.

Her advice: “If you have a patient with heartburn or chest pain and you think it might be from reflux, and they’re not responding to a trial of PPI, get the reflux monitoring. Don’t wait.”

After 4 days of monitoring, if exposure to acid is low, “they should really be taken off their PPI therapy,” she said.

They likely have a condition that requires a different therapy, she added.

“It is very consistent with what we have thought to be the case and what some lower-quality studies have shown,” she said. “It just hadn’t been done in a clinical trial with a large patient population and with a full outcome.”
 

PPI often used inappropriately

Interest is high both in discontinuing PPI in light of widespread and often inappropriate use and in not starting treatment with PPIs for patients who need a different therapy.

As this news organization has reported, some studies have linked long-term PPI use with intestinal infections, pneumonia, stomach cancer, osteoporosis-related bone fractures, chronic kidney disease, vitamin deficiencies, heart attacks, strokes, dementia, and early death.

Avin Aggarwal, MD, a gastroenterologist and medical director of Banner Health’s South Campus endoscopy services and clinical assistant professor at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview that this study provides the evidence needed to push for practice change.

He said his center has been using 48-hour reflux monitoring. He said that anecdotally, they had gotten better data with 4-day monitoring, but evidence was not directly tied to a measurable outcome such as this study provides.

With 4-day monitoring, “we get way more symptoms on the recorder to actually correlate them with reflux or not,” he said.

He said he will now push for the 96-hour monitoring in his clinic.

He added that part of the problem is in assuming patients have GERD and initiating PPIs in the first place without a specific diagnosis of acid reflux.

Patients, he said, are often aware of the long-term side effects of PPIs and are approaching their physicians to see whether they can discontinue them.

The data from this study, he said, will help guide physicians on when it is appropriate to discontinue treatment.

Dr. Yadlapati is a consultant for Medtronic, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, and StatLinkMD and receives research support from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. She is on the advisory board with stock options for RJS Mediagnostix. Other study coauthors report ties to Medtronic, Diversatek, Ironwood, Iso-Thrive, Quintiles, Johnson & Johnson, Reckitt, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Daewood, Takeda, and Crospon. Study coauthor Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PHD, holds a patent on mucosal integrity by Vanderbilt. Dr. Aggarwal reports no relevant financial relationships.

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