User login
Why our brains wear out at the end of the day
The transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
Once again, we’re doing an informal journal club to talk about a really interesting study, “A Neuro-metabolic Account of Why Daylong Cognitive Work Alters the Control of Economic Decisions,” that just came out. It tries to answer the question of why our brains wear out. I’m going to put myself in the corner here. Let’s walk through this study, which appears in Current Biology, by lead author Antonius Wiehler from Paris.
The big question is what’s going on with cognitive fatigue. If you look at chess players who are exerting a lot of cognitive effort, it’s well documented that over hours of play, they get worse and make more mistakes. It takes them longer to make decisions. The question is, why?
Why does your brain get tired?
To date, it’s been a little bit hard to tease that out. Now, there is some suggestion of what is responsible for this. The cognitive control center of the brain is probably somewhere in the left lateral prefrontal cortex (LLPC).
The prefrontal cortex is responsible for higher-level thinking. It’s what causes you to be inhibited. It gets shut off by alcohol and leads to impulsive behaviors. The LLPC, according to functional MRI studies, has reduced activity as people become more and more cognitively fatigued. The LLPC helps you think through choices. As you become more fatigued, this area of the brain isn’t working as well. But why would it not work as well? What is going on in that particular part of the brain? It doesn’t seem to be something simple, like glucose levels; that’s been investigated and glucose levels are pretty constant throughout the brain, regardless of cognitive task. This paper seeks to tease out what is actually going on in the LLPC when you are becoming cognitively tired.
They did an experiment where they induced cognitive fatigue, and it sounds like a painful experiment. For more than 6 hours, volunteers completed sessions during which they had to perform cognitive switching tasks. Investigators showed participants a letter, in either red or green, and the participant would respond with whether it was a vowel or a consonant or whether it was a capital or lowercase letter, based on the color. If it’s red, say whether it’s a consonant or vowel. If it’s green, say whether it’s upper- or lowercase.
It’s hard, and doing it for 6 hours is likely to induce a lot of cognitive fatigue. They had a control group as well, which is really important here. The control group also did a task like this for 6 hours, but for them, investigators didn’t change the color as often – perhaps only once per session. For the study group, they were switching colors back and forth quite a lot. They also incorporated a memory challenge that worked in a similar way.
So, what are the readouts of this study? They had a group who went through the hard cognitive challenge and a group who went through the easy cognitive challenge. They looked at a variety of metrics. I’ll describe a few.
The first is performance decrement. Did they get it wrong? What percentage of the time did the participant say “consonant” when they should have said “lowercase?”
You can see here that the hard group did a little bit worse overall. It was harder, so they don’t do as well. That makes sense. But both groups kind of waned over time a little bit. It’s not as though the hard group declines much more. The slopes of those lines are pretty similar. So, not very robust findings there.
What about subjective fatigue? They asked the participants how exhausted they were from doing the tasks.
Both groups were worn out. It was a long day. There was a suggestion that the hard group became worn out a little bit sooner, but I don’t think this achieves statistical significance. Everyone was getting tired by hour 6 here.
What about response time? How quickly could the participant say “consonant,” “vowel,” “lowercase,” or “uppercase?”
The hard group took longer to respond because it was a harder task. But over time, the response times were pretty flat.
So far there isn’t a robust readout that would make us say, oh, yeah, that is a good marker of cognitive fatigue. That’s how you measure cognitive fatigue. It’s not what people say. It’s not how quick they are. It’s not even how accurate they are.
But then the investigators got a little bit clever. Participants were asked to play a “would you rather” game, a reward game. Here are two examples.
Would you rather:
- Have a 25% chance of earning $50 OR a 95% chance of earning $17.30?
- Earn $50, but your next task session will be hard or earn $40 and your next task session will be easy?
Participants had to figure out the better odds – what should they be choosing here? They had to tease out whether they preferred lower cost lower-risk choices – when they are cognitively fatigued, which has been shown in prior studies.
This showed a pretty dramatic difference between the groups in terms of the low-cost bias – how much more likely they were to pick the low-cost, easier choice as they became more and more cognitively fatigued. The hard group participants were more likely to pick the easy thing rather than the potentially more lucrative thing, which is really interesting when we think about how our own cognitive fatigue happens at the end of a difficult workday, how you may just be likely to go with the flow and do something easy because you just don’t have that much decision-making power left.
It would be nice to have some objective physiologic measurements for this, and they do. This is pupil dilation.
When you’re paying attention to something, your pupils dilate a little bit. They were able to show that as the hard group became more and more fatigued, pupil dilation sort of went away. In fact, if anything, their pupils constricted a little bit. But basically there was a significant difference here. The easy group’s pupils were still fine; they were still dilating. The hard group’s pupils got more sluggish. This is a physiologic correlate of what’s going on.
But again, these are all downstream of whatever is happening in the LLPC. So the real meat of this study is a functional MRI analysis, and the way they did this is pretty clever. They were looking for metabolites in the various parts of the brain using a labeled hydrogen MRI, which is even fancier than a functional MRI. It’s like MRI spectroscopy, and it can measure the levels of certain chemicals in the brain. They hypothesized that if there is a chemical that builds up when you are tired, it should build up preferentially in the LLPC.
Whereas in the rest of the brain, there shouldn’t be that much difference because we know the action is happening in the LLPC. The control part of the brain is a section called V1. They looked at a variety of metabolites, but the only one that behaved the way they expected was glutamate and glutamic acid (glutamate metabolites). In the hard group, the glutamate is building up over time, so there is a higher concentration of glutamate in the LLPC but not the rest of the brain. There is also a greater diffusion of glutamate from the intracellular to the extracellular space, which suggests that it’s kind of leaking out of the cells.
So the signal here is that the thing that’s impacting that part of the brain is this buildup of glutamate. To tie this together, they showed in the scatterplot the relationship between the increase in glutamate and the low-cost bias from the decision fatigue example.
It’s not the strongest correlation, but it is statistically significant that the more glutamate in your LLPC, the more likely you are to just take the easy decision as opposed to really thinking things through. That is pretty powerful. It’s telling us that your brain making you fatigued, and making you less likely to continue to use your LLPC, may be a self-defense mechanism against a buildup of glutamate, which may be neurotoxic. And that’s a fascinating bit of homeostasis.
Of course, it makes you wonder how we might adjust glutamate levels in the brain, although maybe we should let the brain be tired if the brain wants to be tired. It reminds me of that old Far Side cartoon where the guy is raising his hand and asking: “Can I be excused? My brain is full.” That is essentially what’s happening. This part of your brain is becoming taxed and building up glutamate. There’s some kind of negative feedback loop. The authors don’t know what the receptor pathway is that down-regulates that part of the brain based on the glutamate buildup, but some kind of negative feedback loop is saying, okay, give this part of the brain a rest. Things have gone on too far here.
It’s a fascinating study, although it’s not clear what we can do with this information. It’s not clear whether we can manipulate glutamate levels in this particular part of the brain or not. But it’s nice to see some biologic correlates of a psychological phenomenon that is incredibly well described – the phenomenon of decision fatigue. I think we all feel it at the end of a hard workday. If you’ve been doing a lot of cognitively intensive tasks, you just don’t have it in you anymore. And maybe the act of a good night’s sleep is clearing out some of that glutamate in the LLPC, which lets you start over and make some good decisions again. So I hope you all make some good decisions and keep your glutamate levels low. And I’ll see you next time.
For Medscape, I’m Perry Wilson.
Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
Once again, we’re doing an informal journal club to talk about a really interesting study, “A Neuro-metabolic Account of Why Daylong Cognitive Work Alters the Control of Economic Decisions,” that just came out. It tries to answer the question of why our brains wear out. I’m going to put myself in the corner here. Let’s walk through this study, which appears in Current Biology, by lead author Antonius Wiehler from Paris.
The big question is what’s going on with cognitive fatigue. If you look at chess players who are exerting a lot of cognitive effort, it’s well documented that over hours of play, they get worse and make more mistakes. It takes them longer to make decisions. The question is, why?
Why does your brain get tired?
To date, it’s been a little bit hard to tease that out. Now, there is some suggestion of what is responsible for this. The cognitive control center of the brain is probably somewhere in the left lateral prefrontal cortex (LLPC).
The prefrontal cortex is responsible for higher-level thinking. It’s what causes you to be inhibited. It gets shut off by alcohol and leads to impulsive behaviors. The LLPC, according to functional MRI studies, has reduced activity as people become more and more cognitively fatigued. The LLPC helps you think through choices. As you become more fatigued, this area of the brain isn’t working as well. But why would it not work as well? What is going on in that particular part of the brain? It doesn’t seem to be something simple, like glucose levels; that’s been investigated and glucose levels are pretty constant throughout the brain, regardless of cognitive task. This paper seeks to tease out what is actually going on in the LLPC when you are becoming cognitively tired.
They did an experiment where they induced cognitive fatigue, and it sounds like a painful experiment. For more than 6 hours, volunteers completed sessions during which they had to perform cognitive switching tasks. Investigators showed participants a letter, in either red or green, and the participant would respond with whether it was a vowel or a consonant or whether it was a capital or lowercase letter, based on the color. If it’s red, say whether it’s a consonant or vowel. If it’s green, say whether it’s upper- or lowercase.
It’s hard, and doing it for 6 hours is likely to induce a lot of cognitive fatigue. They had a control group as well, which is really important here. The control group also did a task like this for 6 hours, but for them, investigators didn’t change the color as often – perhaps only once per session. For the study group, they were switching colors back and forth quite a lot. They also incorporated a memory challenge that worked in a similar way.
So, what are the readouts of this study? They had a group who went through the hard cognitive challenge and a group who went through the easy cognitive challenge. They looked at a variety of metrics. I’ll describe a few.
The first is performance decrement. Did they get it wrong? What percentage of the time did the participant say “consonant” when they should have said “lowercase?”
You can see here that the hard group did a little bit worse overall. It was harder, so they don’t do as well. That makes sense. But both groups kind of waned over time a little bit. It’s not as though the hard group declines much more. The slopes of those lines are pretty similar. So, not very robust findings there.
What about subjective fatigue? They asked the participants how exhausted they were from doing the tasks.
Both groups were worn out. It was a long day. There was a suggestion that the hard group became worn out a little bit sooner, but I don’t think this achieves statistical significance. Everyone was getting tired by hour 6 here.
What about response time? How quickly could the participant say “consonant,” “vowel,” “lowercase,” or “uppercase?”
The hard group took longer to respond because it was a harder task. But over time, the response times were pretty flat.
So far there isn’t a robust readout that would make us say, oh, yeah, that is a good marker of cognitive fatigue. That’s how you measure cognitive fatigue. It’s not what people say. It’s not how quick they are. It’s not even how accurate they are.
But then the investigators got a little bit clever. Participants were asked to play a “would you rather” game, a reward game. Here are two examples.
Would you rather:
- Have a 25% chance of earning $50 OR a 95% chance of earning $17.30?
- Earn $50, but your next task session will be hard or earn $40 and your next task session will be easy?
Participants had to figure out the better odds – what should they be choosing here? They had to tease out whether they preferred lower cost lower-risk choices – when they are cognitively fatigued, which has been shown in prior studies.
This showed a pretty dramatic difference between the groups in terms of the low-cost bias – how much more likely they were to pick the low-cost, easier choice as they became more and more cognitively fatigued. The hard group participants were more likely to pick the easy thing rather than the potentially more lucrative thing, which is really interesting when we think about how our own cognitive fatigue happens at the end of a difficult workday, how you may just be likely to go with the flow and do something easy because you just don’t have that much decision-making power left.
It would be nice to have some objective physiologic measurements for this, and they do. This is pupil dilation.
When you’re paying attention to something, your pupils dilate a little bit. They were able to show that as the hard group became more and more fatigued, pupil dilation sort of went away. In fact, if anything, their pupils constricted a little bit. But basically there was a significant difference here. The easy group’s pupils were still fine; they were still dilating. The hard group’s pupils got more sluggish. This is a physiologic correlate of what’s going on.
But again, these are all downstream of whatever is happening in the LLPC. So the real meat of this study is a functional MRI analysis, and the way they did this is pretty clever. They were looking for metabolites in the various parts of the brain using a labeled hydrogen MRI, which is even fancier than a functional MRI. It’s like MRI spectroscopy, and it can measure the levels of certain chemicals in the brain. They hypothesized that if there is a chemical that builds up when you are tired, it should build up preferentially in the LLPC.
Whereas in the rest of the brain, there shouldn’t be that much difference because we know the action is happening in the LLPC. The control part of the brain is a section called V1. They looked at a variety of metabolites, but the only one that behaved the way they expected was glutamate and glutamic acid (glutamate metabolites). In the hard group, the glutamate is building up over time, so there is a higher concentration of glutamate in the LLPC but not the rest of the brain. There is also a greater diffusion of glutamate from the intracellular to the extracellular space, which suggests that it’s kind of leaking out of the cells.
So the signal here is that the thing that’s impacting that part of the brain is this buildup of glutamate. To tie this together, they showed in the scatterplot the relationship between the increase in glutamate and the low-cost bias from the decision fatigue example.
It’s not the strongest correlation, but it is statistically significant that the more glutamate in your LLPC, the more likely you are to just take the easy decision as opposed to really thinking things through. That is pretty powerful. It’s telling us that your brain making you fatigued, and making you less likely to continue to use your LLPC, may be a self-defense mechanism against a buildup of glutamate, which may be neurotoxic. And that’s a fascinating bit of homeostasis.
Of course, it makes you wonder how we might adjust glutamate levels in the brain, although maybe we should let the brain be tired if the brain wants to be tired. It reminds me of that old Far Side cartoon where the guy is raising his hand and asking: “Can I be excused? My brain is full.” That is essentially what’s happening. This part of your brain is becoming taxed and building up glutamate. There’s some kind of negative feedback loop. The authors don’t know what the receptor pathway is that down-regulates that part of the brain based on the glutamate buildup, but some kind of negative feedback loop is saying, okay, give this part of the brain a rest. Things have gone on too far here.
It’s a fascinating study, although it’s not clear what we can do with this information. It’s not clear whether we can manipulate glutamate levels in this particular part of the brain or not. But it’s nice to see some biologic correlates of a psychological phenomenon that is incredibly well described – the phenomenon of decision fatigue. I think we all feel it at the end of a hard workday. If you’ve been doing a lot of cognitively intensive tasks, you just don’t have it in you anymore. And maybe the act of a good night’s sleep is clearing out some of that glutamate in the LLPC, which lets you start over and make some good decisions again. So I hope you all make some good decisions and keep your glutamate levels low. And I’ll see you next time.
For Medscape, I’m Perry Wilson.
Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
Once again, we’re doing an informal journal club to talk about a really interesting study, “A Neuro-metabolic Account of Why Daylong Cognitive Work Alters the Control of Economic Decisions,” that just came out. It tries to answer the question of why our brains wear out. I’m going to put myself in the corner here. Let’s walk through this study, which appears in Current Biology, by lead author Antonius Wiehler from Paris.
The big question is what’s going on with cognitive fatigue. If you look at chess players who are exerting a lot of cognitive effort, it’s well documented that over hours of play, they get worse and make more mistakes. It takes them longer to make decisions. The question is, why?
Why does your brain get tired?
To date, it’s been a little bit hard to tease that out. Now, there is some suggestion of what is responsible for this. The cognitive control center of the brain is probably somewhere in the left lateral prefrontal cortex (LLPC).
The prefrontal cortex is responsible for higher-level thinking. It’s what causes you to be inhibited. It gets shut off by alcohol and leads to impulsive behaviors. The LLPC, according to functional MRI studies, has reduced activity as people become more and more cognitively fatigued. The LLPC helps you think through choices. As you become more fatigued, this area of the brain isn’t working as well. But why would it not work as well? What is going on in that particular part of the brain? It doesn’t seem to be something simple, like glucose levels; that’s been investigated and glucose levels are pretty constant throughout the brain, regardless of cognitive task. This paper seeks to tease out what is actually going on in the LLPC when you are becoming cognitively tired.
They did an experiment where they induced cognitive fatigue, and it sounds like a painful experiment. For more than 6 hours, volunteers completed sessions during which they had to perform cognitive switching tasks. Investigators showed participants a letter, in either red or green, and the participant would respond with whether it was a vowel or a consonant or whether it was a capital or lowercase letter, based on the color. If it’s red, say whether it’s a consonant or vowel. If it’s green, say whether it’s upper- or lowercase.
It’s hard, and doing it for 6 hours is likely to induce a lot of cognitive fatigue. They had a control group as well, which is really important here. The control group also did a task like this for 6 hours, but for them, investigators didn’t change the color as often – perhaps only once per session. For the study group, they were switching colors back and forth quite a lot. They also incorporated a memory challenge that worked in a similar way.
So, what are the readouts of this study? They had a group who went through the hard cognitive challenge and a group who went through the easy cognitive challenge. They looked at a variety of metrics. I’ll describe a few.
The first is performance decrement. Did they get it wrong? What percentage of the time did the participant say “consonant” when they should have said “lowercase?”
You can see here that the hard group did a little bit worse overall. It was harder, so they don’t do as well. That makes sense. But both groups kind of waned over time a little bit. It’s not as though the hard group declines much more. The slopes of those lines are pretty similar. So, not very robust findings there.
What about subjective fatigue? They asked the participants how exhausted they were from doing the tasks.
Both groups were worn out. It was a long day. There was a suggestion that the hard group became worn out a little bit sooner, but I don’t think this achieves statistical significance. Everyone was getting tired by hour 6 here.
What about response time? How quickly could the participant say “consonant,” “vowel,” “lowercase,” or “uppercase?”
The hard group took longer to respond because it was a harder task. But over time, the response times were pretty flat.
So far there isn’t a robust readout that would make us say, oh, yeah, that is a good marker of cognitive fatigue. That’s how you measure cognitive fatigue. It’s not what people say. It’s not how quick they are. It’s not even how accurate they are.
But then the investigators got a little bit clever. Participants were asked to play a “would you rather” game, a reward game. Here are two examples.
Would you rather:
- Have a 25% chance of earning $50 OR a 95% chance of earning $17.30?
- Earn $50, but your next task session will be hard or earn $40 and your next task session will be easy?
Participants had to figure out the better odds – what should they be choosing here? They had to tease out whether they preferred lower cost lower-risk choices – when they are cognitively fatigued, which has been shown in prior studies.
This showed a pretty dramatic difference between the groups in terms of the low-cost bias – how much more likely they were to pick the low-cost, easier choice as they became more and more cognitively fatigued. The hard group participants were more likely to pick the easy thing rather than the potentially more lucrative thing, which is really interesting when we think about how our own cognitive fatigue happens at the end of a difficult workday, how you may just be likely to go with the flow and do something easy because you just don’t have that much decision-making power left.
It would be nice to have some objective physiologic measurements for this, and they do. This is pupil dilation.
When you’re paying attention to something, your pupils dilate a little bit. They were able to show that as the hard group became more and more fatigued, pupil dilation sort of went away. In fact, if anything, their pupils constricted a little bit. But basically there was a significant difference here. The easy group’s pupils were still fine; they were still dilating. The hard group’s pupils got more sluggish. This is a physiologic correlate of what’s going on.
But again, these are all downstream of whatever is happening in the LLPC. So the real meat of this study is a functional MRI analysis, and the way they did this is pretty clever. They were looking for metabolites in the various parts of the brain using a labeled hydrogen MRI, which is even fancier than a functional MRI. It’s like MRI spectroscopy, and it can measure the levels of certain chemicals in the brain. They hypothesized that if there is a chemical that builds up when you are tired, it should build up preferentially in the LLPC.
Whereas in the rest of the brain, there shouldn’t be that much difference because we know the action is happening in the LLPC. The control part of the brain is a section called V1. They looked at a variety of metabolites, but the only one that behaved the way they expected was glutamate and glutamic acid (glutamate metabolites). In the hard group, the glutamate is building up over time, so there is a higher concentration of glutamate in the LLPC but not the rest of the brain. There is also a greater diffusion of glutamate from the intracellular to the extracellular space, which suggests that it’s kind of leaking out of the cells.
So the signal here is that the thing that’s impacting that part of the brain is this buildup of glutamate. To tie this together, they showed in the scatterplot the relationship between the increase in glutamate and the low-cost bias from the decision fatigue example.
It’s not the strongest correlation, but it is statistically significant that the more glutamate in your LLPC, the more likely you are to just take the easy decision as opposed to really thinking things through. That is pretty powerful. It’s telling us that your brain making you fatigued, and making you less likely to continue to use your LLPC, may be a self-defense mechanism against a buildup of glutamate, which may be neurotoxic. And that’s a fascinating bit of homeostasis.
Of course, it makes you wonder how we might adjust glutamate levels in the brain, although maybe we should let the brain be tired if the brain wants to be tired. It reminds me of that old Far Side cartoon where the guy is raising his hand and asking: “Can I be excused? My brain is full.” That is essentially what’s happening. This part of your brain is becoming taxed and building up glutamate. There’s some kind of negative feedback loop. The authors don’t know what the receptor pathway is that down-regulates that part of the brain based on the glutamate buildup, but some kind of negative feedback loop is saying, okay, give this part of the brain a rest. Things have gone on too far here.
It’s a fascinating study, although it’s not clear what we can do with this information. It’s not clear whether we can manipulate glutamate levels in this particular part of the brain or not. But it’s nice to see some biologic correlates of a psychological phenomenon that is incredibly well described – the phenomenon of decision fatigue. I think we all feel it at the end of a hard workday. If you’ve been doing a lot of cognitively intensive tasks, you just don’t have it in you anymore. And maybe the act of a good night’s sleep is clearing out some of that glutamate in the LLPC, which lets you start over and make some good decisions again. So I hope you all make some good decisions and keep your glutamate levels low. And I’ll see you next time.
For Medscape, I’m Perry Wilson.
Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hearing aids available in October without a prescription
The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.
This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.
An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.
The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.
Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.
President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.
“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.
The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.
This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.
An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.
The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.
Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.
President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.
“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.
The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.
This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.
An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.
The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.
Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.
President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.
“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.
The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Prematurity, family environment linked to lower rate of school readiness
Among children born prematurely, rates of school readiness were lower, compared with rates for children born full term, new data indicate.
In a Canadian cohort study that included more than 60,000 children, 35% of children born prematurely had scores on the Early Development Instrument (EDI) that indicated they were vulnerable to developmental problems, compared with 28% of children born full term.
“Our take-home message is that being born prematurely, even if all was well, is a risk factor for not being ready for school, and these families should be identified early, screened for any difficulties, and offered early intervention,” senior author Chelsea A. Ruth, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics and child health at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, told this news organization.
The findings were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
Gestational age gradient
The investigators examined two cohorts of children who were in kindergarten at the time of data collection. One of them, the population-based cohort, included children born between 2000 and 2011 whose school readiness was assessed using the EDI data. Preterm birth was defined as a gestational age (GA) of less than 37 weeks. The other, the sibling cohort, was a subset of the population cohort and included children born prematurely and their closest-in-age siblings who were born full term.
The main outcome was vulnerability in the EDI, which was defined as having a score below the 10th percentile of the Canadian population norms for one or more of the five EDI domains. These domains are physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge.
A total of 63,277 children were included in the analyses, of whom 4,352 were born prematurely (mean GA, 34 weeks; 53% boys) and 58,925 were born full term (mean GA, 39 weeks; 51% boys).
After data adjustment, 35% of children born prematurely were vulnerable in the EDI, compared with 28% of those born full term (adjusted odds ratio, 1.32).
The investigators found a clear GA gradient. Children born at earlier GAs (< 28 weeks or 28-33 weeks) were at higher risk of being vulnerable than those born at later GAs (34-36 weeks) in any EDI domain (48% vs. 40%) and in each of the five EDI domains. Earlier GA was associated with greater risk for vulnerability in physical health and well-being (34% vs. 22%) and in the Multiple Challenge Index (25% vs. 17%). It also was associated with greater risk for need for additional support in kindergarten (22% vs. 5%).
Furthermore, 12% of children born at less than 28 weeks’ gestation were vulnerable in two EDI domains, and 8% were vulnerable in three domains. The corresponding proportions were 9% and 7%, respectively, for those born between 28 and 33 weeks and 7% and 5% for those born between 34 and 36 weeks.
“The study confirmed what we see in practice, that being born even a little bit early increases the chance for not being ready for school, and the earlier a child is born, the more likely they are to have troubles,” said Dr. Ruth.
Cause or manifestation?
In the population cohort, prematurity (< 34 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.72; 34-36 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.23), male sex (AOR, 2.24), small for GA (AOR, 1.31), and various maternal medical and sociodemographic factors were associated with EDI vulnerability.
In the sibling subset, EDI outcomes were similar for children born prematurely and their siblings born full term, except for the communication skills and general knowledge domain (AOR, 1.39) and the Multiple Challenge Index (AOR, 1.43). Male sex (AOR, 2.19) was associated with EDI vulnerability in this cohort as well, as was maternal age at delivery (AOR, 1.53).
“Whether prematurity is a cause or a manifestation of an altered family ecosystem is difficult to ascertain,” Lauren Neel, MD, a neonatologist at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial. “However, research on this topic is much needed, along with novel interventions to change academic trajectories and care models that implement these findings in practice. As we begin to understand the factors in and interventions for promoting resilience in preterm-born children, we may need to change our research question to this: Could we optimize resilience and long-term academic trajectories to include the family as well?”
Six crucial years
Commenting on the study, Veronica Bordes Edgar, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center’s Peter O’Donnell Jr. Brain Institute, Dallas, said, “None of the findings surprised me, but I was very pleased that they looked at such a broad sample.”
Pediatricians should monitor and screen children for early academic readiness, since these factors are associated with later academic outcomes, Dr. Edgar added. “Early intervention does not stop at age 3, but rather the first 6 years are so crucial to lay the foundation for future success. The pediatrician can play a role in preparing children and families by promoting early reading, such as through Reach Out and Read, encouraging language-rich play, and providing guidance on early childhood education and developmental needs.
“Further examination of long-term outcomes for these children to capture the longitudinal trend would help to document what is often observed clinically, in that children who start off with difficulties do not always catch up once they are in the academic environment,” Dr. Edgar concluded.
The study was supported by Research Manitoba and the Children’s Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Ruth, Dr. Neel, and Dr. Edgar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among children born prematurely, rates of school readiness were lower, compared with rates for children born full term, new data indicate.
In a Canadian cohort study that included more than 60,000 children, 35% of children born prematurely had scores on the Early Development Instrument (EDI) that indicated they were vulnerable to developmental problems, compared with 28% of children born full term.
“Our take-home message is that being born prematurely, even if all was well, is a risk factor for not being ready for school, and these families should be identified early, screened for any difficulties, and offered early intervention,” senior author Chelsea A. Ruth, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics and child health at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, told this news organization.
The findings were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
Gestational age gradient
The investigators examined two cohorts of children who were in kindergarten at the time of data collection. One of them, the population-based cohort, included children born between 2000 and 2011 whose school readiness was assessed using the EDI data. Preterm birth was defined as a gestational age (GA) of less than 37 weeks. The other, the sibling cohort, was a subset of the population cohort and included children born prematurely and their closest-in-age siblings who were born full term.
The main outcome was vulnerability in the EDI, which was defined as having a score below the 10th percentile of the Canadian population norms for one or more of the five EDI domains. These domains are physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge.
A total of 63,277 children were included in the analyses, of whom 4,352 were born prematurely (mean GA, 34 weeks; 53% boys) and 58,925 were born full term (mean GA, 39 weeks; 51% boys).
After data adjustment, 35% of children born prematurely were vulnerable in the EDI, compared with 28% of those born full term (adjusted odds ratio, 1.32).
The investigators found a clear GA gradient. Children born at earlier GAs (< 28 weeks or 28-33 weeks) were at higher risk of being vulnerable than those born at later GAs (34-36 weeks) in any EDI domain (48% vs. 40%) and in each of the five EDI domains. Earlier GA was associated with greater risk for vulnerability in physical health and well-being (34% vs. 22%) and in the Multiple Challenge Index (25% vs. 17%). It also was associated with greater risk for need for additional support in kindergarten (22% vs. 5%).
Furthermore, 12% of children born at less than 28 weeks’ gestation were vulnerable in two EDI domains, and 8% were vulnerable in three domains. The corresponding proportions were 9% and 7%, respectively, for those born between 28 and 33 weeks and 7% and 5% for those born between 34 and 36 weeks.
“The study confirmed what we see in practice, that being born even a little bit early increases the chance for not being ready for school, and the earlier a child is born, the more likely they are to have troubles,” said Dr. Ruth.
Cause or manifestation?
In the population cohort, prematurity (< 34 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.72; 34-36 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.23), male sex (AOR, 2.24), small for GA (AOR, 1.31), and various maternal medical and sociodemographic factors were associated with EDI vulnerability.
In the sibling subset, EDI outcomes were similar for children born prematurely and their siblings born full term, except for the communication skills and general knowledge domain (AOR, 1.39) and the Multiple Challenge Index (AOR, 1.43). Male sex (AOR, 2.19) was associated with EDI vulnerability in this cohort as well, as was maternal age at delivery (AOR, 1.53).
“Whether prematurity is a cause or a manifestation of an altered family ecosystem is difficult to ascertain,” Lauren Neel, MD, a neonatologist at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial. “However, research on this topic is much needed, along with novel interventions to change academic trajectories and care models that implement these findings in practice. As we begin to understand the factors in and interventions for promoting resilience in preterm-born children, we may need to change our research question to this: Could we optimize resilience and long-term academic trajectories to include the family as well?”
Six crucial years
Commenting on the study, Veronica Bordes Edgar, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center’s Peter O’Donnell Jr. Brain Institute, Dallas, said, “None of the findings surprised me, but I was very pleased that they looked at such a broad sample.”
Pediatricians should monitor and screen children for early academic readiness, since these factors are associated with later academic outcomes, Dr. Edgar added. “Early intervention does not stop at age 3, but rather the first 6 years are so crucial to lay the foundation for future success. The pediatrician can play a role in preparing children and families by promoting early reading, such as through Reach Out and Read, encouraging language-rich play, and providing guidance on early childhood education and developmental needs.
“Further examination of long-term outcomes for these children to capture the longitudinal trend would help to document what is often observed clinically, in that children who start off with difficulties do not always catch up once they are in the academic environment,” Dr. Edgar concluded.
The study was supported by Research Manitoba and the Children’s Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Ruth, Dr. Neel, and Dr. Edgar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among children born prematurely, rates of school readiness were lower, compared with rates for children born full term, new data indicate.
In a Canadian cohort study that included more than 60,000 children, 35% of children born prematurely had scores on the Early Development Instrument (EDI) that indicated they were vulnerable to developmental problems, compared with 28% of children born full term.
“Our take-home message is that being born prematurely, even if all was well, is a risk factor for not being ready for school, and these families should be identified early, screened for any difficulties, and offered early intervention,” senior author Chelsea A. Ruth, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics and child health at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, told this news organization.
The findings were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
Gestational age gradient
The investigators examined two cohorts of children who were in kindergarten at the time of data collection. One of them, the population-based cohort, included children born between 2000 and 2011 whose school readiness was assessed using the EDI data. Preterm birth was defined as a gestational age (GA) of less than 37 weeks. The other, the sibling cohort, was a subset of the population cohort and included children born prematurely and their closest-in-age siblings who were born full term.
The main outcome was vulnerability in the EDI, which was defined as having a score below the 10th percentile of the Canadian population norms for one or more of the five EDI domains. These domains are physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge.
A total of 63,277 children were included in the analyses, of whom 4,352 were born prematurely (mean GA, 34 weeks; 53% boys) and 58,925 were born full term (mean GA, 39 weeks; 51% boys).
After data adjustment, 35% of children born prematurely were vulnerable in the EDI, compared with 28% of those born full term (adjusted odds ratio, 1.32).
The investigators found a clear GA gradient. Children born at earlier GAs (< 28 weeks or 28-33 weeks) were at higher risk of being vulnerable than those born at later GAs (34-36 weeks) in any EDI domain (48% vs. 40%) and in each of the five EDI domains. Earlier GA was associated with greater risk for vulnerability in physical health and well-being (34% vs. 22%) and in the Multiple Challenge Index (25% vs. 17%). It also was associated with greater risk for need for additional support in kindergarten (22% vs. 5%).
Furthermore, 12% of children born at less than 28 weeks’ gestation were vulnerable in two EDI domains, and 8% were vulnerable in three domains. The corresponding proportions were 9% and 7%, respectively, for those born between 28 and 33 weeks and 7% and 5% for those born between 34 and 36 weeks.
“The study confirmed what we see in practice, that being born even a little bit early increases the chance for not being ready for school, and the earlier a child is born, the more likely they are to have troubles,” said Dr. Ruth.
Cause or manifestation?
In the population cohort, prematurity (< 34 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.72; 34-36 weeks’ GA: AOR, 1.23), male sex (AOR, 2.24), small for GA (AOR, 1.31), and various maternal medical and sociodemographic factors were associated with EDI vulnerability.
In the sibling subset, EDI outcomes were similar for children born prematurely and their siblings born full term, except for the communication skills and general knowledge domain (AOR, 1.39) and the Multiple Challenge Index (AOR, 1.43). Male sex (AOR, 2.19) was associated with EDI vulnerability in this cohort as well, as was maternal age at delivery (AOR, 1.53).
“Whether prematurity is a cause or a manifestation of an altered family ecosystem is difficult to ascertain,” Lauren Neel, MD, a neonatologist at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial. “However, research on this topic is much needed, along with novel interventions to change academic trajectories and care models that implement these findings in practice. As we begin to understand the factors in and interventions for promoting resilience in preterm-born children, we may need to change our research question to this: Could we optimize resilience and long-term academic trajectories to include the family as well?”
Six crucial years
Commenting on the study, Veronica Bordes Edgar, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center’s Peter O’Donnell Jr. Brain Institute, Dallas, said, “None of the findings surprised me, but I was very pleased that they looked at such a broad sample.”
Pediatricians should monitor and screen children for early academic readiness, since these factors are associated with later academic outcomes, Dr. Edgar added. “Early intervention does not stop at age 3, but rather the first 6 years are so crucial to lay the foundation for future success. The pediatrician can play a role in preparing children and families by promoting early reading, such as through Reach Out and Read, encouraging language-rich play, and providing guidance on early childhood education and developmental needs.
“Further examination of long-term outcomes for these children to capture the longitudinal trend would help to document what is often observed clinically, in that children who start off with difficulties do not always catch up once they are in the academic environment,” Dr. Edgar concluded.
The study was supported by Research Manitoba and the Children’s Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Ruth, Dr. Neel, and Dr. Edgar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
What’s in a mother’s song?
How do a baby’s body and brain respond when their mother sings a lullaby?
Shannon de l’Etoile, PhD, is hoping to find out. Dr. de l’Etoile, professor of music therapy at the University of Miami, began watching interactions between typically functioning mothers and infants, mothers with postpartum depression and their babies, and mothers and infants with Down Syndrome.
The infants she studied became highly attentive to their mothers’ singing and showed “a contented state of arousal,” she said. Mothers, meanwhile, became more engaged with their babies.
To examine the issue more scientifically, Dr. de l’Etoile has launched a study of infant-directed singing, a method connecting babies and mothers through song. With the help of a nearly $20,000 grant from the Grammy Museum – a Los Angeles nonprofit that hosts and funds exhibits and other music programs – Dr. de l’Etoile plans to recruit 20 women whose children attend programming at the Linda Ray Intervention Center at the University of Miami. The early intervention program targets children under age 2 who have disabilities or slower development, or who may have been exposed to drugs in utero. The study will last 1 year, with plans for an extension.
“By helping the mothers to become more sensitive, we are simultaneously helping infants learn how to regulate, so that by the time they’re in preschool, they can manage their behavior and have a successful, positive experience,” Dr. de l’Etoile said. She hopes her project will help women gain the confidence they need for families emotionally.
Mothers who practice infant-directed singing communicate with their babies through a variety of songs, from happy, playful versions of the ABCs, to more somber, drawn-out lullabies. In turn, their babies learn the emotional cues that go along with songs, potentially going from crying to playing, or watching their mother attentively.
Later in life, children raised with infant-directed singing might sing to themselves when they are stressed or need to go to sleep, Dr. de l’Etoile said.
A caregiving method like singing may be less intuitive for women facing basic survival challenges, like maintaining safe housing or putting food on the table, Dr. d’Etoile said.
Interest in studying infant-directed singing has grown in the past few years, although according to Sandra Trehub, PhD, an expert in infant-directed singing, studies of the phenomenon began in the early 1990s. In her own work, Dr. Trehub found that infants appear to be more engaged with parents who sing directly to them than those who sing around but not at them.
Dr. Trehub said singing can be an additional resource for a mother to overcome socioeconomic hardships and bond with their child.
“Songs sung to an infant repeatedly become almost like a special signal between mother and child, a way for them to bond with each other,” she said.
Isabel Santana Chica, MS, executive director of the Linda Ray Intervention Center, expressed enthusiasm for the project.
“Music is a great way to support language, social, and emotional development,” Ms. Chica said. “My hope is that through infant-directed singing, mothers will have one additional tool to connect to their infants and enhance development.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How do a baby’s body and brain respond when their mother sings a lullaby?
Shannon de l’Etoile, PhD, is hoping to find out. Dr. de l’Etoile, professor of music therapy at the University of Miami, began watching interactions between typically functioning mothers and infants, mothers with postpartum depression and their babies, and mothers and infants with Down Syndrome.
The infants she studied became highly attentive to their mothers’ singing and showed “a contented state of arousal,” she said. Mothers, meanwhile, became more engaged with their babies.
To examine the issue more scientifically, Dr. de l’Etoile has launched a study of infant-directed singing, a method connecting babies and mothers through song. With the help of a nearly $20,000 grant from the Grammy Museum – a Los Angeles nonprofit that hosts and funds exhibits and other music programs – Dr. de l’Etoile plans to recruit 20 women whose children attend programming at the Linda Ray Intervention Center at the University of Miami. The early intervention program targets children under age 2 who have disabilities or slower development, or who may have been exposed to drugs in utero. The study will last 1 year, with plans for an extension.
“By helping the mothers to become more sensitive, we are simultaneously helping infants learn how to regulate, so that by the time they’re in preschool, they can manage their behavior and have a successful, positive experience,” Dr. de l’Etoile said. She hopes her project will help women gain the confidence they need for families emotionally.
Mothers who practice infant-directed singing communicate with their babies through a variety of songs, from happy, playful versions of the ABCs, to more somber, drawn-out lullabies. In turn, their babies learn the emotional cues that go along with songs, potentially going from crying to playing, or watching their mother attentively.
Later in life, children raised with infant-directed singing might sing to themselves when they are stressed or need to go to sleep, Dr. de l’Etoile said.
A caregiving method like singing may be less intuitive for women facing basic survival challenges, like maintaining safe housing or putting food on the table, Dr. d’Etoile said.
Interest in studying infant-directed singing has grown in the past few years, although according to Sandra Trehub, PhD, an expert in infant-directed singing, studies of the phenomenon began in the early 1990s. In her own work, Dr. Trehub found that infants appear to be more engaged with parents who sing directly to them than those who sing around but not at them.
Dr. Trehub said singing can be an additional resource for a mother to overcome socioeconomic hardships and bond with their child.
“Songs sung to an infant repeatedly become almost like a special signal between mother and child, a way for them to bond with each other,” she said.
Isabel Santana Chica, MS, executive director of the Linda Ray Intervention Center, expressed enthusiasm for the project.
“Music is a great way to support language, social, and emotional development,” Ms. Chica said. “My hope is that through infant-directed singing, mothers will have one additional tool to connect to their infants and enhance development.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How do a baby’s body and brain respond when their mother sings a lullaby?
Shannon de l’Etoile, PhD, is hoping to find out. Dr. de l’Etoile, professor of music therapy at the University of Miami, began watching interactions between typically functioning mothers and infants, mothers with postpartum depression and their babies, and mothers and infants with Down Syndrome.
The infants she studied became highly attentive to their mothers’ singing and showed “a contented state of arousal,” she said. Mothers, meanwhile, became more engaged with their babies.
To examine the issue more scientifically, Dr. de l’Etoile has launched a study of infant-directed singing, a method connecting babies and mothers through song. With the help of a nearly $20,000 grant from the Grammy Museum – a Los Angeles nonprofit that hosts and funds exhibits and other music programs – Dr. de l’Etoile plans to recruit 20 women whose children attend programming at the Linda Ray Intervention Center at the University of Miami. The early intervention program targets children under age 2 who have disabilities or slower development, or who may have been exposed to drugs in utero. The study will last 1 year, with plans for an extension.
“By helping the mothers to become more sensitive, we are simultaneously helping infants learn how to regulate, so that by the time they’re in preschool, they can manage their behavior and have a successful, positive experience,” Dr. de l’Etoile said. She hopes her project will help women gain the confidence they need for families emotionally.
Mothers who practice infant-directed singing communicate with their babies through a variety of songs, from happy, playful versions of the ABCs, to more somber, drawn-out lullabies. In turn, their babies learn the emotional cues that go along with songs, potentially going from crying to playing, or watching their mother attentively.
Later in life, children raised with infant-directed singing might sing to themselves when they are stressed or need to go to sleep, Dr. de l’Etoile said.
A caregiving method like singing may be less intuitive for women facing basic survival challenges, like maintaining safe housing or putting food on the table, Dr. d’Etoile said.
Interest in studying infant-directed singing has grown in the past few years, although according to Sandra Trehub, PhD, an expert in infant-directed singing, studies of the phenomenon began in the early 1990s. In her own work, Dr. Trehub found that infants appear to be more engaged with parents who sing directly to them than those who sing around but not at them.
Dr. Trehub said singing can be an additional resource for a mother to overcome socioeconomic hardships and bond with their child.
“Songs sung to an infant repeatedly become almost like a special signal between mother and child, a way for them to bond with each other,” she said.
Isabel Santana Chica, MS, executive director of the Linda Ray Intervention Center, expressed enthusiasm for the project.
“Music is a great way to support language, social, and emotional development,” Ms. Chica said. “My hope is that through infant-directed singing, mothers will have one additional tool to connect to their infants and enhance development.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mindfulness ‘changes the biology’ of pain
In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.
Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.
“Our finding supports the idea that for new practitioners, mindfulness training directly affects how sensory signals from the body are converted into a brain response,” lead investigator Joseph Wielgosz, PhD, of the Center for Healthy Minds, University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in a release.
Further analysis in long-term meditation practitioners showed the total time spent on intensive retreats was associated with neural changes associated with the perceived stress of pain.
“Just like an experienced athlete plays a sport differently than a first-timer, experienced mindfulness practitioners seem to use their mental ‘muscles’ differently in response to pain than first-time meditators,” Dr. Wielgosz noted.
The findings were published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
A complex condition
Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.
“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”
The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”
Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.
“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
Thermal pain task
The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.
All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.
The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.
The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.
To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.
The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.
During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.
The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.
In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
Neural signatures
Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.
Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).
Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).
In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).
The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).
The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.
Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).
In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.
However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.
Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
‘We’re seeing the biology change’
Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.
However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.
However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.
He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.
“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.
“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.
The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.
Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.
“Our finding supports the idea that for new practitioners, mindfulness training directly affects how sensory signals from the body are converted into a brain response,” lead investigator Joseph Wielgosz, PhD, of the Center for Healthy Minds, University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in a release.
Further analysis in long-term meditation practitioners showed the total time spent on intensive retreats was associated with neural changes associated with the perceived stress of pain.
“Just like an experienced athlete plays a sport differently than a first-timer, experienced mindfulness practitioners seem to use their mental ‘muscles’ differently in response to pain than first-time meditators,” Dr. Wielgosz noted.
The findings were published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
A complex condition
Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.
“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”
The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”
Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.
“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
Thermal pain task
The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.
All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.
The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.
The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.
To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.
The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.
During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.
The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.
In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
Neural signatures
Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.
Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).
Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).
In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).
The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).
The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.
Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).
In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.
However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.
Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
‘We’re seeing the biology change’
Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.
However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.
However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.
He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.
“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.
“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.
The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a randomized trial, more than 100 healthy individuals were assigned to an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, a health improvement program (HEP) of the same length, or a waiting list.
Scanning participants’ brains during a heat-based stimulus pain task showed those who completed the MBSR had a reduction in a brain signature linked to the sensory intensity of pain.
“Our finding supports the idea that for new practitioners, mindfulness training directly affects how sensory signals from the body are converted into a brain response,” lead investigator Joseph Wielgosz, PhD, of the Center for Healthy Minds, University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in a release.
Further analysis in long-term meditation practitioners showed the total time spent on intensive retreats was associated with neural changes associated with the perceived stress of pain.
“Just like an experienced athlete plays a sport differently than a first-timer, experienced mindfulness practitioners seem to use their mental ‘muscles’ differently in response to pain than first-time meditators,” Dr. Wielgosz noted.
The findings were published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
A complex condition
Dr. Wielgosz told this news organization that pain is “complex,” with multiple stages and several phases between the time signals are sent from pain receptors and the experience of pain.
“The way that mindfulness affects pain processing has more to do with the way the brain interprets pain signals.”
The investigators note that understanding the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain interventions is a “high-priority objective for improving pain treatment.”
Evidence from brief laboratory interventions and cross-sectional studies suggests that mindfulness training is associated with alterations in both sensory processing and cognitive-emotional regulatory networks, the investigators note.
“However, no such study has yet been conducted on a standardized, full-length, and widely used clinical intervention, such as MBSR,” they add.
Thermal pain task
The randomized, active-control trial included 115 healthy, meditation-naive individuals (61.7% women; average age, 48.3 years). Just over half (58%) had a graduate degree and their mean score on the Hollingshead index was 58.3, indicting a higher socioeconomic status.
All were randomly assigned to an 8-week MBSR course, an 8-week HEP course as an active control group, or a waiting-list control group with no intervention.
The MBSR involved instruction and practice in continuous focused attention on the breath, bodily sensations, and mental content while in seated postures, walking, and doing yoga.
The HEP matched the MBSR in terms of its length, structure, and nonspecific therapeutic elements, which included a supportive group atmosphere, expert instruction, and positive expectancy for benefit.
To examine the interventions’ effect on the pain experience, participants underwent a pain task in which they had 20 thermal stimuli applied to the inside of the left wrist for 12 seconds, including 8 seconds at peak temperature.
The stimuli were separated by a distractor task and intervals for cued anticipation, recovery, and subjective ratings of intensity and unpleasantness on a scale of 0-20.
During the task, participants underwent MRI to assess the neurologic pain signature (NPS) and the stimulus intensity independent pain signature-1 (SIIPS-1) within the brain.
The NPS is activated by various types of pain stimuli, while responding minimally or not at all to “emotionally evocative stimuli” relating to pain or to placebo treatment, the researchers note.
In contrast, the SIIPS-1 is activated in response to aspects of pain unrelated to the stimulus itself. It incorporates a “broader range of cognitive and emotional modulatory circuits,” including those related to expectancy and cognitive processes to modulate the pain experience.
Neural signatures
Results showed that in all groups, age was significantly negatively associated with both NPS (P = .001) and SIIPS-1 response (P < .001), although not subjective pain reports, and was subsequently included in all analyses of neural signatures.
Persons in the MBSR group had a significant decrease in the NPS, compared with those in the HEP group (P = .05), and from pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .023).
Those in the MBSR group also had “marginal” decreases in the NPS vs. the waiting list group (P = .096), and in the SIIPS-1 relative to both the HEP (P = .089) and waiting list groups (P = .087).
In subjective pain ratings, the MBSR group showed a marginal decrease, compared with the waiting list group (P = .078), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments (P = .028).
The HEP group also had marginal decreases in pain unpleasantness vs. the waiting list group (P = .043), and from the pre- to postintervention assessments for pain intensity (P = .046) and unpleasantness (P = .007).
The researchers also assessed 30 long-term meditators who had undertaken at least 3 years of formal experience with meditation, including participating in multiple intensive retreats and ongoing daily practice, and compared them with meditation-naive individuals.
Long-term meditators reported significantly less pain intensity and unpleasantness than those who had not undergone the training (P < .001).
In addition, a higher number of practice hours during a retreat was linked to a greater reduction in pain ratings. This association remained even after adjustment for gender and respiration rate.
However, the number of daily practice hours was not significantly associated with pain ratings among long-term meditators.
Although there were no average differences in neural signature responses between long-term meditators and individuals who were naive to the technique, there was an inverse relationship between hours on retreat and SIIPS-1 response (P = .027).
‘We’re seeing the biology change’
Commenting for this news organization, Fadel Zeidan, PhD, associate professor of anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, said that in attenuating the experience of pain, mindfulness engages “very novel” mechanisms.
However, the “most remarkable thing about this study” is that the pain effect occurred when the participants were not meditating, “which gives rise to the notion that mental training is just like physical training,” said Dr. Zeidan, who was not involved with the research.
He noted that the notion was not appreciated previously, “because we weren’t able to see the changes,” as they were based on self-report alone.
However, combining those reports with brain imaging and other objective methods means that “we’re actually seeing the biology change,” Dr. Zeidan said.
He added that mindfulness is different from other techniques for modulating the pain experience, because it is self-facilitated.
“People can learn this technique, ideally, for free online. They can learn the recipe, and it’s one of the only techniques out there that can be used immediately to assuage one’s own pain,” he said.
“There’s nothing else out there on this planet that could immediately reduce one’s own pain. You have to wait 45 minutes for Tylenol, distraction can only work for so long, and you can’t really placebo yourself,” Dr. Zeidan added.
The study was funded by a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine grant, National Institute of Mental Health grants, a Fetzer Institute grant, and a John Templeton Foundation grant, as well as a core grant to the Waisman Center from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Albee Messing. Dr. Wielgosz and Dr. Zeidan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the coinvestigators are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Active shooter drills may be harming children, but doctors offer help
The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.
“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”
“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”
Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.
The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.
They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”
The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”
The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.
The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.
According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”
“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
Managing the fallout
Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.
It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.
“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.
For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.
Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.
Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.
Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
Communicating with various stakeholders
Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.
“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.
For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.
He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.
School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
Executing better drills for students’ mental health
Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.
The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.
Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.
“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.
Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.
The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.
Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.
In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.
“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.
Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.
“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.
When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.
Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.
The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.
The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.
“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”
“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”
Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.
The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.
They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”
The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”
The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.
The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.
According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”
“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
Managing the fallout
Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.
It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.
“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.
For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.
Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.
Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.
Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
Communicating with various stakeholders
Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.
“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.
For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.
He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.
School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
Executing better drills for students’ mental health
Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.
The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.
Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.
“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.
Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.
The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.
Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.
In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.
“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.
Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.
“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.
When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.
Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.
The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.
The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The drills can range from staging lockdowns and sheltering in place to quasi dramas with mock shooters roaming the halls. Although the goals of these training exercises are important, equally important are the potential negative effects of drills on students’ mental health, according to doctors with expertise in pediatrics and mental health.
“Dramatic simulation of an active shooter event at school would be expected to provoke the same stress response as the real thing,” said Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, a pediatrician and psychiatrist, in an interview. “While ensuring their physical safety is very important, we must be intentional about making sure that we are not doing so at the expense of their psychosocial or emotional safety.”
“Children may not be able to differentiate a dramatic drill from a real event,” emphasized Dr. Loper, of the neuropsychiatry and behavioral science departments at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. “The parts of the brain responsible for our flight-fight-or-freeze response would interpret both simulated and real events identically and produce the same neurohormonal stress-response.”
Indeed, a study published in the journal Humanities & Social Sciences Communications suggested children experienced mental health problems related to participating in active shooter drills. In the large study, a team of statisticians from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that students reported a 42% increase in stress and anxiety and a 38.7% increase in depression during the 90 days following active shooter drills, compared with the 90 days before the drills.
The authors of this study, including Mai ElSherief, PhD, drew these conclusions after analyzing 54 million social media posts before and after drills in 114 schools across 33 states. The researchers analyzed the language of the social media posts by teachers, parents, and students and found increased use of the words hope, love, home, school, kids, community, support, and help after the drills. The researchers considered posting with these terms in the aftermath of the drills to be indicative of having high anxiety.
They included examples of how high stress, anxiety, and depression manifested in specific posts from parents in their report. The following is an example of a poster expressing high anxiety and stress: “are we really gonna normalize school shooter drills?! holy sh* there has to be a real way to avoid these tragedies. sh*t like this cannot be normalized. teachers injured after being shot with plastic pellets ‘execution style’ in active shooter drill.”
The authors also shared this post to serve as an example of a person who seems depressed: “and now we are revisiting the trauma on our kids, forcing them to act out school drills monthly. i don’t get why gen x parents buy into this concept wholeheartedly. things need to change.”
The published material did not include posts from students, but the researchers’ analysis of the content of posts overall showed increased concerns for health and increased concerns about death during the period after drills, compared with before drills.
The authors also conducted focus groups in communities in which drills occurred, and many teachers and parents reported anecdotal evidence of children who were nervous long after the drills were over, with some showing extreme reactions such as panic over a standard fire alarm at school. Overall, the results show that school shooter drills can negatively affect school communities over prolonged periods of time, they concluded.
According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, “there is a need to be cautious about the potential psychological risks and other unintended consequences of directly involving children in live exercises and drills.”
“These risks and consequences are especially a concern when children are deceived and led to believe there is an actual attack and not a drill,” wrote David Schonfeld, MD, the lead author of the statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, and colleagues.
Managing the fallout
Physicians can help students experiencing mental health problems from these drills, according to doctors interviewed for this piece.
It’s important for providers to know that stress will show up differently in children than in adults, said Chelsea Younghans, MD, a psychiatrist and military officer in Bethesda, Md., in an interview.
“They may see children with headaches, stomach aches, or nonspecific complaints. They may also see children who have not had difficulty with sleep present with nightmares or bed wetting,” she added.
For teens and preteens, validated tools such as the Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS-5) and Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS) to assess PTSD in youth, may help serve as a starting point for a conversation between providers and their older child population, she noted.
Children who exhibit avoidance or withdrawal behaviors including consistent school refusal, an increase in reassurance-seeking behaviors, or somatic symptoms like vague abdominal pain or headaches that prevent school attendance after participating in a drill, may need more robust mental health services, Dr. Loper noted.
Dr. Schonfeld, who is also director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, called for health care providers to be available to help children process traumatic reactions to these exercises.
Agreeing with Dr. Schonfeld, Dr. Younghans said: “It is vital to debrief with students and staff after drills, making sure that students have a safe space and ample time to speak with trusted staff. As children will undoubtedly have questions and concerns, creating open lines of communication will help alleviate any traumatic effect these drills may have.”
Communicating with various stakeholders
Experts also gave recommendations for how clinicians communicate with leaders in their area’s school districts and other members of their communities about these training exercises.
“For primary care providers, it is important to establish meaningful relationships within your community and patient population as much as possible,” Dr. Younghans said. “Having a good relationship with the local schools and being part of the conversation can help increase school and community awareness on the impact these drills can have on students and staff,” she added.
For those pediatricians or other health care providers who serve as consultants to schools, Dr. Schonfeld advised they ask about policies related to exercises and drills, such as what are the limits to what children might be exposed to in a drill, and what requirements there might be at the local and state level in terms of frequency and what the drills will and will not involve.
He also noted that clinicians should encourage school leaders to consider the fact that kids may have personal histories of trauma that are completely unknown to the school when they design these exercises.
School staff and health care providers should explain the nature and reasons for drills, invite family members to express concerns, and make accommodations if necessary for some children to participate in drills in a more limited way, noted Dr. Schonfeld, who is also clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“I think health care providers should work with legislators, so that if they require a drill, it must be done in a way that is physically and emotionally safe,” he added.
Executing better drills for students’ mental health
Experts also advised on ways to execute these drills that will be least damaging to students.
The AAP statement on Participation of Children and Adolescents in Live Crisis Drills and Exercises, for example, advocates eliminating high-intensity drills, prohibiting deception in drills, and providing accommodations based on children’s vulnerabilities.
Dr. Schonfeld also emphasized, in an interview, that training for an attack need not be extremely realistic to be effective.
“When you are preparing for a crisis, the drills and exercises are for children to practice and develop mastery over something they don’t know how to do fully yet,” said Dr. Schonfeld.
Citing a suggestion from a 2020 report conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety on keeping schools safe from gun violence, Dr. Younghans said, “Schools should be in clear communication with communities and families regarding when drills will be happening,” and advised ensuring that the explanation of drills is developmentally appropriate to the age of the children participating.
The report also recommends conducting drills that do not simulate an actual incident, combining drills with trauma-informed approaches to address students’ well-being during and for a sustained period after the drills, and tracking data on the efficacy and effects of drills.
Dr. Loper suggested ways that clinicians and parents can help navigate the tricky territory of school safety drills.
In his view, they should not be random or unexpected, and anticipatory guidance should be given regarding any visual or auditory stimuli, such as flashing lights or sirens, alarms, or announcements.
“A preventive approach should be utilized to ensure that any child who is experiencing extreme drill-distress be excused from any future disaster drills to prevent retraumatization,” Dr. Loper said.
Physicians interviewed for this piece also provided tips on how to talk about these events with children in a way that is beneficial to their mental health.
“What we want to do is [have a] calm discussion [with kids] about what we are doing and why we are doing it” and guide them through the movements, Dr. Schonfeld said.
When teaching children how to respond to an emergency, some elements of uncertainty need to be discussed. Children need to anticipate “what you might do if you are not in the classroom if something occurs, such as being in the bathroom, or out at recess,” he continued.
Dr. Younghans recommended that parents and staff schedule time to prepare children for the drill and practice in advance, and that behavioral health providers, counselors, and/or primary care providers should be involved in the planning and execution of the drill.
The Georgia Tech study was supported through a grant from Everytown for Gun Safety.
The study authors and experts interviewed for this piece had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Two deaths from liver failure linked to spinal muscular atrophy drug
, according to a statement issued by the drug›s manufacturer.
The patients were 4 months and 28 months of age and lived in Russia and Kazakhstan. They died 5-6 weeks after infusion with Zolgensma and approximately 1-10 days after the initiation of a corticosteroid taper.
These are the first known fatal cases of acute liver failure associated with the drug, which the company notes was a known side effect included in the product label and in a boxed warning in the United States.
“Following two recent patient fatalities, and in alignment with health authorities, we will be updating the labeling to specify that fatal acute liver failure has been reported,” the statement reads.
“While this is important safety information, it is not a new safety signal,” it adds.
Rare genetic disorder
SMA is a rare genetic disorder that affects about 1 in 10,000 newborns. Patients with SMA lack a working copy of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes a protein called SMN that is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.
Without this protein, motor neurons eventually die, causing debilitating and progressive muscle weakness that affects the ability to walk, eat, and breathe.
Zolgensma, a one-time gene replacement therapy delivered via intravenous infusion, replaces the function of the missing or nonworking SMN1 gene with a new, working copy of the SMN1 gene.
The first gene therapy treatment for SMA, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for patients with SMA up to 2 years of age. It is also the most expensive drug in the world, costing about $2.1 million for a one-time treatment.
“We have notified health authorities in all markets where Zolgensma is used, including FDA, and are communicating to relevant healthcare professionals as an additional step in markets where this action is supported by health authorities,” the manufacturer’s statement says.
Studies have suggested that the treatment›s effects persist more than 5 years after infusion.
Clinical trials currently underway by Novartis are studying the drug’s long-term efficacy and safety and its potential use in older patients.
The company is also leading the phase 3 clinical trial STEER to test intrathecal (IT) administration of the drug in patients ages 2-18 years who have type 2 SMA.
That trial began late last year after the FDA lifted a 2-year partial hold on an earlier study. The FDA halted the STRONG trial in 2019, citing concerns from animal studies that IT administration may result in dorsal root ganglia injury. The partial hold was released last fall following positive study results in nonhuman primates.
None of the current trials will be affected by the two deaths reported this week, according to a Novartis spokesperson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a statement issued by the drug›s manufacturer.
The patients were 4 months and 28 months of age and lived in Russia and Kazakhstan. They died 5-6 weeks after infusion with Zolgensma and approximately 1-10 days after the initiation of a corticosteroid taper.
These are the first known fatal cases of acute liver failure associated with the drug, which the company notes was a known side effect included in the product label and in a boxed warning in the United States.
“Following two recent patient fatalities, and in alignment with health authorities, we will be updating the labeling to specify that fatal acute liver failure has been reported,” the statement reads.
“While this is important safety information, it is not a new safety signal,” it adds.
Rare genetic disorder
SMA is a rare genetic disorder that affects about 1 in 10,000 newborns. Patients with SMA lack a working copy of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes a protein called SMN that is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.
Without this protein, motor neurons eventually die, causing debilitating and progressive muscle weakness that affects the ability to walk, eat, and breathe.
Zolgensma, a one-time gene replacement therapy delivered via intravenous infusion, replaces the function of the missing or nonworking SMN1 gene with a new, working copy of the SMN1 gene.
The first gene therapy treatment for SMA, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for patients with SMA up to 2 years of age. It is also the most expensive drug in the world, costing about $2.1 million for a one-time treatment.
“We have notified health authorities in all markets where Zolgensma is used, including FDA, and are communicating to relevant healthcare professionals as an additional step in markets where this action is supported by health authorities,” the manufacturer’s statement says.
Studies have suggested that the treatment›s effects persist more than 5 years after infusion.
Clinical trials currently underway by Novartis are studying the drug’s long-term efficacy and safety and its potential use in older patients.
The company is also leading the phase 3 clinical trial STEER to test intrathecal (IT) administration of the drug in patients ages 2-18 years who have type 2 SMA.
That trial began late last year after the FDA lifted a 2-year partial hold on an earlier study. The FDA halted the STRONG trial in 2019, citing concerns from animal studies that IT administration may result in dorsal root ganglia injury. The partial hold was released last fall following positive study results in nonhuman primates.
None of the current trials will be affected by the two deaths reported this week, according to a Novartis spokesperson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a statement issued by the drug›s manufacturer.
The patients were 4 months and 28 months of age and lived in Russia and Kazakhstan. They died 5-6 weeks after infusion with Zolgensma and approximately 1-10 days after the initiation of a corticosteroid taper.
These are the first known fatal cases of acute liver failure associated with the drug, which the company notes was a known side effect included in the product label and in a boxed warning in the United States.
“Following two recent patient fatalities, and in alignment with health authorities, we will be updating the labeling to specify that fatal acute liver failure has been reported,” the statement reads.
“While this is important safety information, it is not a new safety signal,” it adds.
Rare genetic disorder
SMA is a rare genetic disorder that affects about 1 in 10,000 newborns. Patients with SMA lack a working copy of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes a protein called SMN that is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.
Without this protein, motor neurons eventually die, causing debilitating and progressive muscle weakness that affects the ability to walk, eat, and breathe.
Zolgensma, a one-time gene replacement therapy delivered via intravenous infusion, replaces the function of the missing or nonworking SMN1 gene with a new, working copy of the SMN1 gene.
The first gene therapy treatment for SMA, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for patients with SMA up to 2 years of age. It is also the most expensive drug in the world, costing about $2.1 million for a one-time treatment.
“We have notified health authorities in all markets where Zolgensma is used, including FDA, and are communicating to relevant healthcare professionals as an additional step in markets where this action is supported by health authorities,” the manufacturer’s statement says.
Studies have suggested that the treatment›s effects persist more than 5 years after infusion.
Clinical trials currently underway by Novartis are studying the drug’s long-term efficacy and safety and its potential use in older patients.
The company is also leading the phase 3 clinical trial STEER to test intrathecal (IT) administration of the drug in patients ages 2-18 years who have type 2 SMA.
That trial began late last year after the FDA lifted a 2-year partial hold on an earlier study. The FDA halted the STRONG trial in 2019, citing concerns from animal studies that IT administration may result in dorsal root ganglia injury. The partial hold was released last fall following positive study results in nonhuman primates.
None of the current trials will be affected by the two deaths reported this week, according to a Novartis spokesperson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More evidence salt substitutes lower risk of CVD and death
Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.
The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.
“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.
The study was published online in Heart.
Strong support for landmark study
In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.
In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.
But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.
To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.
A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).
The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.
Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.
Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.
Clear benefit on hard outcomes
Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).
Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”
They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”
Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”
Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”
“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.
Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.
“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.
“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.
“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.
The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.
“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.
The study was published online in Heart.
Strong support for landmark study
In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.
In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.
But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.
To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.
A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).
The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.
Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.
Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.
Clear benefit on hard outcomes
Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).
Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”
They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”
Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”
Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”
“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.
Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.
“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.
“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.
“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.
The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.
“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.
The study was published online in Heart.
Strong support for landmark study
In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.
In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.
But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.
To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.
A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).
The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.
Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.
Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.
Clear benefit on hard outcomes
Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).
Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”
They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”
Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”
Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”
“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.
Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.
“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.
“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.
“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Alzheimer’s disease: Alternative mechanisms make clinical progress
SAN DIEGO – In 1906, a neuroanatomist and psychiatrist named Alois Alzheimer examined the brain of a 50-year-old woman whom he had treated for paranoia, sleep and memory problems, aggression, and confusion. His autopsy revealed plaques and tangles in her brain. The most common components of these tangles are beta-amyloid peptide (A-beta) and the microtubule binding protein tau. Over the past few decades, that finding has launched many clinical development programs and dozens of clinical trials.
To date, all but one program has failed. In 2021, amidst much controversy, FDA granted accelerated approval to Biogen’s Aduhelm, which effectively clears A-beta and tau deposits from patients’ brains. The problem is that the clinical benefit is small, and uptake has been so low that the company was forced to abandon a planned postmarketing observational trial.
Chasing the wrong target?
At a session at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, Raymond J. Tesi, MD, rather forcefully refuted that approach. “Amyloid and tau therapies have had 20 years to prove themselves. We have multiple cases where we’ve been able to decrease amyloid, maybe not so much tau, but certainly amyloid, and the benefits are mild at best. So I think that the Alzheimer’s drug development community, whether you look at the NIH, whether you look at academia, whether you look at biopharma, has focused on a target that has not proven itself, and it’s time to move on,” said Dr. Tesi, who is president, CEO, and chief medical officer at INmune Bio.
Later in the session,
One audience member defended the potential importance of A-beta and tau, especially in astrogliosis, which is a reaction to stress by astrocytes that attempts to limit tissue damage. The questioner suggested that it was still important to measure the effect of a novel drug on A-beta and tau. “What would be the cause of the reactive astrogliosis and microglia activation, if we are not giving a damn about amyloid and tau?” he asked.
After a bit of back and forth, Dr. Tesi replied: “We both have a religious belief here, and sooner or later we’ll get the answer.”
A diverse clinical pipeline
The session itself focused on four companies, including Dr. Tesi’s INmune Bio, which have drugs with alternative mechanisms entering the advanced stages of clinical development. That’s good news, according to Heather Snyder, PhD, who is vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association. “One of the things that I think is really important is the diversity of what’s in the clinical pipeline, and it’s not just in the very beginning anymore. We’re seeing [companies] now reporting phase 2 [studies] and planning their next stage. That’s something that as a field we should be excited about. As we understand more and more about the biology, we’re now seeing that translating into clinical trials and we’re seeing that translate through the clinical pipeline of development,” said Dr. Snyder in an interview.
Targeting neuroinflammation
Dr. Tesi kicked off the session describing INmune Bio’s focus on neuroinflammation. The company’s drug candidate targets soluble tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which the company believes is a direct cause of Alzheimer’s disease through promotion of inflammation. He noted that TNF is a primary mediator of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, and patients with RA have an eightfold increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, compared with the general population, while patients with RA who are taking anti-TNF medication have a 60% lower risk than the general population.
The company’s TNF inhibitor XPro is also unique in that it induces remyelination in mice, while other TNF inhibitors potentially “abuse” the brain by causing demyelination. Earlier research showed that it reduces neuroinflammation, improves nerve cell survival, and improves synaptic function. The company is conducting two phase 2 clinical trials, one in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and one in mild Alzheimer’s disease. They also use the MCI Alzheimer’s Cognitive Composite (EMACC) tool for assessing outcomes rather than the more commonly used Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog). “ADAS-Cog is like trying to make sushi with an axe. It is designed for moderate to severe disease, and trying to use it for mild (Alzheimer’s disease) or MCI is a mistake. EMACC is purpose built for mild [AD] and MCI patients,” said Dr. Tesi.
Maintaining homeostatis
Next, Hans Moebius, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Athira Pharma, described his company’s focus on the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) receptor, also known as tyrosine kinase MET (HGF/MET). It plays an important role in brain development and homeostasis, and it is expressed at lower levels in the frontal cortex and hippocampus of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The company’s small-molecule drug candidate boosts the HGF/MET pathway, leading to downstream neuroprotection and neurotrophic effects. It also promotes formation of new synapses.
Dr. Moebius presented the results of a phase 2 trial showing that the drug, called fosgonimeton, led to significant cognitive improvement compared with placebo. The company is conducting a phase 3 clinical trial.
Type 3 diabetes?
In his talk, John Didsbury, PhD, founder and CEO of T3D Therapeutics, framed Alzheimer’s disease as a disease of metabolic dysfunction. He believes alterations to glucose and lipids in the brain cause structural changes that lead to symptoms. He pointed out that the strongest genetic Alzheimer’s disease risk factor is a mutant form of the lipid transport protein APOE4.
“What we have is dysregulated glucose energy metabolism and lipid metabolism that really cause, in our mind, the structural event changes and the stress event changes – plaques, tangles, inflammation, etc. – but these events perpetuate the dysregulated metabolism. It’s a massive positive feedback loop that many have called type 3 diabetes – a brain-specific form of diabetes,” said Dr. Didsbury.
The company’s approach is to use systems biology to identify a drug target that can bypass multiple aberrant insulin signaling pathways. Its drug candidate regulates the expression of multiple genes involved in glucose metabolism. Dr. Didsbury presented interim results from a phase 2 study showing improvement over placebo.
Focusing on neurotoxic proteins
The final presentation of the session was by Maria Maccecchini, PhD, founder, president, and CEO of Annovis Bio. The company’s drug, buntanetap, reduces expression of a range of neurotoxic proteins. The downstream effects include restoration of axonal transport, reduction of inflammation, and protection of nerve cells. The company believes that Alzheimer’s disease results from acute and chronic stress events that lead to high levels of neurotoxic proteins, which include A-beta, tau, alpha-synuclein, and TDP43. The proteins aren’t just players in Alzheimer’s disease – they are present in abnormal levels in Parkinson’s disease and a range of other brain pathologies.
“In the brain of an Alzheimer’s and of a Parkinson’s [patient], you’re going to find all four proteins. You’ll find them in different concentrations, at different time points, in different brain areas. If you just remove one, you still have the other three that cause impairment in axonal transport, and that leads to inflammation that leads to neurodegeneration,” said Dr. Maccecchini.
The company’s drug manages to reduce levels of all four proteins by binding to a segment of messenger RNA (mRNA) shared by all of them. mRNA serves as a template for protein synthesis. Under normal conditions, the neurotoxic protein concentrations are kept low because the mRNA segment remains bound to a regulatory protein that prevents synthesis from occurring. However, when stress leads to high levels of iron, this regulatory binding protein releases the mRNA segment (along with the rest of the mRNA). The freed mRNA becomes available to the cell’s protein synthesis machinery, which starts producing high levels of neurotoxic proteins. Annovis Bio’s drug improves the ability of the regulatory protein to bind to the mRNA segment, preventing protein expression even in high-iron conditions. It works on all four neurotoxic proteins because they all have the regulatory segment in their mRNA.
The drug led to improvements in phase 2 studies of Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, and the company is currently recruiting for a phase 3 study in Parkinson’s disease and a phase 2/3 dose-response study in Alzheimer’s disease.
Combination treatments for a complex disease
Taken together, the presentations provided a snapshot of the post–A-beta/tau Alzheimer’s development world, and the future could be messy. Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are likely to require combination treatments, according to Dr. Snyder. “This is a complex disease, not just Alzheimer’s but other dementias. It’s not going to be a single drug, a single target. It’s going to require some type of combinatorial approach, whether that be with medication and lifestyle interventions, or risk reduction, and different medications,” she said.
The latest results are good news for that approach: “We’re seeing that maturation of the science in these trials,” said Dr. Snyder.
Cheng Fang, PhD, senior vice president of research and development at Annovis Bio, agreed with that sentiment. “I believe [Alzheimer’s disease and dementia] is a very complicated disease. I always call them diseases instead of a disease because it’s a spectrum. I don’t believe one drug can cure them all, as much as I am confident in our drug. I think it’s extremely important to encourage this kind of diverse thinking,” said Dr. Fang.
Dr. Snyder has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Tesi, Dr. Moebius, Dr. Didsbury, Dr. Maccecchini, and Dr. Fang are employees and in some cases stockholders of their respective companies.
SAN DIEGO – In 1906, a neuroanatomist and psychiatrist named Alois Alzheimer examined the brain of a 50-year-old woman whom he had treated for paranoia, sleep and memory problems, aggression, and confusion. His autopsy revealed plaques and tangles in her brain. The most common components of these tangles are beta-amyloid peptide (A-beta) and the microtubule binding protein tau. Over the past few decades, that finding has launched many clinical development programs and dozens of clinical trials.
To date, all but one program has failed. In 2021, amidst much controversy, FDA granted accelerated approval to Biogen’s Aduhelm, which effectively clears A-beta and tau deposits from patients’ brains. The problem is that the clinical benefit is small, and uptake has been so low that the company was forced to abandon a planned postmarketing observational trial.
Chasing the wrong target?
At a session at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, Raymond J. Tesi, MD, rather forcefully refuted that approach. “Amyloid and tau therapies have had 20 years to prove themselves. We have multiple cases where we’ve been able to decrease amyloid, maybe not so much tau, but certainly amyloid, and the benefits are mild at best. So I think that the Alzheimer’s drug development community, whether you look at the NIH, whether you look at academia, whether you look at biopharma, has focused on a target that has not proven itself, and it’s time to move on,” said Dr. Tesi, who is president, CEO, and chief medical officer at INmune Bio.
Later in the session,
One audience member defended the potential importance of A-beta and tau, especially in astrogliosis, which is a reaction to stress by astrocytes that attempts to limit tissue damage. The questioner suggested that it was still important to measure the effect of a novel drug on A-beta and tau. “What would be the cause of the reactive astrogliosis and microglia activation, if we are not giving a damn about amyloid and tau?” he asked.
After a bit of back and forth, Dr. Tesi replied: “We both have a religious belief here, and sooner or later we’ll get the answer.”
A diverse clinical pipeline
The session itself focused on four companies, including Dr. Tesi’s INmune Bio, which have drugs with alternative mechanisms entering the advanced stages of clinical development. That’s good news, according to Heather Snyder, PhD, who is vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association. “One of the things that I think is really important is the diversity of what’s in the clinical pipeline, and it’s not just in the very beginning anymore. We’re seeing [companies] now reporting phase 2 [studies] and planning their next stage. That’s something that as a field we should be excited about. As we understand more and more about the biology, we’re now seeing that translating into clinical trials and we’re seeing that translate through the clinical pipeline of development,” said Dr. Snyder in an interview.
Targeting neuroinflammation
Dr. Tesi kicked off the session describing INmune Bio’s focus on neuroinflammation. The company’s drug candidate targets soluble tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which the company believes is a direct cause of Alzheimer’s disease through promotion of inflammation. He noted that TNF is a primary mediator of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, and patients with RA have an eightfold increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, compared with the general population, while patients with RA who are taking anti-TNF medication have a 60% lower risk than the general population.
The company’s TNF inhibitor XPro is also unique in that it induces remyelination in mice, while other TNF inhibitors potentially “abuse” the brain by causing demyelination. Earlier research showed that it reduces neuroinflammation, improves nerve cell survival, and improves synaptic function. The company is conducting two phase 2 clinical trials, one in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and one in mild Alzheimer’s disease. They also use the MCI Alzheimer’s Cognitive Composite (EMACC) tool for assessing outcomes rather than the more commonly used Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog). “ADAS-Cog is like trying to make sushi with an axe. It is designed for moderate to severe disease, and trying to use it for mild (Alzheimer’s disease) or MCI is a mistake. EMACC is purpose built for mild [AD] and MCI patients,” said Dr. Tesi.
Maintaining homeostatis
Next, Hans Moebius, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Athira Pharma, described his company’s focus on the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) receptor, also known as tyrosine kinase MET (HGF/MET). It plays an important role in brain development and homeostasis, and it is expressed at lower levels in the frontal cortex and hippocampus of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The company’s small-molecule drug candidate boosts the HGF/MET pathway, leading to downstream neuroprotection and neurotrophic effects. It also promotes formation of new synapses.
Dr. Moebius presented the results of a phase 2 trial showing that the drug, called fosgonimeton, led to significant cognitive improvement compared with placebo. The company is conducting a phase 3 clinical trial.
Type 3 diabetes?
In his talk, John Didsbury, PhD, founder and CEO of T3D Therapeutics, framed Alzheimer’s disease as a disease of metabolic dysfunction. He believes alterations to glucose and lipids in the brain cause structural changes that lead to symptoms. He pointed out that the strongest genetic Alzheimer’s disease risk factor is a mutant form of the lipid transport protein APOE4.
“What we have is dysregulated glucose energy metabolism and lipid metabolism that really cause, in our mind, the structural event changes and the stress event changes – plaques, tangles, inflammation, etc. – but these events perpetuate the dysregulated metabolism. It’s a massive positive feedback loop that many have called type 3 diabetes – a brain-specific form of diabetes,” said Dr. Didsbury.
The company’s approach is to use systems biology to identify a drug target that can bypass multiple aberrant insulin signaling pathways. Its drug candidate regulates the expression of multiple genes involved in glucose metabolism. Dr. Didsbury presented interim results from a phase 2 study showing improvement over placebo.
Focusing on neurotoxic proteins
The final presentation of the session was by Maria Maccecchini, PhD, founder, president, and CEO of Annovis Bio. The company’s drug, buntanetap, reduces expression of a range of neurotoxic proteins. The downstream effects include restoration of axonal transport, reduction of inflammation, and protection of nerve cells. The company believes that Alzheimer’s disease results from acute and chronic stress events that lead to high levels of neurotoxic proteins, which include A-beta, tau, alpha-synuclein, and TDP43. The proteins aren’t just players in Alzheimer’s disease – they are present in abnormal levels in Parkinson’s disease and a range of other brain pathologies.
“In the brain of an Alzheimer’s and of a Parkinson’s [patient], you’re going to find all four proteins. You’ll find them in different concentrations, at different time points, in different brain areas. If you just remove one, you still have the other three that cause impairment in axonal transport, and that leads to inflammation that leads to neurodegeneration,” said Dr. Maccecchini.
The company’s drug manages to reduce levels of all four proteins by binding to a segment of messenger RNA (mRNA) shared by all of them. mRNA serves as a template for protein synthesis. Under normal conditions, the neurotoxic protein concentrations are kept low because the mRNA segment remains bound to a regulatory protein that prevents synthesis from occurring. However, when stress leads to high levels of iron, this regulatory binding protein releases the mRNA segment (along with the rest of the mRNA). The freed mRNA becomes available to the cell’s protein synthesis machinery, which starts producing high levels of neurotoxic proteins. Annovis Bio’s drug improves the ability of the regulatory protein to bind to the mRNA segment, preventing protein expression even in high-iron conditions. It works on all four neurotoxic proteins because they all have the regulatory segment in their mRNA.
The drug led to improvements in phase 2 studies of Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, and the company is currently recruiting for a phase 3 study in Parkinson’s disease and a phase 2/3 dose-response study in Alzheimer’s disease.
Combination treatments for a complex disease
Taken together, the presentations provided a snapshot of the post–A-beta/tau Alzheimer’s development world, and the future could be messy. Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are likely to require combination treatments, according to Dr. Snyder. “This is a complex disease, not just Alzheimer’s but other dementias. It’s not going to be a single drug, a single target. It’s going to require some type of combinatorial approach, whether that be with medication and lifestyle interventions, or risk reduction, and different medications,” she said.
The latest results are good news for that approach: “We’re seeing that maturation of the science in these trials,” said Dr. Snyder.
Cheng Fang, PhD, senior vice president of research and development at Annovis Bio, agreed with that sentiment. “I believe [Alzheimer’s disease and dementia] is a very complicated disease. I always call them diseases instead of a disease because it’s a spectrum. I don’t believe one drug can cure them all, as much as I am confident in our drug. I think it’s extremely important to encourage this kind of diverse thinking,” said Dr. Fang.
Dr. Snyder has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Tesi, Dr. Moebius, Dr. Didsbury, Dr. Maccecchini, and Dr. Fang are employees and in some cases stockholders of their respective companies.
SAN DIEGO – In 1906, a neuroanatomist and psychiatrist named Alois Alzheimer examined the brain of a 50-year-old woman whom he had treated for paranoia, sleep and memory problems, aggression, and confusion. His autopsy revealed plaques and tangles in her brain. The most common components of these tangles are beta-amyloid peptide (A-beta) and the microtubule binding protein tau. Over the past few decades, that finding has launched many clinical development programs and dozens of clinical trials.
To date, all but one program has failed. In 2021, amidst much controversy, FDA granted accelerated approval to Biogen’s Aduhelm, which effectively clears A-beta and tau deposits from patients’ brains. The problem is that the clinical benefit is small, and uptake has been so low that the company was forced to abandon a planned postmarketing observational trial.
Chasing the wrong target?
At a session at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, Raymond J. Tesi, MD, rather forcefully refuted that approach. “Amyloid and tau therapies have had 20 years to prove themselves. We have multiple cases where we’ve been able to decrease amyloid, maybe not so much tau, but certainly amyloid, and the benefits are mild at best. So I think that the Alzheimer’s drug development community, whether you look at the NIH, whether you look at academia, whether you look at biopharma, has focused on a target that has not proven itself, and it’s time to move on,” said Dr. Tesi, who is president, CEO, and chief medical officer at INmune Bio.
Later in the session,
One audience member defended the potential importance of A-beta and tau, especially in astrogliosis, which is a reaction to stress by astrocytes that attempts to limit tissue damage. The questioner suggested that it was still important to measure the effect of a novel drug on A-beta and tau. “What would be the cause of the reactive astrogliosis and microglia activation, if we are not giving a damn about amyloid and tau?” he asked.
After a bit of back and forth, Dr. Tesi replied: “We both have a religious belief here, and sooner or later we’ll get the answer.”
A diverse clinical pipeline
The session itself focused on four companies, including Dr. Tesi’s INmune Bio, which have drugs with alternative mechanisms entering the advanced stages of clinical development. That’s good news, according to Heather Snyder, PhD, who is vice president of Medical & Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association. “One of the things that I think is really important is the diversity of what’s in the clinical pipeline, and it’s not just in the very beginning anymore. We’re seeing [companies] now reporting phase 2 [studies] and planning their next stage. That’s something that as a field we should be excited about. As we understand more and more about the biology, we’re now seeing that translating into clinical trials and we’re seeing that translate through the clinical pipeline of development,” said Dr. Snyder in an interview.
Targeting neuroinflammation
Dr. Tesi kicked off the session describing INmune Bio’s focus on neuroinflammation. The company’s drug candidate targets soluble tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which the company believes is a direct cause of Alzheimer’s disease through promotion of inflammation. He noted that TNF is a primary mediator of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, and patients with RA have an eightfold increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, compared with the general population, while patients with RA who are taking anti-TNF medication have a 60% lower risk than the general population.
The company’s TNF inhibitor XPro is also unique in that it induces remyelination in mice, while other TNF inhibitors potentially “abuse” the brain by causing demyelination. Earlier research showed that it reduces neuroinflammation, improves nerve cell survival, and improves synaptic function. The company is conducting two phase 2 clinical trials, one in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and one in mild Alzheimer’s disease. They also use the MCI Alzheimer’s Cognitive Composite (EMACC) tool for assessing outcomes rather than the more commonly used Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog). “ADAS-Cog is like trying to make sushi with an axe. It is designed for moderate to severe disease, and trying to use it for mild (Alzheimer’s disease) or MCI is a mistake. EMACC is purpose built for mild [AD] and MCI patients,” said Dr. Tesi.
Maintaining homeostatis
Next, Hans Moebius, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Athira Pharma, described his company’s focus on the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) receptor, also known as tyrosine kinase MET (HGF/MET). It plays an important role in brain development and homeostasis, and it is expressed at lower levels in the frontal cortex and hippocampus of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The company’s small-molecule drug candidate boosts the HGF/MET pathway, leading to downstream neuroprotection and neurotrophic effects. It also promotes formation of new synapses.
Dr. Moebius presented the results of a phase 2 trial showing that the drug, called fosgonimeton, led to significant cognitive improvement compared with placebo. The company is conducting a phase 3 clinical trial.
Type 3 diabetes?
In his talk, John Didsbury, PhD, founder and CEO of T3D Therapeutics, framed Alzheimer’s disease as a disease of metabolic dysfunction. He believes alterations to glucose and lipids in the brain cause structural changes that lead to symptoms. He pointed out that the strongest genetic Alzheimer’s disease risk factor is a mutant form of the lipid transport protein APOE4.
“What we have is dysregulated glucose energy metabolism and lipid metabolism that really cause, in our mind, the structural event changes and the stress event changes – plaques, tangles, inflammation, etc. – but these events perpetuate the dysregulated metabolism. It’s a massive positive feedback loop that many have called type 3 diabetes – a brain-specific form of diabetes,” said Dr. Didsbury.
The company’s approach is to use systems biology to identify a drug target that can bypass multiple aberrant insulin signaling pathways. Its drug candidate regulates the expression of multiple genes involved in glucose metabolism. Dr. Didsbury presented interim results from a phase 2 study showing improvement over placebo.
Focusing on neurotoxic proteins
The final presentation of the session was by Maria Maccecchini, PhD, founder, president, and CEO of Annovis Bio. The company’s drug, buntanetap, reduces expression of a range of neurotoxic proteins. The downstream effects include restoration of axonal transport, reduction of inflammation, and protection of nerve cells. The company believes that Alzheimer’s disease results from acute and chronic stress events that lead to high levels of neurotoxic proteins, which include A-beta, tau, alpha-synuclein, and TDP43. The proteins aren’t just players in Alzheimer’s disease – they are present in abnormal levels in Parkinson’s disease and a range of other brain pathologies.
“In the brain of an Alzheimer’s and of a Parkinson’s [patient], you’re going to find all four proteins. You’ll find them in different concentrations, at different time points, in different brain areas. If you just remove one, you still have the other three that cause impairment in axonal transport, and that leads to inflammation that leads to neurodegeneration,” said Dr. Maccecchini.
The company’s drug manages to reduce levels of all four proteins by binding to a segment of messenger RNA (mRNA) shared by all of them. mRNA serves as a template for protein synthesis. Under normal conditions, the neurotoxic protein concentrations are kept low because the mRNA segment remains bound to a regulatory protein that prevents synthesis from occurring. However, when stress leads to high levels of iron, this regulatory binding protein releases the mRNA segment (along with the rest of the mRNA). The freed mRNA becomes available to the cell’s protein synthesis machinery, which starts producing high levels of neurotoxic proteins. Annovis Bio’s drug improves the ability of the regulatory protein to bind to the mRNA segment, preventing protein expression even in high-iron conditions. It works on all four neurotoxic proteins because they all have the regulatory segment in their mRNA.
The drug led to improvements in phase 2 studies of Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, and the company is currently recruiting for a phase 3 study in Parkinson’s disease and a phase 2/3 dose-response study in Alzheimer’s disease.
Combination treatments for a complex disease
Taken together, the presentations provided a snapshot of the post–A-beta/tau Alzheimer’s development world, and the future could be messy. Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are likely to require combination treatments, according to Dr. Snyder. “This is a complex disease, not just Alzheimer’s but other dementias. It’s not going to be a single drug, a single target. It’s going to require some type of combinatorial approach, whether that be with medication and lifestyle interventions, or risk reduction, and different medications,” she said.
The latest results are good news for that approach: “We’re seeing that maturation of the science in these trials,” said Dr. Snyder.
Cheng Fang, PhD, senior vice president of research and development at Annovis Bio, agreed with that sentiment. “I believe [Alzheimer’s disease and dementia] is a very complicated disease. I always call them diseases instead of a disease because it’s a spectrum. I don’t believe one drug can cure them all, as much as I am confident in our drug. I think it’s extremely important to encourage this kind of diverse thinking,” said Dr. Fang.
Dr. Snyder has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Tesi, Dr. Moebius, Dr. Didsbury, Dr. Maccecchini, and Dr. Fang are employees and in some cases stockholders of their respective companies.
AT AAIC 2022
Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022
Federal Health Care Data Trends (click to view the digital edition) is a special supplement to Federal Practitioner highlighting the latest research and study outcomes related to the health of veteran and active-duty populations.
In this issue:
- Vaccinations
- Mental Health and Related Disorders
- LGBTQ+ Veterans
- Military Sexual Trauma
- Sleep Disorders
- Respiratory Illnesses
- HIV Care in the VA
- Rheumatologic Diseases
- The Cancer-Obesity Connection
- Skin Health for Active-Duty Personnel
- Contraception
- Chronic Kidney Disease
- Cardiovascular Diseases
- Neurologic Disorders
- Hearing, Vision, and Balance
Federal Practitioner would like to thank the following experts for their review of content and helpful guidance in developing this issue:
Kelvin N.V. Bush, MD, FACC, CCDS; Sonya Borrero, MD, MS; Kenneth L. Cameron, PhD, MPH, ATC, FNATA; Jason DeViva, PhD; Ellen Lockard Edens, MD; Leonard E. Egede, MD, MS; Amy Justice, MD, PhD; Stephanie Knudson, MD; Willis H. Lyford, MD; Sarah O. Meadows, PhD; Tamara Schult, PhD, MPH; Eric L. Singman, MD, PhD; Art Wallace, MD, PhD; Elizabeth Waterhouse, MD, FAAN
Federal Health Care Data Trends (click to view the digital edition) is a special supplement to Federal Practitioner highlighting the latest research and study outcomes related to the health of veteran and active-duty populations.
In this issue:
- Vaccinations
- Mental Health and Related Disorders
- LGBTQ+ Veterans
- Military Sexual Trauma
- Sleep Disorders
- Respiratory Illnesses
- HIV Care in the VA
- Rheumatologic Diseases
- The Cancer-Obesity Connection
- Skin Health for Active-Duty Personnel
- Contraception
- Chronic Kidney Disease
- Cardiovascular Diseases
- Neurologic Disorders
- Hearing, Vision, and Balance
Federal Practitioner would like to thank the following experts for their review of content and helpful guidance in developing this issue:
Kelvin N.V. Bush, MD, FACC, CCDS; Sonya Borrero, MD, MS; Kenneth L. Cameron, PhD, MPH, ATC, FNATA; Jason DeViva, PhD; Ellen Lockard Edens, MD; Leonard E. Egede, MD, MS; Amy Justice, MD, PhD; Stephanie Knudson, MD; Willis H. Lyford, MD; Sarah O. Meadows, PhD; Tamara Schult, PhD, MPH; Eric L. Singman, MD, PhD; Art Wallace, MD, PhD; Elizabeth Waterhouse, MD, FAAN
Federal Health Care Data Trends (click to view the digital edition) is a special supplement to Federal Practitioner highlighting the latest research and study outcomes related to the health of veteran and active-duty populations.
In this issue:
- Vaccinations
- Mental Health and Related Disorders
- LGBTQ+ Veterans
- Military Sexual Trauma
- Sleep Disorders
- Respiratory Illnesses
- HIV Care in the VA
- Rheumatologic Diseases
- The Cancer-Obesity Connection
- Skin Health for Active-Duty Personnel
- Contraception
- Chronic Kidney Disease
- Cardiovascular Diseases
- Neurologic Disorders
- Hearing, Vision, and Balance
Federal Practitioner would like to thank the following experts for their review of content and helpful guidance in developing this issue:
Kelvin N.V. Bush, MD, FACC, CCDS; Sonya Borrero, MD, MS; Kenneth L. Cameron, PhD, MPH, ATC, FNATA; Jason DeViva, PhD; Ellen Lockard Edens, MD; Leonard E. Egede, MD, MS; Amy Justice, MD, PhD; Stephanie Knudson, MD; Willis H. Lyford, MD; Sarah O. Meadows, PhD; Tamara Schult, PhD, MPH; Eric L. Singman, MD, PhD; Art Wallace, MD, PhD; Elizabeth Waterhouse, MD, FAAN
